Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. On 5/28/2021 at 9:35 AM, ThenNow said:

    If anyone knows, I would be interested to know more about the abuse counseling reimbursement program they implemented some years ago. What spurred it? Who's decision was it? When did it start? I was not aware of it until the bankruptcy and I began surfing the various survivor sites they set up. I wish I had known about it years ago. 

    Going to circle back on this. (Smirk and a nod to Jen Psaki.) Can any of you BSA historians help me with this? I am very curious. I would also like to get a sense if this will be a line item/funded project into the future, assuming that future exists, of course. Many thanks!

  2. 16 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

    on another page "I'm still been sexually [unclear] by the B.S.A. today". I find it hard to take that statement literally.

    I can't say for sure, but I have seen other statements like that. Personally and from experience, I take that to mean what you have heard me and a few other men say in this thread and others (YPT, "psycho-babble, etc.) The claim process and waiting game that started February 18, 2020 has been incredible difficult for many if not most of us. It has rekindled dark memories and has dragged many of us down. If I didn't mention it, I ended up in the ER with chest pains at one point. Thankfully, not another heart attack. For many of us, it has been absolutely brutal, reminiscent of the abuse. I am betting that's what he meant. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. 1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

    “A different story” for the CO. She pointed out that LDS settled out in the Portland case before trial. The Mormon Church had a smarter lawyer apparently.

    So, if BSA or an LC has knowledge of abuse, is it their duty to advise the CO? I’ve learned here that the COs have a much more active role and measure of oversight than I ever saw with ours. Is it imputed, regardless their actual knowledge or involvement?

  4. 16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I'd say abuse by a DE, SE, or other official BSA employee makes the claim double if triple strong why? Because with a volunteer, you have to wedge in issues related to principle/agent, retention, supervision, etc.

    With an outright employee? Yeah, you don't need to try to decide if BSA or the LC was suppose to have direct supervision, etc. It's clear: this person's your employee. You should have.

    I'm relatively new to the BSA CSA litigation arena and will further expose my ignorance. Of the cases that have been brought and resolved, whether award or settlement, were all, some or none of them Doe v. both BSA and LC as jointly and severally liable parties? 

  5. 14 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Some is raw cash (I can name at least two councils who will flat out say that the minimum FOS contribution for a Council seat is X, for a exec board position is Y), etc.

    What do you mean by this, since I’m not familiar with the historic BSA model? Many boards have pay to play seats. Is that not typically done throughout Scouting to attract high-level donors?

  6. So, a question for any and all. It seems we mostly discuss abusers as BSA volunteers of one sort or another. Hypothetically, does your view, opinion or feeling change if the abuser was a DE or SE? Technically and legally, it's of no great impact. I'm asking about your perspective of abuse by an Executive from your vantage point as volunteer and/or parent Scouters. You could speak to liability or whatever you think it relevant. I'm curious and appreciate your thoughts.

  7. 4 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

    one of the single greatest parts of my youth, and now my parenthood

    I appreciate your kind words.

    When I read this, as quoted, it is painful. Not so much for me but for our boys. I was in such a bad way after our oldest asked me to join Scouts that it combined with another event to set off a train wreck lasting 20 years. I know survivors who watch this forum who were able to stand with their kids through Scouting and see them get all the benefits and none of the horrors or downsides. My boys have paid a very dear price for my condition. So it goes. We KBO, as Winston would say.

    • Like 1
  8. 3 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

    I'm still looking for what the fee was during the peak of the abuse-claim dates (roughly 1968 through 1973), but I suspect it was even lower, maybe only $1 or $1.50.

    Before you got to this sentence, 2 bucks came immediately into my little brain. I joined in 1972. Might have been less. For all I know, and I wouldn't put it past him, our SM was skimming the extra coin for the beer fund. 

  9. 3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

    This argument has started to change my mind. I may be coming around to agree with you. 

    My wife will be pleased to know her work and my effort to compare it to the BSA context paid a dividend. I'm going to take some of the credit for the movement in thinking, even if I don't deserve it. :)  

  10. 1 hour ago, elitts said:

    That same argument would work in the case of hospitals though.  They keep seeing malpractice claims and they make settlements, but they haven't implemented anything to stop the malpractice. (To be clear, I'm only arguing that the existence of suits and (particularly) settlements don't automatically indicate culpability since in so many cases settling even a rediculous case is preferable to litigating it) 

    The existence of repeated, mirror image suits over a course of 100 years is a sign of "malpractice." That hospital would be out of business looong ago and doctors, and likely executives, locked up. My wife's job is to "stop the malpractice," create systems that something doesn't happen again, and very, very carefully examining every aspect of what happened, who "touched" the patient or associate or public interface. That analysis literally happens and is escalated to her and the chief medical officer close to real time. If it's significant, I'm talking about a call at 3AM. If you could see the level of assessment, reporting, careful scrutiny, circling the policy wagon and protocols teams and on down the line, the degree of difference would be obvious and staggering. The key differences are: (1) instant reporting and escalation; (2) immediate engagement of systems of analysis, continued reporting and aggressive and unrelenting efforts to "fix" whatever happened to create the unfortunate incident, large or small; and (3) contact with the aggrieved parties, colleagues and oversight boards to begin whatever process of interaction or intervention is appropriate.

    So, the existence of suits and settlements that mirror others over a span of time that go unabated, less than highly reported, even moderately unmitigated and absent meaningful interface with the aggrieved is a sure sign of "malpractice," whether by a hospital or the BSA. It just is. 

    1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    But the difference is the malpractice types.

