ThenNow

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 t

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.

As I understand it, this is a typical structure and can be anticipated. A friend in the know refers to the tiers/phases as "off ramps" along the way. Here's $1000 with no scrutiny. Yes? Bye, bye. No, thanks? Howzabout $2500 after some low level scrutiny seems to validate your claim? And so on.

If we know where we lived, that is a point of reference. If we have any recollection of where we met, that is a reference point, even if not the full identification of the building or CO. If we know of anyone else involved in the program, that is a reference point. If we can describe the patch from our camp, that is a reference point. Are there any such threads to pull that will take us to more detail? These are the type of things I hope men with legitimate claims will try very hard to tease out and add to their POC.

I am not interested in denying any of my fellows a crack at whatever peanuts we're afforded, but I want to see at least some worn, crumbled and faded receipts, as well. I know many survivors from various age groups and abuse contexts. I don't know any who couldn't give you that information, in one form or another. Zero evidence or corroborating points of reference is not a good sign of viability, in MY opinion only. The TCC isn't begging claimants to file amendments with missing details for their good health and amusement.

Insurance rights won't be "clear" until eyeballed from the rearview. We'll see on the LCs. It has to have some clarity coming out of the mediation. I go back to the previously well made point that the BSA managed to tick off both the TCC and the Coalition in stereo. Now, they have to contend with them in lockstep, effectively a bulwark against shenanigans.

As for this dingy captain, if there is not a TCC statement in the packet, as BSA previously signaled by saying only supporting comments are allowed, that would pretty much ensure my "No" vote.

Yup.

This goes directly back to the "Kosnoff has no influence" quip. I believe the vote on any possible deal will turn on how it is presented to the claimants by the TCC, Coalition and AIS. Let's be honest, the Committee and the attorneys are the filters and the hands that guide, which is appropriate. There are only a few thousand boneheads like me paddling our wee dingy in open water. Btw, when I say "TCC" I mean the committee of men, not necessarily their counsel. They represent us and the attorneys advise them. I trust those 9 guys to assess, dissect, analyze and communicate their thinkin