ThenNow

Perhaps, but this is a matter of her knowing foxes aren’t good guards for henhouses. (I guess ferrets are fine.) Judge Houser is going to be vetting claims and sniffing out fraud, with the hammer of penalties and prosecution. JLSS wants no self interested parties - or those with something to hide - to obstruct the process from tip to tail. The STAC has plenty of advisory and oversight influence in other matters, just not here. JLSS is seeing to that. Very wise stroke of an angry pen.

I have nothing to say that is worthy of much attention, other than I am SOOO VERY grateful for Eagle1993 and his excellent reverse engineering of this opinion, and other such. I, for one, am indebted to you. Well done, sir. Jolly good show. Jolly good, indeed. Seriously bro. I really mean it for realz. Hip, hip and pip pip. I shall return to vexing over the next round of dredging up the past to reiterate the dastardliness one more time. And the band played on...

I need to go back, so don't hold me to this. A few happy notables on the approval side: "Many survivors have been waiting for thirty, forty or even fifty years to tell their stories and receive a meaningful recovery. This plan makes that happen." (Page 158) "While I understand objectors' strongly held view that they are better off individually if left to their own litigation, this is a mass tort case. There are 82,209 claimants whose views need to be considered, and ... I consider 85% to be overwhelming acceptance." (Page 164) "This is an extraordinary case crying out

I concur. It is a very circuitous route for having spent such and enormous amount of time getting to a destination which location is in no way crystal clear. Mud comes to mind. Enjoy. As I go back with a flashlight and tweezer, I will pine for Eagle1993's anticipated outstanding Cliff Notes. Reader's digest version would be totally sufficient, in the alternative. Buckle up people. It's gonna be a bumpy ride, me thinks.

Might to go here. [hint, hint] https://www.scouter.com/topic/33132-why-hasnt-the-plan-been-approved-yet/?do=findComment&comment=543597

Hot off the press. Have only opened to the title page. You heard it here first. Somebody might want to open the Mother thread. Pushing 300 pages Wee... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9ba8739e-283b-4ce4-b328-5a1eda289f30_10136.pdf 1568973928_BSA-Decision.7_29.22.pdf

I've been watching from my aisle seat and have eaten about all the popcorn and Sno-Caps my belly can handle for a while, so I suppose I'll chime in. Let's loop back to concealment with this sub-thread as a segue. As I've come to understand more about the Scouting world that is not seen by much of the outside world, I've discovered many things. Some are related to people - volunteers and professionals - who are truly heartbroken about the abuse many of us suffered. I'm sorry if some don't buy that, but I'm not selling. Just stating a fact. Others go to how Scouting works and sorely doesn't

The punchline being, what is behind door #3 where Carol Merrill is standing? I don't know if I want to open it.

How did we get here from "Why hasn't the plan been approved yet?" 🤔

Interesting, for sure. Makes me feel pretty weak and wimpy. I sit all the gosh darn time. I’m ordering a standup desk right now!

As I've said before on posts regarding this score, I "uh huh" your "uh oh."

I have a question is perhaps best plopped here. In light of the many, many comments from Scouters about how in the dark their LCs have been to the details of the bankruptcy, do many have a plan for the prospect of a plan plotz? I noted on another thread the post about one LC that has thought through it and has such a course of action. If I were in any local leadership role, and assuming I am informed about the machinations of the case, I sure definitely would have been noodling on that since word of the dreaded Toggle Plan. I get notices from two Councils and speak with a friend who is a

For me, the above components go directly to the YP priority. That is my #1 concern. If BSA breaks up, who will ensure the enhancement of YP or even the enforcement of it? That scares the bejeebers out of me. I think it would be a disaster, not to mention your other well-articulated organizational benefits of a national organization. I am no fan of centralization as a governmental construct, but this is not a good context for "federalism" (which I love and too often miss these days). Yes and amen. Time to pass the collection plate. That's just a phrase and no reference to raising funds

At first, everything about this case surprised me. Today, nothing does. That is not a happy shift in perspective. Meh.

