ThenNow

When did I say that? I was repeatedly sexually abused by my SM. That's some personal not so kind business by virtue of it being the truth. What to do? There it is. Again, see my story for more. I've provided a ton more than personal information, if I do say so myself. Once again, I do. When defense is called for, it's called for. I'm not "just a messenger," didn't claim to be and I'm not setting myself up as the authority or end all be all. I've said that many times. Not true as to this forum anyway. Many have not whined. Many don't "speak," rather read and contemplate. Many who whine don't "admit it" or view it as such. Whining is not the same as speaking your mind from your experience or simply telling the truth. The truth can be pretty offensive. It is also understandable why some choose to deflect by calling it something else. There are a few fellas on here who make my assaults on the castle look like a front line comprised of potato guns, slingshots, pea shooters and spitballs. Hm. I've seen some fairly off the Scouting path commentary, not by me and not followed by a Scout-like admission of too much whine and stinky cheese. What isn't Scout-like in what I'm posting? Telling the truth and not "admitting" it's "whining"? Calling bs is not allowed? Speaking for myself as one abused in Scouting and saying what others say here and elsewhere? I'm going to stop answering this now and follow what the guys are saying about percentages and all that fun, productive bankruptcy stuff. Thanks for the repartee.

We're talking about sexual abuse, not monkey bridge height restrictions or the dreaded and verboten dodge ball. This was in quotes and pretty clearly meant to magnify a point. As per your fellows, 20% of the parents help. A few wander around and watch, then leave. A goodly number drop and run. This is what I was told. Also, by the by, that's not even what I actually said. This is: "It's all good. We got this. You can trust us 100%!" It was about the perception of parents. Not involvement. So, by implication, parents are involving their kids and thinking, "Hm. Crap. My kid might be abused while they go out in the woods. Hm. 20% chance? 2%. It's fine. We'll see what happens." And, the parents and public perceive it as such? Does the BSA waving the YPT Is the Platinum Standard banner far and wide indicate anything to the contrary? Maybe. Just maybe. Ok. It does. And, we're talking about sexual abuse, thus I mention YPT, not whittling. What? Are you kidding me? I don't know of another organization other than the Youth Group at the local Holiness Church (casting NO aspersions) set forth as more "clean and wholesome." Call me a "complete idiot." Oh. You already did. Never mind... Anoint effectively means to, "set apart to fulfill a calling." If my Scoutmaster and Executive weren't set apart among the others and seen as such by parents, volunteers and Scouts then I'm 6'6" and play for the Chiefs. Fair enough. Delete that point.

Ha. Refer to the posts by others, please. This is starting to get humorous. I'm making a tick chart of all the times I get blasted or asked to leave, in multiple ways. Eagle1993 Senior Member Moderators 767 1209 posts Popular Post Posted Thursday at 02:14 PM On 4/8/2021 at 10:39 AM, Eagledad said: I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message. The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that it does seem that he cares about the BSA and sees the value of the program. He has mentioned how impressed he is by what he sees from many of the comments .... volunteers who spend much if not most of their free time working to provide children an experience that is unique and provides life long value. That said, he was sexually abused in the worst way by his Scoutmaster. No one within the BSA prevented it or took action (as far as he can tell). I think its good for us to hear from victims that don't simply say lets eliminate the BSA. It doesn't mean you or anyone has to agree with everything or anything said, but it's not bad to hear the message. Now there are victims out there that are simply saying end the BSA. I would agree with you that there is no point for them to join our forums. @ThenNow doesn't seem to be in that group. David CO Member Members 1582 1 2868 posts Posted April 8 Anyone who completed the Boy Scout program from 11 to 17 has a valid right to express his opinions on scouting.

This is what you said. You put me on a "side." You've not read my posts nor, I guess, seen those about me from others on your "side." Do I think perpetrators should've been or should be punished? Yup. Did I try? Yup. Do i think the BSA has vicarious liability? That is irrelevant. The law says they do. That's where we find ourselves. Both of us. All of us. I would go into the "what if" your son were me (albeit me 50 years ago), but that's probably not worth it. Most people tell me it would make no difference. I'm not saying you would, but still. I'm sorry, but you don't know my story, you don't know my history subsequent to my departure from Scouting, you don't know what I have or haven't invested in the program and you don't know how I ended up a claimant in this case. The vast majority of that has already been said here though it's definitely a spelunking expedition to find it all. I don't care to re-re-reiterate.

Please read my other posts before this blasting starts again and again and again. Or, ask a couple of the other guys. Several guys have backed me up, supported my position and presence here, and otherwise clarified how they view my input. I hope they don't mind, but among them are very recently DavidCo (even though we had a clash and I was reactive, for which I am sorry), qwazse (directed others to not ask me to go over details and read my posts...ty), CynicalScouter, 5thGenTexan, ynot (has echoed and strongly supported my posts), MisterH, MattR and most recently Eagle1993 with an eloquent note, if I do say so myself (and I just did...also, grateful). Like others who have similarly unleashed on me (personally), you really have no idea what I did or did not "invest into the program" and continue to assume. I would ask you not do that, please.

