ThenNow

Precisely.

Remember, insurance policies are assets. Whatever happens and whomever is “gone after,” 84,000 claims are on the BSA’s front porch. That will be the focus of public sentiment and perception, regardless. Also, I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but the TCC said something during the town hall that must not be missed. Namely, in all the settlement demands they have made on each of the entities/organizations, none of them were aimed to extinguish. In all cases, the demands left them sufficient resources to continue their mission, whatever it is.

I hope she does. It seems to me it's a matter of negotiating with people who will not "give" unless forced. Like the chart and the TCC's extensive analysis of claims, they have financial information and insurance assets assessments that can put things into the public eye and start leveraging people to act. When those two documents I mentioned went public, even just here, the reaction was huge. I want to see what the TCC has in open court and then see how the BSA, LCs, insurers and all other non-party parties can hide their heads in the sand.

1 hour.

Gah. Good point. I meant as to parents.

And informed consent.

Two points: 1) You asserted previously that vicarious liability - "deep pockets" - is a relatively new concept. Not so. It's ancient. We're talking surfs and lords, with modifications and mutations dating back to the Anglo-Normans in the 1300's forward; and 2) Very few attorneys can win a jury trial without a plaintiff and some measure of injury. Many of the BSA claims may be subject to great scrutiny. Some may not hold up. As one of my supervising law partners told me early on, "You can sue anyone anytime for anything. You might not win, but you can file." Absent injuries (abuse), these attorneys whether righteous or unscrupulous would be dead in the water. It simply can't be merely "about" or mostly about "lawyers going after dollars to fund their lifestyles." Maybe they should sue the BSA because they don't like the Boy Scout tan (socks to hem on the shorts), find neckerchiefs outmoded and a sign of colonialism or think burning wood is causing global warming?

Assumption One: This WAS the 70's. (See my posts.) Who knows what the relationship was between the CO and the Troop. Regardless, they are a non-party part of this Chapter 11. A HUGE part. It's irrelevant, by definition. Assumption Two (or I misunderstand what you're saying): I contacted them in the early 2000's after the SoL had run, both criminal and civil. I was 41-42. As to my experience being better or worse? Let's say I wish it on no one. If I had done it in the 70's, he'd have been in prison. Alas, I was weak and frail and unable...

Yes. I hear that. What I'm saying, at least as to this point, is it is a compelling cultural, political, philosophical and sociological discussion I am eager to have. As to this moment in time, the BSA is in Chapter 11. LCs and OCs are in the line of fire facing 84,000 men who were abused as boys while in that very BSA under the supervision - to one degree or another - of all those entities. This is a conversation for another time. It will not be part of the court proceedings. Perhaps we add an august body of theoretical experts and double the $150M that will be spent before August. The matter at hand and the topic is BSA Chapter 11: The Remix (Part 2). Yes? It can't be avoided or steered around by diverting into a discussion on the ills and failings of the legal, political, academic, medical, psychology or parental spheres of influence and governance.

A few things: 1) Again, if you've read all my posts (and I fault no one who hasn't bc there are many), I had nothing to do with any of this but pursuing my SM in 2002-2003ish. I advised the Sheriff's Dept about the other leaders. Our CO's "employees" had ZERO interaction. We unlocked, set up, cleaned up, served the community and nothing reciprocal. Is that my fault? As I've said 3 times, I knew nothing about other parents alleged knowledge (third hand hearsay) until 40 years later; 2) On February 18, 2020, the whole mess came roaring back into my life and settled over me like a vicious storm. I had previously settled it with the BSA and won't go into greater detail about what that involved. I was presented to submit a claim and did so. Who would not?; and 3) I've never NOT been proud to be a Scout, Eagle, and etc. One of these posts I'll show some "evidence," which in retrospect perhaps I should've at the outset. 20-20 and all that. Suffice it to say, I still wear my Eagle pin, NESA pin and Eagle cufflinks. Might be meaningless to you, but it is HUGE to me. Show me one post where I "pretended BSA is uniquely at fault." Please. In my case, they are. It may be shameful, but you cannot put that on me. As to the "massive good," see above. See my other posts. Talk to some who've interacted with me on DM. So, the "massive good" and societal deficit is the absolution and exoneration of the BSA? The tiny "blip" of bad is vastly outweighed by the good, both results and intentions? If it's exoneration, stop trying to make it better and let the chips, er abuse, fall where it may.

"Not even a micro blip." Good grief. I cannot even believe this was said in this way. Again, if you read my posts, you would find you are mistaking me for someone else. Entirely. The more of these blasts I take, however, the less interested I become in lending any perspective or reality to help Scouting improve. For now, I'll persist.

