ThenNow

I'm sorry, but those analogies do not fly in this context. Did these guys really have to be "determined," at least prior to when YPT began to more effectively implemented, as in not too long ago? No argument that they did can be made with a straight face. The yarn about the bad guys can always find the secret door and slip in the back way is simply nonsense here. The front door was unlocked, open and had a sign out front. Yes, Scouting was attractive to boys and families for it's adventure, but that doesn't mean it was wise to put boys in the woods and homes and private places with men like they/we did. And, it's not like the hatches were battened once the breaking and entering was a cognizable and recorded pattern. Were they? How long did it take? Thank you. Sincerely. Me too. One question: Did lawyers smelling money and people with cancer precipitate the inquiry and lawsuits against Big Tobacco or any of the other contexts where a product was defective and the manufacturer blew the chance to disclose, while continuing to market their product? I don't think you see this clearly at all. I don't say things like "rape culture" or "the largest pedophile ring in history," but I do try to look at this objectively. The BSA produced this, plain and simple. But for the perpetuation of the context and opportunity for CSA and the negligence that allowed it to continue, the target wouldn't have been on BSA's back. They hung it there. As I've said before, lawyers aren't suing BSA and the related parties because they don't like the bowline knot or long shorts and funny socks or neckerchiefs or skill awards. (Ok. Somebody should've sued over skill awards. I had a recurrent fear of being pushed in the water while wearing that divers belt. [glug * glug] Glad they're gone!) Seriously. The abuse, the pattern, the lack of supervision...the failure to disclose and warn are the threads that wove this target.

I hear you, but maybe something else to consider. The files are evidence of a deeper, and I think insidious, motivation. The IVF existed for a long time before BSA was forced to produce them. And, as they admitted, represented nowhere near the number of IVs that would have been in the files had they not "purged" records. The existence of the IVF, the failure to proactively disclose them (and the incidents in real time) with the full knowledge of the historic pattern of abuse built the case for their own liability. In the moment, it may have seemed like a reasonable thing to do, but if you know your cig's are causing cancer and you don't disclose it, you're gonna be held to account. If you have an airbag that explodes and you don't recall it and warn people, you're gonna be held to account. Scouting was and is, in a very real sense, a product. It was being "sold" to an unsuspecting public with an inherent design defect. The context of sending boys into virtual seclusion with adult men in innumerable settings without stringent protective measures was a recipe for CSA disaster. There are no two ways about it and not a single way around it. They discovered it, they tracked it, they wrote it down, they stored records, they purged records, they settled lawsuits, they defended themselves at trial, they opposed Child Victims Acts with paid lobbyists and all the while chose not to warn the current and prospective Scouting public. That don't smell so good. It was self-serving and that's what precipitated and perpetuated this crisis.

I had a lingering ambivalence about pursuing my CO, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it if my future attorney deems it both appropriate and necessary. (At this point, that scenario is hypothetical.) I have two reasons. One, the thought of hurting the parish my mom still attends is unpleasant. And, two, the explanation you guys have given about the almost universal low expectation of CO involvement at the Unit-level. I get that doesn't include the LDS church. That ambivalence is now balanced by the idea shared that Scouting was used an integrated/integral part of a "packaged offering" by the parish. Benign neglect and ignorance are one thing. Utilizing the status as a Chartered Organization to expand the brand is another. Without active involvement, per the Agreement, they received a benefit and gave no consideration. That benefit was at my expense, since their consideration was supposed to be oversight and "management." In effect, they were promising to watch over ME, specifically, and abdicated their duty. They hung the BSA shingle and got the good PR, but didn't live up to their bargain. I think I get it. A sticky wicket.

Mine has more than 3x that amount in net assets and just a handful or so of claims that aren't time-barred. Overall, they have upwards of 200. I'm very curious to see how they participate in a global resolution or not, both from an academic and legal/risk management strategy standpoint and personally (of course). As has been discussed and debated, if litigated, those several claims could be disastrous for them depending on their insurance coverage.

If I had a role in my former diocese, I would have been on the phone with SEs and searching the Omni Agent site for the number of claims against the LCs included within my turf. That would provide some sense of the magnitude, especially in a highly Catholic-based CO region. Problem is, are they really paying attention to available sources of information and do they have any inkling of the potential poop storm rising that could motivate inquiry? Who’s providing them with info? Even assuming every diocese is truly as involved as has been said, what do they really know? I’m still a tad dubious. For example, I highly doubt the parishes who did and do sponsor troops have the details of what’s brewing. Am I totally missing something?

