ThenNow

Yeah. Uh, huh. Cry me a river. "Living hell" is relative, I suppose, but puh-lease. Thanks, again, for diminishing the ongoing horrors of BSA rape victims. It's a bright, shiny, beautiful thing that you can so flippantly put your "pain" on equal footing. You really have no bloody idea what in the world you are doing or talking about. Can you look in the mirror and tell yourself you feel like we do with a straight face and without shame or remorse? Get a grip. Unbelievable.

You're not alone, my friend. This has been and continues to be absolutely brutal for many, many of us abuse survivor claimants. Absolutely and unequivocally. I don't know how much you know about PTSD/CPTSD, triggering events, flashbacks, dissociation, mania, hypo-mania, depression, suicidality, self injury, eating disorders and all the other co-morbidities that track with PTSD/CPTSD, but I can tell you from daily personal experience, the has been hell.

Ain't one. You didn't read or follow what I wrote. We can drop it. The iron's done white hot and the mark is in place. Reality bites, but there it is. I didn't wield the iron nor did I tear open the uniform to reveal the chest on which it was placed. That was self-inflicted. I understand your defense, but it simply denies what's right here before us on the table in black, white and dollar signs. I do not like broad brushes or guilt by association myself, but this is not morality play or an ethics exam at this point. It is 84,000 sexual abuse claims against the BSA, the application of accounting after asset and claims valuations all in the full view of the laws of liability based on negligence, in particular.

Okay. Now it's "right education." Got it. Say wha? Did you read that the BSA Executive who handled that case "on the ground" was aware of the drinking and pornography in my Unit? Huh. "100% focused on doing the right thing by the youth"? Okie dokie. Whatever. You and I are "never the twain shall meet" on this score...

Is this so? If so, what exactly is the application to pre-1979 cases outside of NY/NJ? I've not heard this before.

If I misspoke, apologies. Again, not my bailiwick. I should qualify things with a near ignorance footnote or refer people to CS or MyMVA. Regardless, how many LC's? Rounded to 260? CO's that filed? Anywhere near 55,000 or 84,000 total claimants? What percentage...? If they vote, is the number anywhere near relevant?

I appreciate both of you letting me know that. Duly noted. Regardless, as I said -- once buried in the haystack rant and the other more clearly stated -- my issue is not with that case, but what I learned about my case from it.

Yes. Yes. No. Can't answer etceteras. Yes, but "Scouting" was still in contact with the parents. Feel free to wager. You don't think there's a very real possibility they were asked to stand down and let the BSA deal with it? Really? It was taken seriously if there was an incident report and a jacket created. I can check the law at the time, but I have no idea why you would assume the "right laws" were not in place. Yes, as I said, I'm sure the family didn't want ABMSL ("ABUSED BY MY SCOUT LEADER") tattooed on their 11 year old's forehead. I get it 100% and said so. My dad would've killed him and ended it...and gone to prison destroying our family. I feel you keep dumping off the BSA liability and that's fine. Have at in a buy a donut, coffee and hold a klatch to chew on it. Back to the sociological, cultural and philosophical discussion, which I'm happy to have.

Not sure what you mean. LC's aren't voting on the Plan or any Plan. Not sure I know what you mean here either. The BSA has committed to "equitably compensate ALL survivors of abuse" in Scouting. That's the deal. That's why we're here, open state or no. They invited this and will not have an approved plan without the "closed state" claimants. They invited us, we filed and we are now voting creditor/claimants. So, yes. We retain our right to vote. That time-bar isn't going down as you suggest AT THE LEAST as it related to the BSA portion of the "equitable compensation." The TCC is committed to ensuring ALL victims are compensated. ALL. A. L. L.

By no means my area of the law, but I think they pretty much crashed dad's Caddy without a shoulder restraint or seatbelt. It's totaled. Now we're in the market for a tank they can't wreck. Enter the TCC. No way the BSA SHOULD "remain" anywhere but in the backseat (or in the trunk), at this point. I don't think they should get another at bat. This is ridic.

Is this paywalled or locked for anyone? Sent to my family and they can’t get in.

Now I understand. I was confused as well. And you were 1000% justified in that state of confusion. I don't know how I got where I went, other than to say I was a bit crazed, dazed and gravely disappointed. I'll blame that.

Not my point, which is totally my fault. Got lost in the forest. This is research for my case, since I am my own attorney. That case still bothers me, regardless, but didn't set out to try a dissection. Just wound up there. Poor frog. Never was good at that. Anyway...here's the punchline that was very buried in my ranting and rambling. This is my concern and, "Oh, YIKES!" moment. My DE (turned SE) was intimately involved in reporting and managing the other case. It happened one year after the first time I was abused. It put him on notice of this type of grooming (porn, booze, sexual suggestion/sexualizing, invitations to have sex, enticements, etc.) as part of a pattern of abuse. At the same time, he was a close compadre of my abuser/SM, came around the Unit, drank beers, was aware of porn passing...the very same stuff he knew were precursors to sexual abuse. Dat is what's so troubling and relevant to me. I'll stop so the bankruptcy matters at hand can be discussed. No need for anyone to reply unless you want to do so. Feel free, though...

