I beg your continued indulgence for my horrible typing on this thread. I’m even worse pecking it out on the phone than the full-size keyboard.  

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

It is my belief that the BSA did not wish to have the records for precisely the reason that happened after the Oregon case.  Attorneys used the records to find potential clients from what has been intimated to me.  

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

I know that a major reason that the BSA had never released the information was this fear.

Risk management in action, which I understand. Public exposure —> Legal risk = financial risk + reputational risk —> deterioration of public trust —> membership decline = financial risk. No? At some point, I think we have to accept this equation as fact. In and of itself it’s not an indictment, but a business mindset decision tree. When you see it on paper next to and weighed against the statements below, it sure looks a lot like an indictment. IMNSHO.

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

For someone such as @ThenNow , who would likely argue that some sort of scrubbed information could have been released and that someone in the regional office should have found out about the local Scout Executive’s corruption.

Correct. Not just argue, but sincerely wonder why leaders didn’t consider it IF they actually didn’t. I can’t imagine it was never contemplated or mulled over by some leader. If never given a single solitary thought, what does that say. “If we release these or cross-reference this pattern and start ‘warning’ people, we have a lot to lose. (See above) If we don’t, and maintain tight, inner circle confidentiality, the benefit is tangible and the ‘loss’ speculative/uncertain.” Loss being innocence via more abuse. What might they have been thinking, and I mean that literally and sincerely?

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I'm saying concealment / failure to disclose / standard of day / etc can be strongly argued.  

Gonna have to piecemeal this.

Not sure on the standard of the day point. The other two are legal issues, applied according to present day law. I will likely miss something bc I'm not going back to my notes, but it boils down establishing a "special relationship" with the victim (and clear nexus between BSA and the child victim); knowledge of facts that, if known, would have given rise to victim/plaintiff's knowledge of a cause of action (which has to be proven and further sussed out, as cases have shown); negligent supervision; and duty to warn and protect, based on the special relationship. See below for more on this.  I'm sprinting...

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

but my understanding is that if BSA made those records public, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER (emphasis), they would be held for libel.

Focusing only on the IVF as a whole and not John's or my specific cases. Again, I'm no expert on any of this, but if I'm expert at all it's on what happened to me and the facts surrounding the abuse. 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 left in 1979 and my abuse and the abuse of other boys was still going on at that time. I have yet to find any from 1978 or 1979. There is one from 1963 and one 1989. So, all around me volunteers and Scouters were being reported to have sexually abused Scouts in the care of BSA. Literally, all around me and at the same time as my abuse. Another thought in which to bathe. Can we really say no one had at least a moral obligation to tell someone this was going on, especially given the clear patterns of grooming, similar locations, and characteristics of vulnerable boys? I understand the standards of the day argument that, "No one else was doing more than BSA [not sure about that, but anyway], why should you expect BSA to have done more than was the norm? Inf fact, they did more. See?" BUT BUT BUT which other entity, other than the RCC, elevated men to the degree BSA did? Yes, RCC did, but they were not specifically and exclusively recruiting boys, taking them into the woods, telling them and their parents (paraphrasing) "your SM is the best mentor a boy could have. He likes boys and is there for you. He will develop you/your sone into fine, upstanding, moral, America-loving, God-fearing, society-serving citizens. There is no other place better for your boy to learn, grow and become a leader." More to soak in for a while. Lastly, I don't know about you, but if I ever told my parents, especially my dad, "But dad! Everyone else is doing/not doing it? Why can't/do I? Answer? "I don't care what ANYONE else is doing or not doing. It's not right and you not/are doing it. Period. The end." Standard of the day? He didn't give two flips. Not even one.

So, whose standards are we talking about here? Society's or BSA's own carefully crafted recruiting documents, parent's handbook, Oath, Law, pledges and various other written, highly publicized and touted commitments to boys and their parents, not to mentioned the much protected reputation? I don't get they "we did the best we could" dealio.    

3 hours ago, DuctTape said:

I am not an attorney so please forgive me, but wouldn't the standards of the day be VERY relevant as to establishing (or not) fraudulent concealment at that time?

Sorry. I have out of state family in town.

