Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 1 hour ago, Bronco1821 said:


    It seems to me that Chartered Organizations should be held a lot more liable than they are.  In my case, it was the LDS church who appointed the individual who abused me to be involved in scouting.  They made all the decisions, did most of the training and making of the assignments.  I actually think it was more their fault than even BSA.


    As others have said and per previous LDS settlements, the church was much more involved than pretty much any and all other COs. In my experience, the parish priest stopped by Monday meetings very rarely. I recall he came to my Eagle Court of Honor, though. Regardless, the parish and school’s lack of engagement doesn’t excuse them, since they were supposed to be running the show!

  2. 1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

    And had I not been invested in the balance of the package, I may not have been a Scout.  And therefore may not have been abused.  

    Very, very good point. Same for me. The Troop was our “parish and school” Troop, integrally woven into the whole along w CCD, the Fall Festival, raffles and etc.  

  3. 23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    PS: I'd argue this has nothing to do with governmental immunity or sovereign but a different species called legislative immunity. In short, passage of a "bad" law (unconstitutional, one you just don't like, one that is abused, whatever) can NOT be used as the basis to sue the legislature in general or individual legislators in particular.

    I know. I just like my Scarface reference better with the word “sovereign” in it. It was not a substantive note. I can’t hear Al Pacino using that terrible accent being able to properly mangle the word “legislative.” Can you? Send me the audio clip, if you do it! 😉

    • Upvote 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    This is not about child sexual abuse

    Thanks. I was curious if you were at 30,000 feet or on the ground.

    On the ground, I studied how CSA is prosecuted. Given the high standard of proof, it can be a wonderful education in the real world rigor of successfully prosecuting a child sexual abuser. Of course, we're talking about a preponderance here, but having a better understanding of the every jot and tittle approach helped me. Conversely, I've studied how defense attorneys defend accused and certain sex offenders. That was eye opening to help understand what's required to lock down and plug the holes in a case.

  5. 21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    And there are ways to sample sexual abuse victims with scientific rigor.

    When I was talking about points of reference, I wasn't trying to be cute about where we live, what the patch looked like, who we remember being around at the time, the color of a car or driving by a park, and, etc. We are trying to map coordinates to "triangulate" and reveal the target location: data on the abuse. The abuser, the when, the what of the surroundings, the where and sometimes the precise details of the abuse. Some of those things should be discoverable/accessible to the memory to serve as clues. We build our case from the details we can provide. This, of course, includes fallout that can be evidence after the fact. From my reading, some of this "proof" is reverse engineering back to the scene of the crime.

    • Upvote 1
  6. 24 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    In my very small sample of survivors who I've talked with, none of them could give what I'd call strong corroborating points of reference.

    Forgive me and respectfully, but you have noted this small sample at least three times that I recall. I'm not you, but I wouldn't be willing to draw conclusions based upon that admittedly small sampling. I'm curious how many are in that anecdotal study group, their ages now and at the time of abuse, gender and why you think it can inform a context of abuse not by someone related to the victim. Also, I did not use the word "strong" when suggesting there should be corroborating points of reference where there are currently none.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  7. 36 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

    They would submit claims to the FCR for evaluation.  After retaining private counsel.  Unless a global resolution isn’t reached in which case they’d have recourse in the normal tort system.

    That was my thinking, but I heard a rumor that BSA is full court pressing for them to be included with the settlement and subject to the channeling injunction. Are you aware of any such abuse claim(s) submitted to the FCR for this specific evaluation?

  8. 11 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    That being said if a smaller amount was offered up to all for dropping out with the possibility of more vetting of the claims I think a lot of the false claims would disappear.  

    As I understand it, this is a typical structure and can be anticipated. A friend in the know refers to the tiers/phases as "off ramps" along the way. Here's $1000 with no scrutiny. Yes? Bye, bye. No, thanks? Howzabout $2500 after some low level scrutiny seems to validate your claim? And so on. 

  9. 1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

    How about how much time has past from the abuse, trying to keep it out of your mind for 40 to 50 years and now you are 70 or 80 years old and memories are not what they used to be.  Good enough?

    If we know where we lived, that is a point of reference. If we have any recollection of where we met, that is a reference point, even if not the full identification of the building or CO. If we know of anyone else involved in the program, that is a reference point. If we can describe the patch from our camp, that is a reference point. Are there any such threads to pull that will take us to more detail? These are the type of things I hope men with legitimate claims will try very hard to tease out and add to their POC.


    • Upvote 1
  10. 2 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

    If someone doesn’t even remember the name/place of occurrence/date of occurrence.  If they can remember two of those three I’d give them a vote.

    I am not interested in denying any of my fellows a crack at whatever peanuts we're afforded, but I want to see at least some worn, crumbled and faded receipts, as well. I know many survivors from various age groups and abuse contexts. I don't know any who couldn't give you that information, in one form or another. Zero evidence or corroborating points of reference is not a good sign of viability, in MY opinion only. The TCC isn't begging claimants to file amendments with missing details for their good health and amusement. 

    • Upvote 1
  11. Just now, 100thEagleScout said:

    Insurance rights and LC contributions.  Only National BSA has been fairly straightforward.

    Insurance rights won't be "clear" until eyeballed from the rearview. We'll see on the LCs. It has to have some clarity coming out of the mediation. I go back to the previously well made point that the BSA managed to tick off both the TCC and the Coalition in stereo. Now, they have to contend with them in lockstep, effectively a bulwark against shenanigans. 

    • Upvote 1
  12. 1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

    The TCC has stated that it fully expects to have a statement included in any packet related to a vote.  This is pretty standard bankruptcy procedure. 

    As for this dingy captain, if there is not a TCC statement in the packet, as BSA previously signaled by saying only supporting comments are allowed, that would pretty much ensure my "No" vote.

    • Upvote 2
  13. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    will victims vote for a number (insurance contribution to the settlement fund) that is unknown at this time/to be litigated later? Or will they hold that against BSA and demand that number be decided before they vote yes?

    This goes directly back to the "Kosnoff has no influence" quip. I believe the vote on any possible deal will turn on how it is presented to the claimants by the TCC, Coalition and AIS. Let's be honest, the Committee and the attorneys are the filters and the hands that guide, which is appropriate. There are only a few thousand boneheads like me paddling our wee dingy in open water.  

    Btw, when I say "TCC" I mean the committee of men, not necessarily their counsel. They represent us and the attorneys advise them. I trust those 9 guys to assess, dissect, analyze and communicate their thinking to us when the time comes. "There is wisdom in the multitude of counsel."

    • Like 1
  14. 15 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    1) Only 2/3 mediators asked for this.

    Where did you see that or are you just inferring? My read is Finn was not a signatory solely because he had a conflict and is not in attendance. I don't think there is any indication of a lack of unanimity. 

    "The Mediators support the Debtors’ request."

  15. 9 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:
    11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:


    Yeah, Kosnoff is a giant in the BSA sexual abuse litigation world

    I think you’re being serious, not facetious. If the former, I agree. Ask some of his former clients. The proof of the puddin’ is in the eatin’. I don’t care for it when folks attempt to delegitimize someone’s work because they find her personality or character lacking. You can, in fact, “separate the policy from the man.”

  • Create New...