ThenNow

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

59 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I find myself feeling that the idea that somehow the Government can be dragged into the lawsuit and bankruptcy, due to perceived deep pockets I fear, is just that; an effort to find more money at the expense of others, the tax payers.

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. Many of those lessons have been learned here and offline with Scouters I've gotten to know. And still more are studying how the gears really work, who is at the tiller, who provides the dough, and who is tapping the till. Here is one observation on the gears.

I had no specific knowledge of the number of political and 'public servant' leaders who are sprinkled all across the upper echelons of Scouting's volunteer leadership matrix. I was quite astonished, though previously was away of some of the notables over time. I came to discover this is at the LC and National levels. Some of these government officials knew about and participated in things I would call downright morally and legally wrong. I am not alone in that assessment. A former high level National Scouter feels even more strongly about that than I do, if it's possible and I believe it is because I've witnessed it. Can city, county, state and federal official's complicity and/or active involvement in such behavior be imputed on the entities they populate? Dunno. Is it clear to me that officials at all levels were and are involved in the inner sanctum of Scouting? 110%. Did some know what was afoot with the historical child sexual abuse in Scouting? Honestly, I have a hard time thinking some did not, especially given what I know firsthand about the other things I mentioned. Does that participation go to active concealment by our tiers of government as a result? Again, dunno. I do know I could make a very good argument that it is so. I just need more research to build the case.

Okay. Maybe I can pound some Sugar Babies or Junior Mints now. I've burned off a few calories getting that down on visual paper.

Carry on.

22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

"The long and winding road
That leads to your door
Will never disappear
I've seen that road before
It always leads me here
Lead me to your door"

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?"

🤔

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I just talked to an old judge just now and he related to me how he presided over a BSA CSA case around 1990 and how it was a hung jury in the first trial and was settled before the second trial.  I know it’s not pertinent to the thread but thought it was interesting. I sold him a car about 6 years ago and he just came in and bought another. He still sits occasionally and he is 90 years old. 

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! 

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think she can call up the judges ... but if she watched the hearing, perhaps she saw comments from Judge Lee and Judge Wesley and thought ... uh oh.

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 longtime Scouter and now SM of a huge Unit. Mention of such a state of being prepared is absent. Crickets. My friend and I reconnected about two months ago. Until then, he was apprised his LC had their contribution in hand, was effectively released and ready to go on their merry way with the fall of the gavel. We were texting with the last hour, I mentioned the near 100 days silence and my speculation about the impact of the delayed ruling in Purdue. He was shocked that the third-party releases might be in jeopardy. He knew nothing about a BSA only plan or what that would mean to his Council. Nada. Nothing. No notion. Nein nootropics nowhere, nohow. 

13 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

At its best, a strong national organization provides a variety of functions and services that would be very difficult for a local affiliate or collection of affiliates to replicate on their own. These include:

• Developing and enforcing consistent organizational standards
• Providing specialized legal and human resources that local affiliates could not afford on their own
• Providing a training program or academy for professionals
• Collecting and sharing information such as statistics and the development of benchmarks for affiliates to assess their own performance
• Conducting annual conferences and on-going workshops for professional growth
• Developing and promoting best practices.

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).

14 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

I think that the BSA is at a point where it has to take a deep breath and look at the role and the value added by the national office. The world has changed markedly for the BSA. Financial pressures from the bankruptcy as well as deep membership losses from the pandemic, loss of chartered partners and other factors will necessitate that it makes adjustments. 

And this will not just be limited to the national level as local councils struggle to adapt to a very different future. We are clearly entering a major transition period where the old operational model may no longer function, and the new model has yet to be developed. 

Yes and amen. Time to pass the collection plate. That's just a phrase and no reference to raising funds or popcorn sales. 

21 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For those who keep score ...  ... 

• Today is July 15, 2022
• BSA filed bankruptcy - Feb 18, 2020 ... 2 years 5 months ago
• Court hearings ended and waiting ruling - April 15, 2022 (?) ... 3 months ago
• Appeals, creating and administering the trust, etc,  ... TBD years

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

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Then consider that BSA had 100+ million youth and 10s of millions of adults.  You will find ugly legal cases in any organization of that size.  ... If you look at statistical broad patterns to define "did BSA conceal", then there may be a different conclusion.  

 

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 search to id the cases and players around my hometown, Troop and LC. Under the law as it's been interpreted so far, the 9 IVF I found, including the one with my SE as the point professional, are more powerful evidence of specific fraudulent concealment than the 19,829 POCs on file for 1972-1979, the 1315 for my state (overall) or the 139 for my LC.

17 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I've been reading the IVF files and amazed at the numbers that I'm seeing that do have press clippings and/or police involvement.    I was actually trying to do see what the percentages were.  Take ten random cases from every five years.  Were police involved?  Was there press?  Did parents know?  I wish I could have finished last night.  

