ThenNow

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.

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 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...

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

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

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.

Apologies if already posted. I may put it on the Concealment thread, as well. It is relevant to both threads. The True Story Behind Hulu's Boy Scouts Documentary Leave No Trace https://time.com/6188750/leave-no-trace-true-story-hulu/

Do you have any marketing materials, parent manuals or materials for children from another NGO YSO that mirror the BSA excerpts I posted? I am truly interested in seeing them.

Think about it for a minute or two. You'll figure it out. Remember, it was a statement from a pedophile and the contest had a winner who got a special "prize."

Which war is that? WWII? These books and marketing campaigns were late 60's and early 70's, as in during and after the, "Don't believe your government" and "Question Authority!" eras.

I'm not sure if you have been on the thread about the new YP terms in the plan (Non-Monetary Commitments). Apologies for not looking through it to check. It might be a topic addressed there or would be a good place to raise this issue. I know it has been raised a few times in various places. Just FYI.

Thanks. Not at all. I was sorta being self-deprecating to reinforce my point.

Perhaps I’m not a good choice to initiate or in any way facilitate this conversation. I am clearly biased, having been physically abused in my home and variously sexually abused by non-family men in authority positions. I can see the faces of each of them. Only one, my dad, ever showed any remorse. All had complicit actors. (Sorry, mom.) My SM abuser stood in camp, in the presence of another ‘adult’ (20 or 21 years old), and told his Scouts to “line up for a soft hands contest.” The winner, yours truly, being directed to his tent. No sneaking around or secreting me off to a hidden location. No concealment on his part. It’s probably hard for me to fathom that no one knew or, if they did, felt the standards of the day dictated a response of, “Shhh. You know we don’t talk about children being raped. What were you thinking?” I suppose I read that IVF from across town and unfairly assumed someone would’ve had the forethought and decency to come tell parents at a Troop 2 miles away to ask their boys if they were being given pornography or booze or other such. Maybe I am asking too much as I look at the Fb pages of my SM abuser, see his life set beside photos of me when I was 14, and wonder how he was allowed to have what he has and why so many boys were left with the dregs of his dark not so secret secrets. Dunno. I think too much.

As most in this conversation know, I am not anti-BSA, don’t seek a scorched earth scenario, am grateful to the TCC and Survivor Working Group for pushing to improve YP, and am ‘proud’ of BSA for incorporating those changes into the plan (regardless what it took to get them to that point). That does not negate my position that there was, in fact, a noteworthy elevation of leaders and their moral fiber such that they set themselves up to be held to a higher standard. Because they created for themselves a higher bar, they needed to meet that self-imposed metric in protecting kids over reputation, rosters and revenue. In my mind, all things considered based on the evidence, in many cases (the vast majority?) they chose to conceal, rather than reveal and protect kids. Keeping or trying to keep out abusers was not enough. It was Boy Scouts of America after all. Boys look to be first in the equation, no? For decades, no boys meant no Scouting. Children were and are the most critical ‘asset’. Period. As best I can tell, BSA is now behaving that way or has pledged to do so. It appears it took the force of court mandate. At this stage, I don’t really care what it took. If BSA emerges, youth will be safer and I take some satisfaction knowing our pain may benefit current Scouts and future generations.

I’m very sorry. Yes. I encourage you to pursue it, even now while we are in limbo. You deserve it.

Institution-wide, I’m only aware of the reimbursement for counseling and therapy. I can’t say what was done individually or locally. I hope some were compassionate and facilitated assistance. Based on some Scouters here, I want to believe that was the case. Old time Scouters? What say you?

Based on adequate evidence and argument, the Trustee (and of course the Neutral) can alter the mitigation factor (discount) otherwise imposed due to the Gray State factor. My assumption has been, based on my legal interpretation of the valuation process and this provision, the reviewer may reduce the mitigation factor to zero by full tolling of the statute. Fraudulent Concealment is the strongest argument I’m aware of. I see no indication it can’t be done if an adequate argument can be presented to defeat the SoL defense. General note: the IVF relevant to my concealment case is interesting in another respect. The ASM abuser signed a letter of resignation. It was witnessed by the SM, LC president, COR and sent to the professionals, including Regional and on to Ernst. In my view, it was clearly drafted by BSA. Why did he allegedly resign? CSA? Moral turpitude? Violating the Oath or Law? Nah. “Personal reasons.” Ya. Uh huh. Personal indeed. That’s the officially notable and ‘public’ element in the file. Yup.

I'm sorry these reporting and warning failures were added to the damage of the abuse itself. It's not good. Not good at all. I am waiting for my opportunity to request of BSA/the Trustee verification of the number of other claims that name my SM abuser, as well as any of those I know or suspect to be complicit. My discovery requests are already written. I also want to know dates and Tiers of abuse. I know for certain other boys were abused, but I do not know how many of them filed claims. I am 100% sure there are some, since I've verified that through backchannels after I saw my troop on the AbusedInScouting map of clients. It took my breath away, even though it was no surprise. Since my abuse was very early on in our SM's tenure, I am pretty sure I was the first. The thought of those who came after me is crushing, sickening and maddening. I can't express it in words and that's an unusual occurrence. One of my little brother's friends who was in the troop well after me, being seven years my junior, drank himself to death. They went to university together and my brother confronted him, in love and friendship, after I hinted at what happened to me. My brother saw the parallels between the two of us. High achieving in life and Scouts. High potential trajectory. Crash into drugs and alcohol. He confirmed he had been abused by our SM, but would never say anything to anyone. My brother drafted and executed an affidavit describing this interaction with his friend. The document is in my POC. It's a very tragic state of affairs, this thing we're tangled up in. Very, very.