Standards of knowledge and responsiveness to actual or reported CSA or legal standards? The cases arguing fraudulent conceal by BSA range from highly fact specific to general, pleading only the special relationship between BSA and Scouts, documented knowledge of CSA over a long period of time, failure to vet and supervise volunteers and employees, and failure in the duty to warn and protect. To this point, the case specific actions, like John's and mine, have been successful. To date, I am unaware of those using the general knowledge, but the are mounting. As more evidence becomes available, whether via this case, investigations by States AGs or FBI, and documentaries, more case will be brought alleging FC. This is my anticipation. I have not read all the cases, but many. Reading them will help understand which and how the standards are applied. I will see if I can get links to more. Again, I am investigating this and still in the process of fully forming my "legal" opinion. Regardless, the trend is building and won't abate any time soon.

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/7d8c2ebb-a90c-42d4-ad81-39392719f1aa/1152406.pdf

PS - Please forgive any and all speed typing oopsies. 

PPS - I am only able to scan the above and will be back. In my case, the one I know best, all of those involved are very much alive and well. I doubt they are much improved as to being morally well, but situationally. They are free and livin' life. My SM abuser is retired and enjoying fishing, hunting, traveling and spending time with his grands. For those who don't know this (from past posts) he still has photos of me and other Scouts on his Fb page. I’m 13 in one of them. Marinate in that for a few hours. 

Thanks. I’ve posted that before and never received anything but emotional responses. No factual rebuttal.

I’m not saying BSA did “nothing,” just to be clear. Also, the standards of the day are still irrelevant here. The issue is, was it “concealment,” as defined? We have to look at all of these facts today, on July 2, 2022. That’s where we are and all we have. This is one state’s definition:

To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant took affirmative action to conceal the cause of action or remained silent and failed to disclose material facts despite a duty to do so and, (2) the plaintiff could not have discovered the cause of action despite exercising reasonable care and diligence.

The third essential element of fraudulent concealment is knowledge on the part of the defendant of facts giving rise to the cause of action. In other words, the defendant must be aware of the wrong.

The fourth and final essential element of fraudulent concealment is a concealment of material information from the plaintiff.

§42.9 Fraudulent Concealment Exception to Statute of Limitations, TN

Let's see if anyone joins me. I am genuinely interested in all views and any history that can be added. I admit, I am keenly interested in this topic because my case to defeat the potential SOL defense is based on fraudulent concealment. As I've said and again just a few hours ago, the situation with my SM abuser and SE is the linchpin. Anywho, let's see who shows up, or not. I wish we had been allowed to give notice of a new thread before the holiday hiatus ruling came down. Oh, wells...

Has any of this been debunked, in whole or in part? If not, the word used in the other thread from which I migrated, which starts with a 'c' has an 'eal' in the middle and concludes with 't. is simply the only accurate term I can think to use. Okay, I didn't use it by I will claim it for these purposes. Seems to moi it doesn't fit the definition of an oversight, an inaccessible database , an oopsie, an innocent mistake or simple conformance to the "standards of the day." Well, I might be missing something. Slight might. I have emphasized a few important pieces of the concealment puzzle. 

A Boy Scout publication put out in 1981 did discuss males infiltrating troops for sex—but focused on children as the perpetrators. The Scoutmaster Handbook, after discussing the problem of sexual experimentation among boys, said, "It is important to distinguish between youthful acts of innocence, and the practices of a homosexual who may be using his Scouting association to make contacts." The Boy Scouts of America saw a need to warn about 12-year-olds joining troops to have sex with 12-year olds but saw no need to issue the same warning about men. 

In part, BSA's paralysis on this issue reflected society's ignorance of what to do about abuse. However, few Americans had the collection of reports on pedophiles that the BSA had in its file cabinets. Although Anglim says that "almost all we knew about this problem was what we read in the papers, he could have learned much more if he'd read the files he was stamping. Anglim's stamp is on the cover sheet of virtually every Confidential File from 1975 through the 1980s, including several hundred files on child molesters.

By dealing with these cases as a series of unrelated events rather than as a pattern, the Boy Scouts of America was behaving just like Carl: minimizing, rationalizing, assuring itself it had no problem. "The Scouts believed their own image. They believed their own publicity," says Mike Rothschild, a California attorney who represented an abused Scout. No one, therefore, reported the cases to the BSA's health and safety committee, which routinely got reports on injuries and deaths at Scout functions. When Scouts got hurt or killed while boating, the committee developed rules to make boating safer. 

During America's Bicentennial celebrations, the committee studied whether the gunpowder used by troops in some ceremonial muskets was dangerous. But Dr. Walter Menninger, a psychiatrist who headed the Menninger Foundation in Kansas and who chaired the committee, says he did not believe sex abuse was a problem in Scouting because no one had informed him of any cases. Thus uninformed, Menninger sat in a 1987 deposition for lawsuit filed by an abused Scout and declared, "There is a greater threat to Scouts of drowning and loss of life from accidents than there is from sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster."