In the 9 I mentioned, police and press involvement is well over half.  The case most relevant to mine was not in the press, but police were involved. My strong objection is the information died in small towns or board rooms and was not carried to parents, Troops, Scouters and Scouts. For the cases that were publicized, the information was already public, for goodness sake. I know Scouters who are incredulous they were never made aware of what was going on around them as far as the number of CSA IVs and the incidents of CSA. They didn't even know how many boating accidents there were, even though they repeatedly requested injury incident reports, etc. 

10 hours ago, MattR said:

What was this thread about? Or is about?

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 have to be broad lanes to allow for 90% passion to tease out 10% substance. 

1. Concealment. Did BSA conceal the fact of a significant pattern of historical child sexual abuse in BSA? This was the word used when the conversation started on the Mother Thread. (I didn't use the term, others did.) I think the consensus answer is yes, since the definition doesn't necessarily rise to a level of legal culpability in the minds of most. In my view, that relative agreement was a big win. We made progress.

2. Higher Standard. Did BSA set itself up to be held to a higher moral standard for its leaders and, by logical extension, the institutional behavior of its leaders generally and universally? At this stage, there is not consensus. I think the ayes are the ascendant side of the debate. This seems very clear to me. I'm waiting for promised evidence that other YSOs who came anywhere close to mirroring how BSA elevated SM and other Scouters. Seeing none...?

3. Fraudulent Concealment. Because this is a multipart legal question requiring lots of factual analysis, we have just touched on it. Ellits rightly made the distinction between concealment and the fraudulent kind, but I've been waiting to bring it back to that point., since many had things to say about the higher standard, which necessarily becomes passionate, especially for survivors, since we feel strongly someone could've, should've acted to protect us. The first prong, "special relationship" between Scouts, Scouter and professionals has pretty much been established throughout he various elements of the conversation. 

These are the elements of fraudulent concealment. As I've said, it's a fact-specific test. No BSA case I know of has succeeded in demonstrative fraudulent concealment based only on the existence of the IVF and processes surrounding them.

To establish a prima facie case of fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff [here claimant] must offer proof that satisfies five elements:

1.     the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact;

2.     the defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff (special relationship);

3.     the defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff; that is, the defendant concealed or suppressed the fact for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act differently than s/he would have if she had known the fact;

4.     the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact;

5.     and, as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damages.

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

What I am trying to get at is all of these other traumas never affected me to anywhere near the degree as the sexual assault against my body. Nothing has changed my life as much as that incident did.

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. 

6 hours ago, elitts said:

This issue isn't "Concealment" (which clearly the BSA did) it's "Fraudulent Concealment".  In general no one has an obligation to inform others when they've committed a tort against them.  The only time such an obligation exists is when there is a fiduciary or other "special relationship".  So the issue here isn't so much whether the BSA concealed the amount of abuse happening it's whether there was a duty to inform people.  And even then, I suspect "Fraudulent Concealment" could only apply when the BSA had some way of knowing a particular child was victimized.  So basically only those who filed complaints would be eligible.

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. The effort to use the clear and admitted concealment of CSA by BSA on the macro level has yet to be successful in defeating a SoL defense. To my knowledge, that is. I think it is coming, especially in light of some of the documentaries and investigations by AGs and now the FBI. We shall see. What have been successful are the cases where it is clear BSA knew the abuser was out there and active or previously active and failed to warn and protect. Again, the "special relationship" is a key component to the FC finding. I don't think that can be in question, but you may differ. Several of us have strong bases to assert FC in the face of a SoL defense to civil action for negligence. Others may have the argument, especially if the judge rejects the third-party releases and this converts to the ol' flip the toggle plan. The craft may need to pitch out some cargo, land, refuel, retool and reset her course. Sounds akin to an emergency landing to me, but I will try not to think about it today. Try.  

2 hours ago, elitts said:

1:  NGOs like RAINN.  Usually it's people or organizations attempting to drive home the severity of their issue by creating a false equivalency.  Some examples include:  "asking for sex repeatedly = coercion = rape", "sex with someone who has been drinking = rape".

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.

2 hours ago, elitts said:

2: Well, visible to a doctor doing an examination.  Internal tearing and deep bruising may not be visible to a bystander, but are still a physical injuries.

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, but knowing what you mean will help me. My parents wanted to send me to counseling when I was 15, but I refused. They saw evidence of injury/trauma, just not the source.  

Afterthought: Shoulda mentioned this. I had no idea the anal leakage I've had most of my life and the peri-anal fistulae I experienced in my late 30s/early 40s was in any way related to rape. Never crossed my mind. I thought it was the stress of my job and other things. This forum and another friend I've met since the case started helped me understand it. Not coincidentally, the symptoms went full on after my dad died and my oldest son asked to join Scouts. "The body keeps the score."

