ThenNow

35 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

You were called out because you have consistently tried to downplay BSA's role and responsibility by referencing such as: the social norms of the times that the abuse occurred, BSA is better at CSA prevention than other organizations etc etc. Once again, your words are like that of a child, I hit Johnny because Joe hit Johnny so I can't be that bad.

Greetings, all, and Happy Christmas/Blessed Holidays.

My wife calls this approach to life and morality, "relative godliness." While many here would not like to associate themselves with the cultural shift toward a subjective application of "truth" and "what is right," the willingness to practice subjective and relative responsibility and accountability shows itself rather often (in some). In Scouting, I learned to account for myself, standing apart and ready to "be counted," distinct from what others have done around me. I did what I did. That is what I must be held to.

"Wait, say you!" Might there be mitigating circumstances or justifiable self-defense in response to someone else's behavior toward me? Yes. However, that is completely irrelevant here. BSA had no assailant. Blameless or not blameless. They came up short or hit it out of the park. Which is it?

Hold me to what I did or failed to do. Don't look at my friend or brother or the family down the block. "Joe" is completely and totally irrelevant in the above equation. His actions cannot and do not exonerate or absolve the "I" for his battery.  

Young foolish me: "Mom, everyone is doing it, really! Why can't I? Don't you understand? Doesn't that make sense?"

Mom: "No. Go mow the grass before your dad gets home. Cross hatch it while you're at it and make it snappy."

So there.

48 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

You can fake ID and Social Security number but I have not heard of anyone faking fingerprints. If you are going to do a thorough background check I would think that fingerprinting and running them thru the FBI database would be mandatory. 

Better to catch the 3%, but will the fingerprints catch what the background check won’t/didn’t? I hate this statistic.

“The fingerprint scans will only show if there is a criminal history record. For an offender to have a criminal record they must first be convicted of a crime. Only 3% of all predators are ever convicted. Background checks will not catch roughly 97% of predators. Why? Because there are many steps that must happen for a conviction to occur. Each step only reduces the chances the predator will be charged with a crime.”
 

http://www.o.com/blog/2019/8/22/quit-relying-on-background-checks-and-sex-offender-registries-to-protect-children#:~:text=Background checks will not catch,be charged with a crime.

53 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I watched Scouts Honour a couple of days ago. Took me a little while to get up the courage since I wasn't sure about any triggers.

In my opinion it was well done and very factual.

Michael Johnson presented his opinion very eloquently and was quite believable and Steve McGowan the ex-counsel of the BSA was able to give what has become the old guard BSA talking points. 

I recommend everyone to watch it.

I watched it too, also after consideration and preparation.

For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John.

As always, the survivors were excellent and their retellings, vulnerability and powerful force of presence unassailable. Patrick Boyle was very good and it was great to see him on camera presenting the process he went through in researching and writing his critical book. Kosnoff was a throwaway for controversy sake. Added little.

The MJ v Big Mac face-off? Meh. It was so obviously a predetermined narrative and story arc that I lost respect for the filmmakers and any veiled attempt to present the full picture. Michael Johnson was portrayed gloriously with dramatic settings, outdoor scenes and swooning music. The questions put to him were collegial and designed to carry the arc. I found his all too frequent jocularity not only damaging to the credibility of his "testimony," but also less than attractive. I rolled my eyes through several of the heroic warrior sequences. I am trying to be objective.

And as for Mr. McGowan, I understand he was the executive to whom Mr. Johnson reported. Fair enough to have them across from each other to slug it out. But look at the setting he was in compared to Johnson. It looked like an interrogation room. I don't know Steve McGowan, but he was a terrible spokesperson, in my opinion. He looks like a bully, responds defensively and is not the most eloquent. Have on on-camera conversation with a BSA spokesperson and Michael Johnson. McGowan was terrible and deserves to be skewered. That doesn't mean it was good filmmaking. Again, my opinion.