This has been an incredibly tedious and painful learning experience, but I think I have gained some knowledge and insight. Someone needs to do a full analysis of the files at some point, for multiple reasons, but as I began reading and researching I knew I needed to 'look closer to home'. I knew from the little reading I did that the macro-level fraudulent concealment cases were not finding success. "So," I says to my self, "Self, how many CSA IVF were logged in your little area? Were any of the same leaders involved, locally and/or regionally?" That's when I started doing the geographic searc

I am not a moderator, but I do understand something about facilitating dialogue and fostering an iterative process. That's what humans do, unless we're on the clock of a debate and are given a very rigid format. We wander, since we think and ruminate at different speeds and in different directions. We express ourselves differently and more often than not less than well. We are making progress. Feelings can seem to overwhelm the discussion, but I believe it is very much still on track and having benefit for all involved. (I may be too optimistic.) The subject matter is highly charged and there

Amen, brother. You’re a hero. I’ll let John’s list of life events speak for both of us. No need to pile on.

Thanks for bringing this up. The thread started (via the Mother Ship) talking about concealment, sans the fraud part. We were not talking about fraudulent concealment but, as you say, that is where I/we took it with discussions about my case and others. It's good you acknowledge that the two are different. Whether culpability holds in both contexts will be a matter of ongoing debate, as on this thread. You correctly state the summary judgment finding from the case I referenced, of course. I respect your reporting of it. This is what I have read across the various BSA and RCC cases. T

So, are you saying neither of these are actually sexual assault or abuse? I know we're talking about concealment and fraudulent concealment by extension, but I think understanding how you define the terms is important, at least to me. And, this means only discernible, external injury or damage is physical injury, discounting the effects of child sexual (and other) abuse trauma on the brain? I have discernible injuries and physical symptomalogy from both the acts and allostatic load, but I also have neurological impacts, also known as injuries. Again, this is not the topic of the thread

Um, who are these "sexual assault advocates" who like to extrapolate definitions? I feel like the hole is getting deeper and wider. So, "physical injury" is the equivalent of "visible injury." Do I have that right? I'll go back to your post about fraudulent concealment in a bit. Just want to clarify terms for now.

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. What do you mean by this? All sexual abuse is violent. Do you mean non-physical? I know you're making a different point, but this sorta made my skin crawl.

Are the files you read from a smattering of locations across the country? I'll give away the punchline. I grew up in the Midwest in a very blue collar community and semi-rural environments. None of the cases I mentioned had such references to "treatment." Any treatment considerations would likely have involved things far less sophisticated than Freud's couch, Jung's inner child monologues or unburdening of the soul in the confessional.

Let's go back to my 8 cases, 9 with the one most relevant to mine. 9 serious IV matters in 5 years, one two miles from my CO and home. (They are across the street from one another.) Multiple Scouter perpetrators. All those abused kids. All this data. All this debauchery. All this publicity in the small towns where they occurred. We're talking about more than a dozen abused children over 5 years in one section of my state. The cases were "handled" the way they were handled. That is not the point. What happened to care for, keep safe and warn Scouters, parents, and Scouts during and after these

Before I answer any more of this, which I may or may not do (since brother John is likely waiting in the wings), what is this so-called "few" of which you speak? While many would agree that few means three or more, the dictionary definition is, “not many but more than one.” So, a few cannot be one, but it can be as low as two. 🤔🧐🙄

I just read 8 of these files in detail, which I had not done previously. In part it's because it makes me sad and angry. Among the files are three Scouters (of 5 men) who hosted a campout 'party' at which the five men had sex with a "large group of boys." One of those arrested committed suicide the day the story broke. At one of their campouts, a Scouter "imported" a 13 year old girl. In another file, the Scouter had 3 priors and prison time for indecent exposure and sex with a minor before he was a Scouter. In yet another, the Scouter was arrested and went to prison in 1973 (after the BSA inc