    If it is the SAME malpractice, in the SAME way, occurring over the course of YEARS? Yep. That hospital's going to be on the hook for negligence.

    Precisely. And, broke and disbanded (or purchased, dismantled, fully restaffed and intricately restructured).

    • Upvote 1
  11. 24 minutes ago, elitts said:

    It's fairly clear from the post that Qwaze was attempting to illustrate a point regarding legal liability and the peculiarities of it under US law, NOT actually directing blame at the victims for either filing their cases or staying quiet. 

    Apologies to Qwaze. I'm sorry for reacting and not taking a deep breath and a closer look.

  12. 5 minutes ago, elitts said:

    But the existence of lawsuits and settlements in our country doesn't always indicate a "problem".  If it did then virtually every major hospital in the country would be guilty of ignoring their "problem" since most of them have plenty of suits and settlements on their books.  Lawsuits and settlements (in and of themselves) are just a fact of life and the cost of doing business in the US.

    Watching my wife in her role as the risk executive for a hospital system, I think there is a critical difference. Claims, suits, settlements and judgements against any system, even one that is vast like hers, have a smattering of varied types of claims. There isn't a clear pattern of one significant type of alleged "negligence/malpractice" year after year. Here, we have a singular type injury, reported within a single organization, repeated over and over and over and over again. The two are not comparative nor can one genuinely set the contexts side by side, whether with hospitals or society at large. That is my view anyway.

    • Upvote 1
  13. 47 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    As did the very first non-reporting victim of every abuser. So, why not sue them? Or their families for not training them to report? Is it because they are somehow innocent by not being part of a corporation?

    It's unfortunate this offensive argument is being recycled. As I've said before, it's mind boggling to have this burden and liability placed on my 11 year old self. Mystery solved. I feel so much better knowing I am the one to blame for my continued abuse and that of others abused after me by our perverse Scoutmaster. Does this really make sense to anyone else. Really? I and/or my parents were equally responsible and now liable alongside the DE later SE who knew there was grooming behavior going on in our Troop? I was supervising the other 11-13 year olds...? Really?

    • Sad 1
  14. 28 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    We have warped the word "allowed" until it makes no sense. Find any documentation anywhere where any BSA official grants permission to abuse kids.

    I think you're incorrectly defining the words as giving "active permission." Although allow does sometimes mean, "to permit," it does not necessarily or often mean to grant permission. More accurately, it means to fail to prevent. "He allowed the dog to roam the streets." "She allowed the water to run off the table and onto the floor." They failed to affirmatively act to prevent is to allow.

    Definition of allow

    transitive verb

    1a: PERMIT doesn't allow people to smoke in his home
    b: to fail to restrain or prevent allow the dog to roam
    2a: to assign as a share or suitable amount (as of time or money) allow an hour for lunch
    b: to reckon as a deduction or an addition allow a gallon for leakage
    • Upvote 2
  15. 2 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

    I tried getting into BSA’s therapy.  No therapist is taking new clients so oh well.

    If you are interested in discussing, feel free to DM me. My therapist has a great network of colleagues. I would never push, but I think being in therapy is critical for most of us. That's my take after 20 years of it. I'd be in worse shape without it. Much...

  16. 22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Does anyone know of a situation where after a Boy Scout was victimized that the BSA went to the victim and made sure that the proper counseling and therapy was provided?

    Personally, I don't. But, and I hope you are aware of this, the BSA will pay for your therapy. I will give you the contact information via DM.

    If anyone knows, I would be interested to know more about the abuse counseling reimbursement program they implemented some years ago. What spurred it? Who's decision was it? When did it start? I was not aware of it until the bankruptcy and I began surfing the various survivor sites they set up. I wish I had known about it years ago. 

    22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Yesterday after 54 years I had my first therapy session and that is 54 years to late.

    Yes, very late. But you have started. I'm proud of you for going through that door, late or not!

    • Like 2
  17. 7 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

    Maybe it takes letters like it to move the case forward.

    Yeah. Maybe. I tend to think it's so long it was only read to check for things to redact. To me, in this context, the length negates the impact and the content negates the intent. It seemed more like a letter to the BSA executives than to the judge about the impact of abuse and the need to do right by victims.

    7 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

    ...seems to focus more on defunding the BSA vs. how the abuse affected him. 

    Same. See above. I have no idea what's true in there and what's not. To me, sorry to say, it's less than material because it blurs the focus of what I hope to see from all of this.

    7 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

    Im ready to see the TCC plan. Let’s make BSA hurt and that includes some more pain for the councils...a lot more. But, lets not destroy the BSA to where they can’t even ask the community or a family to give to FOS for current support and to rebuild.

    Me too. I'm not interested in inflicting pain, per se, though that may be the result. I'm ready for progress and an end of the nonsensical posturing. I felt like we were on the just on cusp of it when the judge bent to the wishes of the mediators and pushed us back down the hill. Perhaps those mediators are genius soothsayers and snake charmers. We shall see. Or not.

  18. 58 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Because someone, somewhere along the line, erred.

    I didn't see reason to mention it, but I have caught un-redacted documents that were marked redacted or sealed. I click on things just hoping I can get in. I called it to the attention of the clerk who linked me to the Omni Agent folks. I now have their contact info to go direct when these oopsies pop up. In fairness, they are absolutely mobbed by this case. From what I've learned, that handoff has been the point of communication breakdown. (Hm. I could post another music video on that note. Get it?)

    I was referring to the Docket postings. If I missed the point, apologies.

  • Create New...