Trying to get my head around how anyone will wrangle that many COs at any macro level, when doing it with several hundred LCs has been the cat roping rodeo of the decade.

Ha. Looks like a did a fair amount of "realizing" this morning. Must of been the new brand of coffee. I'll drink a few additional cups tomorrow and see if I can ascend to epiphanies.

I realize this is not in the universe of the data set, but I'm curious if "we" will ever know how the claims break out all the way down to the Unit level. Note: I realize the BSA has proposed a multiplier be applied to claims where an abuser perpetrated against more than one Scout. That will at least signal some sense of a number to those of us who don't know how many he violated in our Unit. I know there have to be at least 6 in mine.

Thanks. When I brought up the Catholic churches waaay back when, someone was quick to say the case is on the radar of most Dioceses. Still not sure of that. Perhaps that poster knows a good bit more than my small morsels. I don't understand why RCC and the Methodist churches wouldn't have pressed harder to be at the table. Again, I don't know fer nuttin.

Would you explain what you mean by this, please? How was the agreement a promo tool, given that it was an agreement? I'm not poking, just asking to understand how it was perceived by all the parties. Yeah. To your point, if if the words on the page say something different than what you're being told or what someone "expects," better opt not to sign or modify the language. Famous last words: "It's not that important. Just sign it. We all know what we mean. No one cares about these anyway. They just go in drawer somewhere..."

Where was this said? If you can, I’d love a link or reference. Thank you.

As in, they “know” practically, but not technically? The way I read both excerpts from old Charter agreements and cases, the COs signed up to be the responsible party on the ground with each Unit. The breadth of their responsibilities seemed pretty inclusive. As I said, what was demonstrated in my Scouting experienced looked nothing like what I have seen described in the documents. Am I understanding you correctly?

As others have said and per previous LDS settlements, the church was much more involved than pretty much any and all other COs. In my experience, the parish priest stopped by Monday meetings very rarely. I recall he came to my Eagle Court of Honor, though. Regardless, the parish and school’s lack of engagement doesn’t excuse them, since they were supposed to be running the show!

Very, very good point. Same for me. The Troop was our “parish and school” Troop, integrally woven into the whole along w CCD, the Fall Festival, raffles and etc.

Let’s go with recompense.

I know. I just like my Scarface reference better with the word “sovereign” in it. It was not a substantive note. I can’t hear Al Pacino using that terrible accent being able to properly mangle the word “legislative.” Can you? Send me the audio clip, if you do it! 😉

Say hello to their little friend, Sovereign Immunity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/governmental_immunity

I'd like to say I'm glad to be neither.

Is that the computer's job or the lucky Trustee's?

Thanks. I was curious if you were at 30,000 feet or on the ground. On the ground, I studied how CSA is prosecuted. Given the high standard of proof, it can be a wonderful education in the real world rigor of successfully prosecuting a child sexual abuser. Of course, we're talking about a preponderance here, but having a better understanding of the every jot and tittle approach helped me. Conversely, I've studied how defense attorneys defend accused and certain sex offenders. That was eye opening to help understand what's required to lock down and plug the holes in a case.

Do you have something specific in mind from past cases or a link to the methods?

When I was talking about points of reference, I wasn't trying to be cute about where we live, what the patch looked like, who we remember being around at the time, the color of a car or driving by a park, and, etc. We are trying to map coordinates to "triangulate" and reveal the target location: data on the abuse. The abuser, the when, the what of the surroundings, the where and sometimes the precise details of the abuse. Some of those things should be discoverable/accessible to the memory to serve as clues. We build our case from the details we can provide. This, of course, includes fallout that can be evidence after the fact. From my reading, some of this "proof" is reverse engineering back to the scene of the crime.

Forgive me and respectfully, but you have noted this small sample at least three times that I recall. I'm not you, but I wouldn't be willing to draw conclusions based upon that admittedly small sampling. I'm curious how many are in that anecdotal study group, their ages now and at the time of abuse, gender and why you think it can inform a context of abuse not by someone related to the victim. Also, I did not use the word "strong" when suggesting there should be corroborating points of reference where there are currently none.

That was my thinking, but I heard a rumor that BSA is full court pressing for them to be included with the settlement and subject to the channeling injunction. Are you aware of any such abuse claim(s) submitted to the FCR for this specific evaluation?

Random question, but relevant to this discussion. Is anyone aware of BSA's position on administrative abuse claims, meaning they arose post-filing? Technically, they should not be subject to the stay or channeling injunction.