In fact, BSA reports show that sex abuse is more common in Scouting than deaths or serious injuries. From 1971 through 1990, an average of 13 Scouts died during Scout activities each year, and 30 suffered serious injuries, defined by the Scouts as life-threatening or requiring hospitalization of at least 24 hours. For each of those years, however, the BSA banned an average of 67 adults suspected of abusing Scouts. The number of their victims is higher although there is no exact figure. Even without knowing this, Menninger's committee tried to grapple with sex abuse [and that's commendable, but done in a relative vacuum]. Committee members wanted to educate Scouts about abuse or teach leaders how to respond when a boy said he'd been abused. Here they ran into a roadblock: religion. Religion is a cornerstone of Scouting…

Scout's Honor, Patrick Boyle

7 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So many things that I would like to say but the moderators do not allow conversations about exorbitant attorney fees.

This appears to a non-numbers guy like the bill has been on the bar for a long time and the tab is being called, no? I was more so referring to what seem to be lingering outstanding invoices. 

17 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Hopefully we hear soon. BSA is down to $38.6M of unrestricted cash in May down from $45.6M in April. 

Ack. This doesn't read or sit well. The Stang to JLSS: "Where's my money, honey?"  

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6a2cd45d-dcbb-4ee1-b752-7b7de821412f_10013.pdf

9 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Looks like it's time for me to go cross another day off on the calendar.  🙂

I've crossed off the entire month of July (with a pencil). Expectation management of a manic-depressive. 

56 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Hopefully we hear soon. BSA is down to $38.6M of unrestricted cash in May down from $45.6M in April.   

At what point do the lifeguards need to spring into action?

This is very interesting. I reckon it will be getting some serious press and, in my view, could be a game changer in terms of states opening look-back windows.  

Federal investigators have reportedly launched an expansive investigation into allegations of sex abuse within the Roman Catholic Church in New Orleans going back decades.  The probe reportedly focuses on whether priests traveled with children across state lines in order to assault them.

According to an Associated Press report published Wednesday, more than a dozen victims of alleged abuse have been interviewed this year in connection with the investigation. Some of the cases involve abuse that allegedly took place during trips to Mississippi, Texas, and Florida.

One victim, a former altar boy who was not named in accordance with AP policy not to identify people who say they have been sexually abused, said that he was taken on trips to Colorado and Florida and was abused starting in the 1970s when he was in the fifth grade.

https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-clergy-sex-abuse-fbi-investigation-0d0ee865d27508b7848909d8e82e87fb

“This is actually a big deal, and it should be heartening to victims,” said Marci Hamilton, a University of Pennsylvania professor and chief executive of Child USA, a think tank focused on preventing child abuse. “The FBI has rarely become involved in the clergy sex abuse scandals. They’ve dragged their feet around the country with respect to the Catholic Church.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fbi-investigating-decades-of-alleged-sex-abuse-in-new-orleans-catholic-church-report/

8 minutes ago, JBWest said:

Apparently there are two more films in the works, one from Netflix and one from the owner of Starz. 

And a limited docuseries from WintersRock/Lionsgate titled, Be Prepared. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Thank you for another perspective.

You're welcome and I appreciate that. 

Most recent request for compensation from The Stang's firm. It's an "interim period" going back to January. Don't ask me. Anyway, you're welcome to read through and report fully on this filing. On my end, I simply had to relay one of the best lines I've read in a legal document in a good minute. Not being a bookkeeper, accountant, tax attorney or $250 per hour fee application preparer, I'm not familiar with this term of art. I find it hilarious, however. (Please allow us this moment of comic relief, weak though my efforts may be.)

PSZ&J is particularly sensitive to issues of “lumping.”

Say wha? Maybe they're cookin' up something? Surely not the books (and I mean that.) Oo! Pancakes? Biscuits? Gravy? Okay. Now I'm hungry. Back in a bit... 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d9b3db8f-05d1-4ff8-8f76-9c9f76e452b4_9955.pdf

7 hours ago, skeptic said:

IF BSA is held to the grindstone when it has verifiably some the safest camps around due to their program requirements and training, and it is still the target of public disdain and legal attacks, even though they are safer, then what is wrong with this picture.

