ThenNow

I'm no sooth sayer, but I could see precisely that scenario coming to pass. As always, who knows? As a claimant, it seems like the dangling carrot would be attractive and a flicker of hope. As a person suffering with CPTSD and other co-morbidities caused by the abuse, chasing that carrot for X years of battle with the insurance companies, compounded by who knows how many of the same while the legislature(s) grapple with victims' advocacy groups might be an emotional death knell. Possibly physical, as well.

Take a ticket and get in line.

Because it's particularly near and dear to my heart, er case, I am wondering how the 3 Shades of Gray councils are processing the demands set before them. When we were all young, spry and hopeful, we speculated about the, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances," responses that could be down the road. Well, here we be in the cul-de-sac. Is it just me or does it kinda feel a bit like the OK Coral? I'm trying to figure out who are the Brothers Earp, the legendary Doctor and the notorious Cowboys. I'm hiding under the front decking of the general store across the way. Wave one of those red bandanas the Cowboys wear to signal the all clear. Then we can saunter, gather, gander and perform a proper "crime scene" analysis.

Yeah, but no. Derogatory does not equal "a false statement purporting to be fact." Opinion doesn't rise to the level of defamatory. As to making their living/money by litigating, the last gnat "they" want to pursue is someone on this forum ranting and raving about how bad they are, in whatever respect. Even if it was a false statement, there has to be injury. I don't think anyone, especially a well-compensated personal injury attorney, is trolling this pond for a potential libel action. It may be well stocked, but not many keepers, me thinks. If they put themselves into the line of fire for criticism as to the BSA Chapter 11, they are fair game for examination and, potentially, derogative commentary.

Don’t feel compelled, but if you do, you’ll be forced to edit your comment that nothing you’ve read qualifies as ranting.

That is a knife twister of a thought. Ack! And, double Ack!

Legitimate "grousing" confirmed. Author's Note: The use of a term that also refers to a bird that flies loudly into your face when you flush it and subsequently make a feeble effort to get a bead on it is intended to be taken in the best possible way. It does not imply whining, rather intelligent objections based on analysis and personal experience.

Has anyone done a thorough review of the LCs (or BSA overall) on the various NGO/NPO watchdog sites to see how they rate? I just did a very quick look on Charity Navigator, picking LCs by random. There is a common denominator: lower ratings on "Accountability and Transparency." Each one was marked down for a lack of available Donor Privacy Policy, Audited Financials and Form 990s. I don't know about any of this, since I didn't bother to dig further. The same could be done on Charity Watch, Guide Star and BBB Wise Giving Alliance. All that aside, I've heard many here grouse about the very issue of juicy cuts and wine on the table and crumbs and scraps for foot soldiers and their critical field kits.

Thank you so much for posting this. Truly. Excellent interview. She has my vote to be the overseer of the new YPT!!!!!!!!

This is why I posted the excerpt from Scout’s Honor when we were discussing fraudulent concealment and AG investigations. I think the case against BSA is much stronger than diocese by diocese. Much. It appears so to me, anyway. Who were the National decision-makers during that Menninger Committee period and before? They clearly decided to withhold the data even from their own safety studies, much less the Scouting community and public. That is some gag-worthy smelly cheese in my book. If it happened then, into the 80’s, what went down prior?

C’mon now guys. Don’t make fun of me. Mama needs a new pair of shoes (and a yacht and an island and a fleet of cars, servants, penthouses in all cosmopolitan centers and…a new printer and technology consultant for her hubby).

Yup. That is what I've been told, as well. But, that is not to be taken as an agreement that the numbers given by the Ad Hoc Committee or BSA accurately reflect what the TCC discovered through the work of BRG. That's the basis for my "Where's the beef?" beef.

I hear otherwise. Maybe time will tell. Or not. "For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed," just maybe not on this side of the dirt nap.

Grazie Signore!

This, in a very hard, impossible to crack nutshell, is what (I think) most of us unwashed and lowly thought we had signed on to witness. I sure didn’t expect the Bass-O-Matic I find myself stuck in, waiting for the sketch to end with uproarious applause and a break to a word from our sponsors. I hope it’s not the Ginsu knife people. Out of the Bass-O and onto the chopping block with Julia Child...

Available on the proletariat side of the paywall?

I am sorry for what your council will be facing, having interfaced with you here. You’ve been supportive of me and victims, generally, at many turns. An NDA with National serves to reinforce one side of this discussion. Self imposed failure/unwillingness to disclose. I believe the point is, LCs are not compelled under the court’s watchful eye to maintain confidentiality. They are non-parties. So, I ask again, why are they being withheld from you folks, victims and the public if all is well with the numbers? The fact that BSA is imposing this gag order is worse than if Lcs were under court edict. It simply compounds the perception that there is something (more) to hide that may be damaging to the cause. That does not sit well with me as I’m sure it does not with others. I’m going to ask my reporter friends about it. EDIT/ADD: I’ve been on a number of non-profit boards and was and Exec Director of one. Granted, none of them faced anything like BSA has on its hands. Still, if there were financial statements floating about challenging our public representation of our financial condition (and our integrity) and we refused to cough them up, it would be bad on multiple levels, including with major donors. BSA donors may be different, all part of a tightly circled wagon train. I don’t know. As an Exec Director, I would have been pleading with the Board to allow them to be released, unless there was something hinky in Moneytown. More of my pocket change for the street poet.

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

If it’s appropriate, what is your claim exposure? If you already said, my apologies.

So, if all is buttoned and zipped, let’s see the BRG Dashboards. Small ask if they are mirror images or mere inches apart.

I assume you’ve referenced the BSA balance sheets. So love to see a side-by-side with BRG’s findings.

Right. I, for one, didn’t say anything about prosecutions. My point is, an exhaustive (or thorough) investigation and a nice five pound report revealing criminal activity is potent in its own right. I have no delusions of mass arrests and public trials in the town square. I will be as content as I am able to learn what happened and let the chips ahoy fall where they may. That’s how the cookie crumbles...

The Michigan AG might be able to fill us in at some point, as may any other state AGs who board the train. Gonna be inerestin’.

For the record, I believe he apologized and gave context for his “fear,” based on personal experience that created deep regret and it sounded like sorrow: “Fair points brother. It’s premature. I speak from personal sad experience where I wasn’t up to it and I let people down that I cared for. It’simportant that a man know his limitations.”

Are they going to lock and key the transcripts in the vault?