Last point. One of the two of them is clearly lying. Michael Johnson said flat out it's McGowan. McGowan would not say that, but repeated what I have heard others say who know what went down between MJ, McGowan and the BSA brass juxtaposed and with Johnson's statements and actions since leaving. The word they all use is "shocked." I've heard that said by three different people, one of them I know well and trust. Did I praise and thank Mr. Johnson when he cried and asked forgiveness during the press conference given by Jeff Anderson? Yes, I did. It was healing. Have I since begun to question Johnson's telling, motive and transparent full disclosure? Yes, I have.

Someone needs to do a better job with this overall "story." Doing it in a feature length documentary will never allow that to happen.

-The End (fade to black and cue the dramatic music)

You may find this of interest. It is BSA's response to the non-settling insurers and certain claimants' requesting to pause the Trust process, per the looming spectre of Purdue.

Dist.D.Del._1-22-cv-01237_240 (1).pdf

17 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Let us all work together to develop and implement much better policies to protect children.  Perhaps as the BSA has requested, a national database done by the CDC to have a file for all Youth Serving Organizations (YSO) to access so that CSAs cannot move from one YSO to another.  

Paragraph 13  of the Youth Protection Non-Monetary Commitments in the Plan, which the Trustee now oversees:

Volunteer Screening Database 

a)     The BSA will work with the YPC to assess how the names of adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Scouting and other information can be made public or used in connection with a database accessible to other youth serving organizations. Specifically, the BSA agrees to work with the YPC on a protocol that makes confirmed past child abusers in Scouting, and future confirmed child abusers in Scouting, publicly known.

b)    The protocol will take into account factors including: (i) the desire to make public adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Scouting; (ii) adequate protections for survivor identities; (iii) consideration regarding the protection of third parties, including survivor family members and volunteers; (iv) a notification process regarding any publication; (v) issues related to privacy and liability related to publication; and (vi) the potential appointment or retention of an appropriate neutral party to supervise the evaluation and review of the VSD. 

c)     The BSA will take a leadership role and re-engage with other YSOs and agencies including but not limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to explore the feasibility of and advocate for a shared national database of adults who have been excluded from working with youths for youth protection related offenses. 

d)    The Trust Agreement shall be modified to provide the Settlement Trustee with the authority to request an order of the Bankruptcy Court relating to the publication of materials included in the VSD, no earlier than one year after the Effective Date. The Plan shall be amended to specifically provide that the Bankruptcy Court retain jurisdiction to adjudicate such request. All parties in interest, including the Reorganized Debtors, shall have the right to object to and contest any request made by the Settlement Trustee.   

Footnote to Paragraph 15(a):

The BSA and YPC shall consider the best way to utilize the redacted Proofs of Claim filed in the BSA chapter 11 cases, as well as information from the VSD.  

12 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve posted excerpts on other threads, but a can drag them out again.

Here is a taste. Please forgive any wonky formatting on the cut and paste.

BSA has issued various publications available to scouts, parents, and the general public. The Boy Scout Handbook typically contains the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. It also contains a description of troop leaders. The Seventh Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1965 and reprinted in 1967. It states: 

"First, there’s your Scoutmaster. What a wonderful man he is! He spends hours figuring out how to give you fun and adventure in your troop. He takes special training to learn exciting new things for you to do. He is present at every troop meeting and goes hiking and camping with the troop. He is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice. He coaches the patrol leaders. Why does he do all this? Because he believes in Scouting, because he likes boys and wants to help them become real men." 

The Seventh Edition also directs scouts to obey their Scoutmasters. “A Scout is Obedient. He obeys his parents, Scoutmaster, patrol leader, and all other duly constituted authorities.” 

The Eighth Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1972 and reprinted in 1973. The Eighth Edition states: 

“Over there watching things is your Scoutmaster. He’s a great guy. He gives hours of his  time to you and the troop. And do you know why? Mostly because he knows Scouting is important to his city and nation. Besides, he is interested in boys.” 