There is one thing "wrong," but not with the "picture," rather the photographer. He's focusing on the wrong subject. The other camps are not the assignment and are out of the frame. BSA is in the frame, like it, love it, hate it, don't give a rip, and so forth and so on. Our legal system works on multiple principles, one of which is commonly known as "test case" litigation. A court is presented with a fact pattern that is one of many and the attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) sometimes select "low hanging fruit" upon which to build both their case and those of future plaintiffs. (I say sometimes because many test cases, just like in the CSA context, are brought because they are righteous actions, NOT because a victim or attorney is trying to get rich or bring down the Man.) Once established, the test case theories of liability can then be rolled out and superimposed on other closely related fact patterns of negligence, etc. Think stare decisis and case law precedent.  The RCC and BSA CSA cases were test cases for historical institutional liability. BSA is turning out to be a serious test case for complex bankruptcy releases. Anywho, the legally established negligence of BSA and other entities is being used as an example and to further evolve precedent. As I said many time back in the day, BSA painted the target on its own back. No one is to blame for that. If there were "no there there," we would not be sitting here chewing our nails waiting for JLSS to get back from the shore. Jk. I know you hate it, but there are other countries with different systems of jurisprudence that allow applications for residence, he said with a smirk. That is my left-handed way to say we have the best system going, so we deal with it, warts and all. 

FYI, this is the reply I received after a direct inquiry:

My hope was the lawyers would release the documents. They have not yet. Please see below.

Resources to Learn

•             GCUMM is actively engaged in supporting Scouting still

•             There is a resource page for questions

•             More resources are coming

The GCUMM has been an active voice in the last two plus years of activity with the Boy Scouts of America. The voice of ministry and advocacy for youth has been filled through a GCUMM staff member. We still support Scouting.

The GCUMM.org website has resources on the Scouting page. It also links to a key site that allows for the housing of information as it becomes available. The Annual Affiliation Agreement has not yet been posted. As soon as it is received, it will be. The new Facilities Use Agreement will also be posted there. (www.GCUMM.org/scouting) Just click the resources link in the text to see the latest available information and videos.

As disappointing as it is, the agreements have not been released. Giving answers to questions and helping with plans will be a challenge until the finalized agreements are released. We are here to help you the best we can. There are alternatives and ways to still be involved effectively...

If you only have 4 minutes go here directly: 

www.MethodistScouter.org/a-new-agreement/             

15 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

It was made pretty clear during the webinar last night that there will be no variations of the affiliation agreement from council to council or unit to unit.  As far as I understood what was presented the UMC local church and the unit can enter into this affiliation agreement with the local council taking ownership of the unit and it's assest or the unit can seek another charter organization and request a facilities use agreement.

A long tenured Scouter and UMC member invited me to watch. A question or statement was made about Units moving to an Elks Club or the like. Bishop Schol (member of the Ad Hoc Committee and UMC representative to mediation) gave a pained answer, expressing hope that congregations and units would not part ways and they would continue to "serve youth with Scouting ministries." Based on my tracking of the chat and Q&A, that's an empty hope, in terms of everyone taking this new path.

11 hours ago, PACAN said:

I have no say in the matter but it's unfortunate that the church didn't seem to have the scouts best interest in giving the BSA control over their parishioners sons/daughters scouting experience.

I certain get the risk/exposure motivation here, but I don't understand how affiliation will engender "connection" with the heartbeat of the unit. Is the congregation the primary pool for leaders from which the LC will "select and approve" unit leaders? Most people, especially volunteers, don't favor complexity. When it gets too hard to decipher, volunteerism declines. I'm ignorant, but my role as an objective ignoramus can be beneficial. 

11 hours ago, PACAN said:

If any move to BSA control, I hope they move over with minimal resources since LC will "take over their assets."

The question was asked in the Q&A about how this structure could be proposed without outlining the way in which assets are transferred, how they will be held (sequestered?), managed, requested and made available. It sounds nice to say, "It's fine, son. Your camping gear, bike, toys and piggy bank will no longer be in mom and dad's room, rather uncle Blinkie's garage. It'll be fine. They'll be there when you need them. Not to worry." What kind of transfer or deposit takes place without some framework guidelines, especially if there has been any history or mismanagement, misappropriation, commingling or confusion? That seems like a big "Whoops! Didn't think of dat!" Just my view. 

9 hours ago, yknot said:

One of the most interesting aspects of the discussion last night was a very brief mention by the insurance expert about the "hard" insurance market for organizations that are involved in or support youth activities. He pointed out that high risk activities with high loss exposure, like scouting, are facing rate increases and coverage reductions.

