ThenNow

As a retired attorney, this is a blast. Better than a high level ping pong match. Let me posit an idea that is in fact true across the practice of representing child sexual abuse victims. Many such good and moral attorneys are deeply and passionately involved in this case. You start out as a small practitioner and take on a case of child sexual abuse. It’s an awful story with a very broken family and utterly destroyed client. You slog through discovery, depositions, interrogatories, trail prep, witnesses...and you win a good award for your client. The case takes a toll on you and your family. You have recurrent nightmares. You begin to build a reputation and take on more child sexual abuse cases. More darkness and devastation. Black hole darkness. Massive devastation. More nightmares. Fast forward 20 years and you’ve repeated the representation scenario 100’s of times. Now, men start calling you and you notice a pattern. They were abused in the Boy Scouts of America. Next thing you know, this very organization has thousands and thousands of viable claims of child sexual abuse against them, regardless their shiny history or years of positive impact. Might you become a crusader? Might you be a white knight and not a vulture? Some of you really would do yourself a favor to face reality and stop acting like this is a John Grisham novel or Guy Ritchie movie. I am one victim/survivor. If I had represented 100 people like me my hackles would be so far up and my saber so sharp I would stop at nothing. This case is about boys being abused. And, math. Before you pounce, I do not condone claims mining or false or misleading advertising or machine signatures on Proofs of Claim or any of that other shenanigans. Think about one lawyer and how he or she would feel representing these men. Please. PS - As to the contingency fees when someone represents a large number of sexual abuse victims in a Chapter 11 like this, I take issue with an unlimited, uncapped fee.

Don’t be. They were. It took them years to figure it out.

Welcome and thanks very much for adding your voice. I’m here with you. Stay strong.

I’m not sure where you heard that. Certainly not from me. Some fractional measure of compensation is pretty much all I have left to hope for out of the disaster this created for my family and me.

Quite a powerful letter.

Um, I responded to and echoed the post (below) by yknot. You just don’t like what I have to say and represent, leading you to conclude and regurgitate your mantra that I shouldn’t be “here,” whether overtly or by inference. Have at it. This was not as attacking as the past, but still not accurately reflecting my post and context. Many things I say are meant to illustrate the survivor experience and perspective. It was not aggressive, tearing down the BSA or out of bounds. Maybe harkening to a previous post, but I didn’t initiate the boundary. “A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means. If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed.”

I really respect you and always appreciate your posts, even about cooking with or without tinfoil. But, this “drop in the bucket” and “not even a blip” language is simply offensive and denies that this is a discussion about the BSA and its Chapter driven by sexual abuse in Scouting. Let’s start another cultural, historic, contextual and academic discussion, maybe?

So, I had two brothers who wanted to join Scouting when I just joined and 10 who I prohibited from joining while simultaneously deciding I couldn’t tell my dad about the abuse. Got it. Glad you have so much time on your hands to pick apart my posts and the points I’m making, even if not wholly accurately. Be a bit more logical and consider all the components of my statements, please. I have a lot of you to defend myself against. It gets wearying. Look all the way back, as well. On second thought, don’t. I’m tired of it.

And, speculating about avoidance of abuse through Scouting is not statistically established and, again, does not address the bankruptcy.

Answers like this are academically sound, but morally disingenuous and ultimately avoid the issue. One to one, less Scouting is equally as impactful and repugnant as being repeatedly raped by your Scoutmaster resulting in millions of dollars in life wreckage, suicidality, self harm, CPTSD, depression, failed marriages and etc. Got it.

This has been addressed a number of times by me and others, but I understand and respect that folks come on the forum at various stages of the discussion. Do you really mean to say “THE abuse” is being passed forward in the form of depriving Scouts of the program? I don’t think Scouting is going away in its entirety, but there will undoubtedly be reductions. Whichever it is, I invite you to create a list of deprivations resulting from fewer camps or HAB’s or more restrictive YPT and compare them with 50 years of wreckage from repeated sexual abuse by an adult Scout leader while a Boy Scout. Then, multiply the latter list by 84,000 lives. If you really believe this is an apples to apples equation of “abuse,” I can’t help you understand or further answer this question.

Touché, sir. Touché.

Years later and I was nearly adult by then. They’re much younger than I am. I would be surprised if I didn’t point that out when I shared this history back when. Are you just trying to poke holes in my logic, catch me in a lie or point out what you believe are inconsistencies? What are you getting at? I feel like part of what some - not necessarily you - are doing is trying to trip me up. I was always fairly decent at obstacle courses and speed jump rope so I’m happy to play.

I’ve addressed this to the point my face is blue. (Ask one of the other old guys what that means.)

My dad is long dead, so anyone who punches anyone or anything will beat him to it. Never once said I did or do. Then, these were my friends and I wanted badly to be a Scout and earn Eagle. I couldn’t think past that or contemplate that our SM would end up abusing many boys after me. That may have been the single thing that could’ve made me act, but I was after all 11. In fact, I buried the thought after it once appeared and it stayed that way for some 30 odd years.