I’ll respond more thoroughly when back at my computer, but a few sentences for now. I was being intentionally hyperbolic to accentuate the complete absurdity and inapplicability of the initial analogy. The two are in different universes. A one-off at a private party does not equate to 85,000 sexually abused boys in a non-profit organization that BOLDLY holds itself out as Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind...A one-off does not equate to 1000’s of boys sexually abused within one Local Council. A one-off does not equate to 10+ boys sexually abused in one Troop. A one-off does not equate to one boy sexually abused 10’s of times in 7+ years. Back in a bit. Please read my other posts, if you’d like more on my situation and experience, since you’re using assumptions in your responsive posts. Thanks.

I’ve spoken a good bit about all of this, if you are interested in the details of “story” and thoughts on this. You can search my screen name and review posts. Sorry to deflect and opt out of a re-re-rehash. Who are “most people”?

Now, let's imagine you host a 100-year party for boys where you (your predecessors and successors) tell parents, "It's all good. We got this. You can trust us 100%!", recruit and anoint adult men to staff your party, ask for entry and recurrent fees, charge for various goods and services, advertise your party as the most pure and wholesome event going...and almost 1000 boys are sexually abused by your volunteer (and paid) staff each year over the course of your hosting services. Then what? At the party I attended for almost 8 years, it now looks like upwards of 10 kids were repeatedly sexually abused. That's 1+ kid per year. For one of them (me) it was multiple times per year. Realistically, that's the same story for most if not all of them. Now what? How do most people feel about that?

All I can point you to is the TCC's action on asset issues, where it is discussed and noted on the infamous "Exhibit B." A lack of documentation to support the BSA's assertion of a restriction is really sort of the problem. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868464_1.pdf

I’m using this as a jumping off point, of sorts, and don’t expect much response. If so, I’d love to hear. Alongside whatever has/hasn’t gone on with BSA hiding the asset peanut, I feel like they are simply doing a terrible job of representing what I thought Scouting was supposed to be. As you know, Scouting wasn’t all it was meant to be in my life. Still, I see the good, carry with me great lessons and some happy memories, and know the moral and ethical construct is sound. From the apparent lack of interface with the TCC, the failure to engage anyone on the claimant side before filing Amended Plan 1 and soon Amended Plan 2, the lack of collaboration between LCs, and more or less lying to LCs about the prospect of needing to contribute to receive a release, Scouting has the egg of untrustworthiness all over its face. Add to that an ice cold lead council who exudes no compassion and comes off the quintessential robotic and unsympathetic Wall Street lawyer. She’s Gordon Gekko’s go-to. I’m certain she’s a big law sniper. A heavy hitter and extremely competent. All well and good, but she lends no measure of credibility or reinforcement to the alleged narrative that the BSA gives two turds about the survivors. I would never have selected her to be lead, at least publicly. I recognize you want the best, but this is a PR case as well as a legal one. Scouting? I see good. For sure. BSA? The nasty taste in my mouth isn’t soon to fade.

From Reuters. The big BUT..."Yeah, we know. This will really suck for the survivors, but look at it this way! We will save money! Just one more way we can say, we so desperately want to 'equitably compensate all abuse survivors'." Oh, joy. Oh, rapture. That plan would be “worse than sub-optimal” for the survivors, Lauria said, as it would raise complicated issues surrounding shared insurance policies with local councils, which would make it harder for the survivors to be compensated. But, she noted, it would also save the Boy Scouts millions of dollars in legal fees, which as of March had hit $100 million, by moving the case along faster. https://www.reuters.com/article/bankruptcy-boy-scouts-idUSL1N2M532D

The first wave is obvious from this graphic. During the town hall, TCC counsel very strongly encouraged survivor claimants in open states to seek state counsel NOW (if they haven’t) to ensure their cases are filed within the window deadlines. He also encouraged all claimants to seek counsel’s advice to determine if any case can be brought for their abuse, regardless the state or date of occurrence. From my perspective, LCs with notable claims against them in DC, NY, NJ, CA, VT, NC, MA, RI and Guam are in trouble. KY, OR and CT probably, as well.

From my view, and it’s a relative outsider view, they’re throwing everyone but themselves under the bus to get outta Dodge with what they can’t bear to lose. The status conference made it clear (to me) the BSA is not engaging the Ad Hoc Committee, Century or the TCC in a substantive or meaningful way. All three major parties groused about the lack of “invitation” and “inclusion” in the process, especially the mediation sessions, pre, post and during, and also in the preparation of the Amended Plan and the one soon to be filed.

LCs and COs are not parties. If they don’t participate and get a specific release under the Plan, there’s no protection. This alternate plan contemplates releasing National only. Short answer, no.