The insurance market has been hard for at least five years. It's not simply YSOs or high risk enterprises. Before he went to law school, my oldest son was in insurance. He managed a large farm and ranch book of business in TX. It was the same story. Same for healthcare. Those are the two I know pretty well, but my wife's work touches all aspects of coverage and I've heard her talk about the "hard market" for a good five years, for sure. Just a footnote.

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Thanks for the share.

Is this for me? 😮 I'm blushing. Also, I welcome your thoughts on my post above. (@JoeBob's downvote points the way.)

10 minutes ago, yknot said:

I thought the point about Jaquiss was bizarre. Plenty of journalists, whistleblowers, producers cross back and forth over that divide. The viral documentary My Octopus Teacher did essentially the same.  It was just a less controversial subject. The point about lawyers having an economic stake in airing the abuse is also bizarre because... the Boy Scout representatives interviewed don't also have an economic stake in downplaying the abuse? 

Per usual, I don't disagree with you. I was drawing out commentary from the interested moviegoing public without commentary or witty banter. Thus, I found it "interesting," which term resides firmly in the vagary and opacity I dearly love. I am an objective party reporting as a neutral reporter.  

Non-caveat Caveat: I received no front row ticket to Tribecca, merchandise, remuneration, production credit, honorary degree from Columbia or signed autograph from Opie for this non-review of the review.

Interesting review that takes issue with some of the film's method, potentially narrow research and use of Nigel Jaquiss who, reportedly, is an interested party as a producer. The author says his concurrent role as the reporter and interviewer is a conflict. It I enjoyed hearing the perspective. 

‘Leave No Trace’ Film Review: Searing Doc on Boy Scouts Abuse Cuts Some Journalistic Corners

Martin Tsai | June 15, 2022 @ 12:45 PM

https://www.thewrap.com/leave-no-trace-film-review-boy-scouts-abuse-documentary-2022/

34 minutes ago, TheRealDK said:

Back to the cave for me....

Aha. I get it now. DK + that day will come = The Dark Knight Rises. It's all clear to me now. "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough...sometimes people need their faith rewarded." I love solving riddles and I nailed this one. Oops. Ought not say "riddles" in the context of this conversation.  

19 minutes ago, TheRealDK said:

Probably a good time for me to pop back up. 

Welcome back, Dr. Kennedy. Many thanks for your input. I look forward to your release from incarceration and the lifting of the gag order. 

19 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

In case you haven't taken a look, while a bit dated and not reflective of recent property sales, here's a link to the extensive Local Council financial analyses the TCC had its financial professionals BRG Group complete: https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis

They're educational.

Somewhat random, but related side note as we discuss assets and disposition in various scenarios. During the summer of 2020, the Middle TN Council was "caught redhanded" transferring all of their property and substantive assets to asset protection trusts. Yeah. Exactly. That's a property and tax attorney's way of saying, they tried a sleight of hand, backstage sneekeroo to put its assets beyond the reach of the court and eventual Survivor Settlement Trust. These actions, which were effectuated and available in the public records as deed transfers, were in contravention of the court order and a breach of their disclosure requirements. I know, right? "Trustworthy, loyal..obedient" and all that. I VERY highly doubt this was an isolated incident. The TCC immediately filed an adversarial proceeding to put a stop to it, resulting in a settlement to cease, desist and make provisions for the future treatment of those assets. Yes, there are two side to every balance sheet. Oops. Correction. Might be a third side hiding in the shadows. Just sayin...

TV interview with Irene Taylor, the director of the film. The genesis of the project is related to her being an Oregonian who watched their Supreme Court rule to admit the IV Files as evidence in the 2010 case of Lewis v BSA.

https://www.kltv.com/2022/06/10/boy-scouts-documentary-investigates-history-abuse-allegations/

1 hour ago, Tron said:

I am not doxing myself for your lack of understanding of the process. Everyone who hopes to get a payday out of this settlement had better pray tonight that BSA doesn't go into Chapter 7. 

Nice. I asked a question, however compound. Just trying to understand your expertise. I did see the career notation, but not specifically regarding non-profits in Chapter 11. Your aggressive and defensive responses don't help your cause/case, whatever that is beyond the aggression. Part of the repeated suggestion that you read the previous Chapter 11 threads and posts is to give a perspective on some of the reasoned analysis both by other experts and to understand the views and perspectives of those now posting on this topic. Okay. Fire away. I have my shields up and photon torpedoes at the ready.