This may be a ‘dead’ topic with so much having happened since it was being actively discussed, but I’ve been thinking a lot about it since these posts. As someone who was abused, and reacted with “Mute incomprehension and confusion...followed by fear, shame, terror, horror,” maybe I can offer some then/now perspective. When I consider how I/we viewed adults, particularly men, in the early and mid-1970’s and how young people view and behave toward adults now it is WILDLY different. The level of contempt and disrespect today is extraordinary to the point of being staggering. I realize some of it is deserved in isolated cases, by not with the utter defiance and disdain portrayed in pop culture and percolated down to everyday life. Whether my “anointed” word was rejected or not, I/we revered our Scouting leaders and most men in general. I don’t think I was alone in that. As boys, we wanted to be men and were actively looking for someone to emulate. I know that’s true today, but not coupled with the level of respect, deference and benefit of the doubt we invested then. My opinion of course. When we latched on to someone, silently confident they could be that mentor, then had that trust violated in the most perverse way, it created such conflict you will never understand it unless/until you experience it. Hopefully never. As I’ve said before, the one thought that came into my 11 year old mind when I only ONCE considered telling my dad was, “He’ll kill him (my SM).” That would have been disaster for our family. Dad had three jobs and 6 kids. My mom was a homemaker taking care of us, her young brother in law, living with my grandfather and caring for her ill mother in law. The death of our Troop also crossed my mind and I didn’t want that either. Case closed. PS - I was no Santa Klaus believer either before or after that violation.

Per the Reddit post, this is one of the reasons I favor ‘testing’ a sampling of the claims filed and methods used by the Coalition, et al., through early discovery. Their desire to control the process was clear, which motive doesn’t in any way appear pure. I fear for the survivor claimants overall, if the TCC isn’t allowed the primary role. Just looking at the timing of dumped claims, the thousands of attorney and machine signatures and clearly manipulative advertising leads me to believe some digging is critical. The Coalition & Company may not have a legitimate majority. It is disconcerting.

As I said previously, what confidence and relative respect I had for BSA National is dwindling. Back room deals like this reek of self-dealing and self-preservation. I continue to see near singular focus on one prong of the two Chapter 11 goals, and not “equitably compensating all abuse victims.” As someone who’s been both and attorney and executive in for profits and NGO’s, I know the proverbial back room is part and parcel of business. However, this is not your run of the mill merger/acquisition or squabble over assets. It’s sexual abuse of tens of thousands of boys in the Boy Scouts of America. I feel the same way about telling the judge you’ll file a new Plan on a Monday and dropping it Thursday, with no indication of its contents nor collaboration with the official representatives of the claimants who put you into bankruptcy. It looks terrible. Feels worse. I can’t wait!

FYI. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=aszhn8is83efdt0&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Hm. The TCC must be doing something right. As I recounted to a friend per an open air preacher I knew, “Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and you’ll know which one you hit.” The impacted are barking. Loudly.

Unfortunately, my dad did pretty much the opposite and I'm thinking I didn't do a very good job with our boys, either. There was just so very much self-condemnation, compensating performance-orientation and identity confusion rampaging through me.

Ok.

I'm not poking a finger in anyone's eye, but it is good to remember that the abuse victims we are talking about ALL were boys and Boy Scouts "investing" into the program, to one degree or another. They missed out on much of the good of Scouting for no fault of their own. They raised money, paid dues, attended various functions to promote and support the BSA, put on their uniform, learned knots and lashing and rowing and...all manner of things intended to make them a better, more equipped man. Direct victims. Not indirect or future victims. There's another group of child victims not often talked about. They don't have a Claimant or Ad Hoc Committee. They have no lawyers nor, for the most part parents who are defending them and arguing their case. I'm talking about the boys/kids who didn't get to see the good of Scouting because their dad was was sexually abused as a Scout. Many of their dads couldn't bear the idea of trusting a child to that organization. "Over my dead body," one dad thought (who happens to be me). Have you thought about those kids? Talk about innocent. Talk about did nothing wrong to "deserve this," yet paid a double price. It's typically not a pretty sight for a child to grow up with a dad in the throes of major PTSD, depression, addiction, suicidality, self-harm, sexual acting out, trouble with authority, hyper-vigilance, employment troubles, martial strife, anger, and so forth and so on. For many of those kids, a solid Scout Troop would have been a welcome haven. Alas, it wasn't to be.

I was sincerely asking him to whom he was referring there. I wasn't being snarky. Was it all people in society, as in the general consensus, or here or within the inner world of this case or what? If he only meant the majority on the forum, I get it. He seemed to be implying the reference was to the public at large. Sorry if I didn't get it. Did he answer?

"Almost," I said. Taking the 100+/- year history and 85,000ish claims in this bankruptcy alone, not to mention all those not filed and the numbers of repeat and varied instances of abuse against one Scout (who comprises only one claim among them). I say with confidence almost 1000 and likely more. Take into consideration the repeat abuse, which I think must be considered, as it will be by the Settlement Trustee, and my point is made. We're not talking about any other organization. I know this is all about history, societal context and relative degrees of culpability for many of you, but this discussion is about the BSA Chapter 11. Right. Wrong. Indifferent. Hate me or hate me or don't. I ain't your problem.