I can see that. Still troubles me. Sounds like he never existed and the incident certainly didn't make the papers or hit the grapevine. I would've known about it. The place was full of my family from top to bottom and all new I was in Scouts. In part, that's my problem. Delete, redact, erase, cross out, white out, take off the rolls...whatever. It and he were gone from view and out of sight for those who should've been made aware to beware. I understand why parents didn't pursue, but what a mess, regardless.

Child Sexual Abuse. Detailed the incident. I don't know that the particulars are relevant or is that not what you're asking? I see no indication that there was a confrontation of any kind. Not noted in the police report, filed by the parents with a statement from the Scout. I'm now jaded by the "deletion" and wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a backdated resignation. I hear your point and it's valid. Neither of us know for sure. The SE is alive and well and living large. Maybe I'll call him. Not in the BSA, but a business man. The "deletion"? If that's what you mean, yes. It made me physically and emotionally sick. No indication, other than the parents wanted their son to continue in Scouts, so long as they were assured the abuser was removed. People have to press charges. In my case, I found victims of my abuser who could've pursued action against him but couldn't come forward at that point. They were in their 30's and not prepared to face it, especially in their home town. If no one testifies, what do the police and DA have?

No incident report/awareness of the abuse is acknowledged by the BSA or by the police report until the second week of the month. His resignation was dated the first week of the month. Appears, to me, as a backdate. Further, from one of the Regional Executives: "...and the attached letter we received from you dated _____ 11th, concerning ___________. We have placed this information in our file and have taken steps to see that his name is deleted from our records as Institutional Representative of Troop __." "Deleted" not noted as resigned.

Sorry. Yeah. I'm going back into it the file. Yes, I may have been premature. Part of what set me off is the DE who became SE, and who I knew well and was around our Unit A LOT, was at the center of this. So, the SE I knew, who lived in my town knew this was going on in my LC, in my District and in my town. The pattern of this incident is very familiar to what happened to me and others in the Unit and he was on notice to be aware of this pattern. He had to have been complicit. It's a bit much for me to process at the moment. Again, apologies...

I doubt anyone but the victims here can relate to what I'm feeling after reading and digesting that file, but I'm shellshocked. The whole ugly picture just hit home in pile driver fashion. This may well force a tectonic shift in my thinking, approach and emotional posture to this whole matter. Vaporizing the incident with date manipulation is pernicious. You simply cannot say an organization, "did the best it could under the circumstances and according to the mores and standards of the day" after reading what I did. I don't care if it was 1973. I cross-referenced and checked the dates 5 times because I couldn't believe it. Can anyone defend that as scout-like or Christian, given the involvement of a priest?

Oh. Thanks. I'm a bit wild-eyed at this discovery. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but the date on that letter says to me, "we vanished it...didn't happen." The parents didn't press charges, but insisted he be removed. I wonder if that's typical and if they were "asked" to say that to law enforcement. Maybe I don't need to wonder.

For what this is worth, I've been digging around in the IVF and just discovered and thoroughly read an abuse case in my District. It happened during the same period of my abuse, just one year from the first incident. To the best of my recollection and research, all the key BSA professionals involved in the case were the same for the majority of my abuse duration, 1972-1978/9. The DE became the SE the year after my first incident, smack in the middle of the one I found. I knew him well. As to the CSA incident reporting, the correspondence between the parents, law enforcement and BSA is pretty stunning. Regional leaders of various sorts and Council President are in there. The SM and COR are all copied on the eventual resignation letter, witnessed by two others. The resignation stated for "personal reasons." He also turned over his "Institutional Representative" card, whatever that is. Here's the kicker that has me flushed and pacing around. The resignation letter? Dated BEFORE every other piece of correspondence in the chain, INCLUDING the police incident report. What the hell does that say? I might break my hand on something here in a quick minute...

On average, what do you guys estimate is the average weekly time commitment for a Scout and, separately, a volunteer? I realize the outer will be wildly variable, likely more so for volunteers, but a guesstimated average. For me, this is a critical part of any equation considering involvement and long term commitment to any youth activity. Curious. I know what mine was, but that was decades ago and irrelevant...before the age of the microchip, resume building from birth and the panoply of menu options.

Thank you for your service, past and ongoing, and for the example you are setting for your family and others in all respects. Well done, you!

Not the case at all. I was just asking and appreciate all the perspectives. As to "this is not the military," my SM called us the Green Berets of Scouting. He would measure the placement of patches on our uniforms and sashes, and point out poor stitching.

The provisions you noted seem rather squishy. Enough to bring the CO into the liability tent, but by no means enough to allow the insurers to wash their hands of policy obligation or, of course, give the BSA wiggle room against their own negligence. I'm just trying to cipher out this relatively new terrain (for me). Didn't realize the CO is charged with "conducting" the train. Huh. Quite a layer cake of liability. Plenty of pieces to go around, me thinks. The Chartered Organization agrees to: … • Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies. • Assure that adults selected as unit leaders are suitable by, at a minimum, having the appropriate leaders of the Chartered Organization review and sign each application

"Understanding," as conditions of the policies or by implication? Wouldn't that be a policy by policy and heavily fact-based assessment? I get the general argument, but I still don't buy any blanket defense of coverage denial. They continued to gladly accept premiums-o-plenty far, wide and in the middle of the country. "Cha-Ching! Cha-Ching!"