FYI. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=r5sccvtar4cix77&reflink=article_copyURL_share https://duckduckgo.com/?q=boys+scouts+to+offer+new+plan&t=brave&ia=web

I don't want to misstate, but I think your response is based on one Scouter's opinion of how future claims should be compensated. I do understand your response to that idea. I'm not saying I don't. However, to my knowledge, this idea of "future" and ongoing "investments" as a means to pay future claims currently has no foundation in the case.

As with other mass tort bankruptcies, the case has a Future Tort Claimants representative and attorney (Future Claimants Committee or "FCC") representing their interests. Though we don't know how the Trust will be funded, how any of the abuse claims (current/future) will be valued or the future claims administered, you are right on track with your thinking. There is such an avenue in place, to what exact end I don't know.

Thanks. I was confused by the previous post as to how it would be detrimental to survivor claimants, now or later. At this point, the fact that the restriction game is being played makes life that much more difficult. From the assessments I've seen here and elsewhere, in addition to my own take, I don't think Summit is restricted. Acting as though it is and/or not laying all the cards on the table just creates more "animosity" and leaves another anchor in the water.

Would you clarify, please? Thanks.

I am pretty much in the “highly interested, but pretty much in the dark” camp, but I will hazard some thoughts. 1) They were completely taken off guard by the number of claims, throwing the entire strategy, whatever it was, into a swirling dive; 2) Pre-filling, they had a notion of what they would contribute to the trust and it was blown out of the water by the claims. Ditto for the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, though less so as to the AHC other than the highly exposed Councils; 3) There is great consternation and disagreement within National about putting up High Adventure Bases and some (all?) decision makers are resisting at all cost; 4) Most Local Councils are have been sideswiped by the target on their back, in light of BSA assurances for the last several years, and now don’t know what to do and have no cohesive voice or inclination among them. It seem clear to me the AHC doesn’t represent the Councils; 5) National didn’t anticipate and has since underestimated the strength, determination and singularity of the TCC, possibly looking for them/the survivors to fracture and concede early in the process; 6) They miscalculated the degree to which the TCC would pursue assets and tunnel their way under facially valid asset protection measures and “restrictions” including on camps, by National and LCs; 7) Lack of managerial competence; and 😎 They may be frozen in the headlights, not sure whether to dart back into the board room or look plaintively into the oncoming lights. In looking over my uniformed guesses, it comes down to surprise leading to lack of a scaleable plan, underestimation of claims and the tenacity of the TCC/claimants, the mentioned possibility of incompetence and resignation. I don’t think it’s the latter two, honestly.

Just now reading this. Having trouble pasting it. I believe it’s the second “here” link in the initial article I posted. Sorry for my ineptitude. It’s a good read so far.

Excellent point, duly noted and acknowledged. I admit to not knowing enough to blow my nose when it comes to the IVF. I’m learning a lot, thanks to you and others. That was an “and” statement, I will add. “...and procedures aren’t followed,” which goes to those who relocated and counted on no one checking to see if they had been previously listed ineligible. “Hey. You reported a Jim Dandy. Did he ever go by JD or J. Dandie?” Slippery people will always try to do slippery things and slip through the cracks, slippery or not. Just the same, not following procedures makes their slipperiness that much more slippery.

There is a point related to this that doesn’t get mentioned a lot. I’m not saying it’s the rule, but I think it’s important. In notable cases, and some of them egregious, Scouters who were deemed “ineligible” not infrequently showed up elsewhere under a different name or simply showed up and not cross-references as ineligible. Sometimes, they made a simple name modification or used an initial in place of a their first name. Other times, brand new name. There are a good many instances of this that I’ve found/read about. Again, this goes to the insidious nature of these men, mainly, but also to what happens when law enforcement isn’t tracking someone and procedures aren’t followed. I am not saying it’s exactly the same as the Catholic Church routinely reassigning pedophile priests, just making a point I haven’t seen made here.

The BSA is the client and they need to take control of fee review, case management, and staffing by the professionals (does the $500 paralegal do this or the $1400 partner?). The TCC has three members who comb through all fee applications from the retained professionals, ask questions, push back and continually request maximum efficiency. Any “fee bleed” impacts what survivors may get and they wear that fiduciary responsibility with sobriety. On the BSA side, I have no idea who’s reviewing bills or, since they’ve never been in this spot before, whether anyone internally knows if what’s being submitted rises to the level or “reasonable and necessary.” Here are a few things on Chapter 11 fees, if interested. Same author. The first article links to some of her other articles. Just for gee whiz. I found them instructive. http://blogs.harvard.edu/bankruptcyroundtable/2020/07/28/want-to-take-control-of-professional-fees-in-large-chapter-11-bankruptcy-cases-talking-with-your-clients-general-counsel-is-a-good-first-step/

Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt: C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule. 27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debtors have permitted upwards of 30 professionals to bill the estate at over $1,000 per hour, these accumulated professional fees are not some unforeseen act. Further, the Debtors have refused to implement basic steps to mitigate their fees and costs, such as imposing budget restrictions or shifting to an end-of-case holdback.”