Thank you. The example you gave, something I know of only bc of this forum, is perfect. It sets the boundary for the other side of the box I'm trying to draw. As to all those other YSOs, I am not kidding when I say I did pretty much anything and everything I could to stay out of the house. I have always been very observant, wanting to exceed what is expected of me. That goes back as far as I can remember, exacerbated by the various abuses from various people. During my youth, I know of no organized activity, not even the RCC, that had the repeated call to trust, obey, believe and follow. None. Granted, priests wore a crucifix and that was a powerful reminder of their position on the planet. I never had one send me home because the seams on my cassock was crooked or call me out because my scapular was hanging other than plumb, though.

Yup. "Esteem" and "expectations." Do you have any similar documentation going to the incredible elevation of leaders in those organizations, which elevation was used to attract and build membership, however well-motivated? I am making (or trying to make) a very specific and narrow point. Serious question and not a poke. That is the subtitle of this thread.

Would anyone like to comment on this? It seems to me that when it comes to expectations for transparency (reveal v conceal), the way an organization characterizes its level of integrity and moral rectitude has significant bearing on the standard to which it should be held? No? If you played Babe Ruth or Pop Warner in the day, you knew the coach may be a hard-nosed, unpleasant, hard driving, used to be a jock type person. With such people, especially in my town where men were gruff and loved to tease and taunt, you knew what you were getting. Suit up. Step up. Put up. Shut up or sit down. In BSA, the promise of purity of heart, highest integrity and absolute best intentions got plastered literally from sea to shining sea and everywhere an ad or poster could be pinned. I suggest an organizationally established (and oft stated) high bar of moral integrity raises the bar across the board for all interactions, especially when the primary subjects of the elevation are male adult leaders being placed in intimate and trusting contact with young boys. As per the above and my own retelling of how I perceived Scouters, it strikes me that we were strongly directed to honor, obey, trust, turn to in times of need, allow into one's confidence and basically do what our leaders said. Period. It's not far from a profession of fealty. I know of no other such statements from any YSO of the day. Is there a reciprocal pledge somewhere from Scouters to Scouts? It is, of course, implied that BSA and Scouters live by the Oath and Law, and that lived commitment should apply to Scouts. Is a fictitious entity, like a corporation, held to the same standard as its constituent parts? Does being in a board room apart from day to day interactions with Scouts cleanse one from the pledges? SMs (and others) were men elevated to pedestals. BSA pointed to those anointed and invited, no adjured parents and kids to yield an incredible level of trust to the organization and those men. Exhibit A: "You can 100% trust us. This man is of the highest repute. No spot, blemish, or wrinkle. He knows how to make boys into men under the watchful eye of Scouting, the Oath and Law, and God himself. Have no fear..." Exhibit B: “BSA did the best it could and may have even done better than others. It’s unfair to expect more sitting here in 2022. That was then, this is now.” Do those statements square with each other? I can’t help concluding that falling back on the standards of the day argument to explain/justify any acts or omissions that clearly jeopardized kids brought deep into a trusting relationship with men is a two-legged stool.

Oo. Lockdown lifted. Do I need to wear a mask in here? Seriously, I have two small, possibly interesting points I’ve been sitting on during quarantine. Both go to the light year since the trial concluded. One, a friend relayed that JLSS’s mother passed at some point recently. I tried to confirm (pun intended), but found nothing. Second, since the Purdue re-do plan approval was appealed to the Second Circuit, the Circuit's ultimate decision on releases is still pending. Those working that case expected the ruling to have come down at least a week ago. Both of these things may be factoring into the delay. Personal matter and waiting to read the settling of the dust. That’s what I have. Good day and God bless.

This helps me understand the tenor of the communications in the IVF I've mentioned several times. As I've gone over it 20 or so times, I can almost see people sneaking into the next guy up the chain's office with a sealed envelope in a lead box. "NO PUBLICITY" reads one page. "Quickly man, don't delay! Deliver the package to Mr. Ernst immediately! Do not kiss your wife or tell her where you're going. The Keeper of the Vault knows what to do. Speak to no one. Allow no one to read it. Be sure no one follows you. Your mission Jim, if you will accept it..."

My baby sister texted me while she was watching. My phone was smoking by the time she was several minutes in. I still have the blisters. She's small, but not to be trifled with. She was in an abusive domestic situation for years, to the point my brothers and I were going to extricate her. She then broke free. The guy was loco and heavily into drugs. He died last year and she finally feels safe. In any case, she is a survivor and reacts strongly to any such content.