The Ninth Edition of the Handbook, copyrighted and printed in 1979, again states that the Scoutmaster “is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice” and directs scouts to follow the rules of their troop. The Ninth Edition is dedicated to “the American Scoutmaster who makes scouting possible,” and directs scouts to be “loyal” and “true” to their Scout leaders. 

In 1970, BSA published the “Parent’s Book.” It states that “Scouts benefit immensely from companionship with [their Scoutmaster],” who is a “man of good character.”

The Parent’s Book also states that the Scoutmaster is “the kind of guy [scouts] would like to be,” and that the Scoutmaster has “the unique ability to get inside a boy and gain his confidence.” It states that the Scoutmaster has a “profound influence” on boys.

Finally, the Parents Book states that the Scoutmaster is a “mature adult of sound character,” and lists the “desirable qualities” for which a Scoutmaster is selected. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I do though wonder how you did not see that similar respect and as you call it, bowing almost to the SM etc. in other youth leaders.  We were expected to do what those adults said, often with little expectation other than jump and follow. 

“Bowing almost to the Scoutmaster” is not what I said or implied. It is passive aggressively very patronizing and demeaning. 

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

That's really not true.  Teachers.  Football coaches and coaches from pretty much every sport.  Police.  etc, etc, etc.  The list goes on and on.  

May I see the written materials that support your assertion, comparable to the published BSA manuals and papers distributed in the 60’s and 70’s which I referenced? I’ve posted excerpts on other threads, but a can drag them out again. I’m not speaking theoretically, in broad brush societal “bad ol’ days” terms, as I see you doing. I’m talking quite specifically and factually. When you can do this, I’ll take your comments as evidence vs personal opinion and generalizations to fit a narrative.

On 9/1/2023 at 7:50 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Especially with that kind of harm, it can really mess you up. Rape can be a form of torture. Even as an adult, I read the news sometimes and wonder if I'd rather commit suicide than endure the sexual abuse some other human being endured, and it's not because I think my worth is tied up in some kind of sexual purity. It's just imagining the pain inflicted in an area that's supposed to be about the exact opposite. Mental pain on top of physical pain, physical pain that could incapacitate you (if it doesn't kill you) permanently. I can't help but doubt that my samadhi is strong enough for that kind of thing. I am no Yeshe Tsogyal (who enlightened her gang rapists even before attaining rainbow body). The friends I have who have been raped as adults really struggled. Trying to imagine what it's like to endure CSA makes me cry every time.

Bless you for your compassion and empathy, but as a CSA survivor this is a little much and wading into troubling. If you would consider dialing down the imagery and potentially triggering language, I would appreciate it. Yes, I know. Some of us speak of our abuse and the impacts, but I think we have earned the right to do that; it is not musing or speculation. Thanks a bunch.

Months away and it seems like only yesterday. The more things change, the more they stay the same. "It's like deja vu all over again." I have some thoughts but want to shamble around in this dream state for a bit.

Q: I recognize the Council merger wrangle is largely precipitated by the financial crunch due to the case, but this conversation seems to have taken us well off the bankruptcy discussion path. No? The wander has gone so far as to find  an "I quit if they do that" bench for Vol Scouter. That sounds depressing for Scouting. Let's talk happy talk like how will Judge Houser direct the sussing out of potentially fraudulent claims or how onerous might the questionnaire be or place bets on how much the trust process will cost or if the Coalition gets their money or not or if the STAC can function collegially. There are so many joyful things to talk about, people. 😉

On 3/29/2023 at 10:23 AM, fred8033 said:

Complete wrap-up feels like it is years and years out. 

Yes. I’ve heard from insiders 3-4 years, always with an “ish” or +/- in the footnote. I doubt that’s tracking with the closing date for the Independent Review. Who knows. Not moi. 

53 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

In addition the hearing over the coalition fees occurred yesterday and it sounds like the court is not fully on board but not yet decided.  We will have to wait for a ruling.

I reckon after blowing some ham-sized holes in the bottom of the Good Ship Lollypop she is rather disinclined to come aboard. Those in the know predict she either significantly cut back the number or let the vessel sink into the muck.