Neurodevelopmental research has taught us about specific windows of neural development that exist for the optimal wiring of children’s sensory systems. During these windows, a child’s sensory systems learn to appropriately process perceptions and, ultimately, integrate them into fully developed human cognition (2). During brain development, how children play their environmental instruments and respond to their life’s music will depend on the score of their individual genetic vulnerabilities. Eventually, this mental evolution begins to shape who they are, how they view the world, how they interact with others, and their attitudes toward self. Therefore, developmental disruptions can cause significant consequences and the literature clearly shows that early neglect, nutrition, socialization, and stress define who we are as children and become as adults. Children’s significant dependence upon caregivers clearly can leave them at risk for deficient cognitive development. In addition, their very active limbic systems teach them about what is or is not safe, so with early threats and adversity, they begin to develop survival strategies that may endure for a lifetime. Child abuse, whether physical, psychological, or sexual, presents a threat that is universally recognized as having a significant negative impact on the life of a child (3). Nevertheless, overwhelming data exist suggesting that child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, currently occurs throughout the world. The ramifications of this fact are enormous (4).

Many neuroscientific studies of structural and functional brain networks that compare abused and non-abused children demonstrate the significant results of childhood sexual abuse. These studies have uncovered electrophysiological brain changes such as abnormal neurophysiological interactions (5,6), altered brain structure, and deregulated brain activation to stimuli (7). In addition to the anatomical and electrophysiological consequences, abused children show significant cognitive impairments that can impact their future life trajectories as they emerge into adulthood (8).

#####

Brain areas implicated in the stress response include the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex. Traumatic stress can be associated with lasting changes in these brain areas. Traumatic stress is associated with increased cortisol and norepinephrine responses to subsequent stressors. Antidepressants have effets on the hippocampus that counteract the effects of stress. Findings from animal studies have been extended to patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) showing smaller hippocampal and anterior cingulate volumes, increased amygdala function, and decreased medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate function. In addition, patients with PTSD show increased cortisol and norepinephrine responses to stress. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181836/

Image: https://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/trauma-and-the-developing-brain.pdf

11 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'm using the commonly understood definition of "violent", not the expanded interpretation that sexual assault advocates like to use.

Um, who are these "sexual assault advocates" who like to extrapolate definitions? I feel like the hole is getting deeper and wider.

12 minutes ago, elitts said:

So essentially, sexual abuse or sexual assault that doesn't result in physical injury.

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.

6 minutes ago, elitts said:

non-violent sexual abuse

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. 

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I re-read 20(???) of the files. 

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

To be honest, where the IVF files really creep me out is just how many times everyone (parents, police, council, etc) push for the perpetrator to get treatment or that it's treated as a morality crime.  Or that the conviction is dealt with a really short jail time or even just probation.  ... To see parents write letters asking that their son's abuser get treatment just creeps me out.  

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.   

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Of the thousands of files, you will be able to find ones that are not handled well.   From what I've read, most (not all) seem like they were handled reasonably given the time and place.  

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 cases, that is the question. The answer seems to be, "NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE talked about this stuff from 1972-1977. No. One. So, we can't be held responsible for not warning parents or caring for the abused or for keeping the information tight to the vest. It's what everyone was doing." Well, BSA was talking about it. A lot. They seem not to have taken the next step to advise those most vulnerable or the parents whose right it was to know the potential risk, however "statistically insignificant." (Not my words.)

And, to say the standard for action and integrity was not higher for BSA because everyone else was using "inflated, post-War rhetoric" to canonize their leaders is balderdash. The standard was higher by virtue of BSA's repeated pronouncements of the purity and moral compass of its leaders. Objectively, I think that's pretty clear. Ynot and I, and likely many of us, were involved in all manner of YSOs and activities. I experienced nothing like the BSA leader pedestal in any of them.

56 minutes ago, skeptic said:

As heinous as a few cases were

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.

🤔🧐🙄

On 7/2/2022 at 3:08 PM, ThenNow said:

From my research of the IVF, just in my area of the state (which includes the District and LC, though now reconfigured) 9 abusers are reported and were booted from 1972 (when I joined Scouts and was first abused) to 1977.

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 incidents). He resurfaced in multiple other places - BSA is not mentioned - and was eventually found to have abused 50 other boys over that 20 year period. Remember, this is all in my home state and around my LC, thought not all in it. The big cases were in the news, though not my little local rag. I sure never heard nuttin' about any of this. Wee...

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

P 

Strike the wayward P. I was overly enthralled with my cleverness such that my thumb went awry. Apologies.

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

to be determined

Yes. P Payment TBD. Also known as, Plan To Be Depressed. 

25 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

That there are three omnibus hearings spaced out over three months, considering the cash drain on National, seems rather strange to me.

Yes. The Ominous Omnibus Trilogy. Troubling, perhaps, but a wonderful title. (I think she is simply anticipating the followup to her ruling with whatever continued mediation is launched, the processes for setting up the Trust, seating Judge Houser, and the like. I will dance live on YouTube (is it live...TikTok?) if the ruling takes until 10.27.22. "Dance" is a relative term. Everyone keep that in mind if you are forced to witness my interpretation. Another reason to pray she rules soon.)

Sending up a flare to the brilliant numbers Scouter who is tracking the fees billed to the Debtors' estate. I am wondering what the pittance is as of this 11th day of June, 2022, the year of our Lord. Many thanks and admiration, in advance. 

Oh, yeah. Is there anyone out there who could speculate, with any degree of professional accuracy, what might be the net revenue to the firms, based on the number to be revealed? I'd love to have that, as well. Danke.