12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Today is my birthday... What a present.

Happy birthday. Your presence here, your wisdom, knowledge, cool head and steady hand have been a gift to all. I appreciate you. I'm glad you like your present. We searched for a long time and, when we saw it, knew it was the perfect gift. We tried to wrap it but it was just too unwieldy and oddly shaped with lots of pointy edges. 😬

5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Plan may now go effective!

I stand amazed. Only 1156 days to get here. It just flew by like so many lovely butterflies. Ok. Strike that.

38 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

Full press release from BSA on emergence from bankruptcy, including hiring of Mr. Pounder as YP executive:  https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/the-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-announces-confirmation-of-plan-of-reorganization-and-emergence-from-chapter-11-bankruptcy-to-equitably-compensate-survivors-while-ensuring-scouting-continues-across-the/

In case you don't see or click the embedded link mentioning survivors.

https://www.bsarestructuring.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/BSA-Open-Letter_4.13.23.pdf

BSA's new Youth Protection Exec, Glen Pounder.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-announces-appointment-of-new-youth-protection-executive-301801497.html

https://childrescuecoalition.org

19 hours ago, yknot said:

In the current bankruptcy case, I am pretty sure I saw some cases that were "estate of... " Maybe one of our legal eagles would remember or know where to find where those cases might be listed to provide an example. 

The signature block has 3 options that can be checked above the signature to identify the party executing the POC. They are: (1) SA Survivor; (2) Survivor's...executor or Authorized Representative; (3) Other. I added my wife's name, residence and email address to my file in the form of a very simple amendment, since she is my designated executor under the trusty ol' will. I just enjoy adding digital sheets of paper to my ShareVault drawer.

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I sure hope they do not get paid for anything other than client representation.  Nothing extra!!

I reckon that's misplaced hope, my friend. The TCC filed papers more or less in support while noting their annoyance that the Coalition made it sound like they did it all and won the day. Clearly that was not the case.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Is this coming directly from BSA (who has around $80M of cash) or out of the settlement?  Will coalition law firms reduce their 33 - 40% commission or are they simply double dipping?

I have no expertise, but the sections of the code I read (back when) indicate the request for reimbursement of expenses when the party claims and makes the case for a "substantial contribution to the settlement" are sought from the debtor's estate. That makes sense to me because that's the kitty from which the TCC and other professionals have been and are paid. The next part is not so easy for my wee brain to grasp.

These requests are for fees paid to secondary firms that represented their clients (Coalition, Pfau...) in the effort to "make a deal" with the other constituents (BSA, insurers, etc.) The second link below will magically transport you to the doc setting out the Coalition's argument for payment of Brown-Rudnick's fees. Remember, the actual lawyers for the CSA claimants are tort lawyers in a bankruptcy court. Many (most?) are out of their league from a practice area and expertise standpoint so they hired bankruptcy experts to negotiate and assist in mediation and the case overall. The request is based on the notion that they spent money for more attorneys to represent them (also attorneys) to help serve those attorneys' clients and other claimants (creditors) in pursuit of money for their clients, 33%-40% of which goes to them. "Them"  being the claimants' attorneys not the claimants' attorneys' attorneys. That's an intentionally lovely run on sentence attempting illustrate the goofy, circular, self-serving sleight of hand.

[Deep breath] So, all that leads one to the conclusion that, because these are fees "above and beyond" the primary client representation that produced a substantial contribution to the settlement, the claimants' attorneys get to keep their hunk of the client money while covering their debt to the bankruptcy firms. This is per the code, as I read it. It all makes perfect sense, right? Or not. After all this time, I am still totally open to being publicly shamed and disabused of these conclusions.

Short explanation. https://www.pbwt.com/bankruptcy-update-blog/substantial-contribution-a-new-decision-from-the-third-circuit/  

Coalition Begs for (More) Money. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/67d103d9-e390-413b-b0ed-1dbd7320403b_10808.pdf

PS - Please forgive typos. I've been up working on stuff since 2:10AM CT.