Thanks. Sincerely. I'm not sure you've read all my post or all from others, but regardless my experience or pain or what is "due" me, others have "told off the BSA" in far harsher terms then I. Truth. And not just a couple. Not by far. Also, you don't know my involvement in Scouting. You're assuming and didn't ask. I've been told on the public forum and in numerous DM's how others appreciate my contribution and the perspective I bring, absent which many have no idea what you're actually talking about. Real. Life. Trauma. Real. Life. Devastation. Do I get upset at times? Of course I do. I don't believe there are many claimant survivors here and only those who share the experience - both the abuse and the process of dealing with this bankruptcy we did not bring upon ourselves - can fully understand what causes some of the visceral reactions. It is extremely difficult to stand tall and "take it" when someone lashes out at me (us). Have I kept my mouth shut and bit my tongue other times? Yes. Many. Have I poured my heart out to help those who will listen understand what is at stake for even one other child under your care, risking reactions like yours? I have and will, if allowed. PS - You may be "sorry," but you can't truly be if you're unwilling to listen and understand. I find these types of "apologies" to be difficult to receive. "I'm sorry, I truly am," but please shut up and go away. Well, ok. If I misunderstand, I'm open to be disabused...

I think hovering at 30,000 feet is fine to create distance and craft a theoretical, cultural narrative. There, it's reasonable to perceive this is a witch hunt because no other witches have kept a list of those on whom they've cast spells and BSA has crafted its own trap. It might be a worthy exercise for a separate moment. That macro level may be a good mental and emotional buffer, but this is about one boy being abused by an adult man who was/is a representative of the Boy Scouts of America. Get too much distance from that reality and this becomes a much easier matter to confront, couched in the comforting justification that everyone is picking on the BSA that foolishly, though with good intentions, made itself a target for unscrupulous attorneys and a litigious society run amok. This is about the BSA and their bankruptcy - moral and legal - for allowing tens and tens of thousands of boys to be abused 100's of thousands of times. Society didn't sexually abuse me when I was 10. My Scoutmaster did. My choir director, track coach, Key Club advisor, football trainer, CCD teacher, guidance counselor, band instructor or any other adult who lead me while I was a boy didn't abuse me for 6 years. My Scoutmaster did. He was sanctioned by a Local Council and the Unit was "hosted" by a church and school. They were the designated oversight, not my high school, municipal or civic organization, or the parent entity of any of the national organization I participated in. It was on the watch of BSA local, regional and national. It was on the watch of our church and school, the Chartering Organization, local and regional, but not national because it's the Catholic church and they are insulated. In this moment, we are not in the realm of cultural or societal theory. It's all well and good, but not currently relevant. The IVF were unknown to me in 2003 when I started pursuing my SM with law enforcement. I didn't need it to know what happened, who did it or who was in oversight while it was allowed to continue.

I am no expert and just some guy caught in all of this, but I believe this is true. My parents never said anything like what your mother said. Not even close. Also, as I've seen here with many of you, adults must have an unvarnished clear-eyed grasp of what has, can and will happen when "rules" aren't followed, vigilance is sporadic and enforcement inconsistent. Again, this is a big reason survivors need to be involved. No one knows what happens better than we do. Not a chance.

Would you explain this further for me? I think I have an answer for you, but want to be certain I understand. I'm thinking I may not have been entirely clear in my post. Oh. I think I know where the misunderstanding lies. I was trying not to be too graphic. These are claims where a man is engaged in some act(s) of "abuse," as defined, which may include physical sexual behavior between two or more boys. Examples being filming boys, three or more people "engaged"...at least two being boys, and, etc. It is not about child to child absent an adult abuser. I was adamant this be an element of the definition and categories of claims for what are likely obvious reasons.

I was involved in making sure “abuse involving other children” was part of the definition and categories on the claim form. It means there is and adult abuser creating the context for children to engage in sexual activity with each other, as defined.

What does [not] "statistically that different" mean? This goes back to a long line of posts and responses about the differences between Scouts and most other youth organizations, which reasonably give rise to higher incidences/opportunities for abuse. The chess club has fewer injuries than the Lacrosse team. Statistically, they look wildly different and for good reason. When you have adults and kids in every context imaginable, opportunities for abuse and exploitation became endless. You also must add, at least historically, the secret society element that made it attractive to many boys, at least me. "Us guys, young and old, out on adventures away from concrete and steel and the ignorant eyes of the masses." In my experience, which is long gone, Scouting has a million reasons to be statistically different than other organizations in terms of high incidence of sexual abuse. It just does. As I said back when, I participated in everything from Scouts, to sports, to Altar Boy, to choir, to forensics, to Boys State to academic and civic clubs, theater, band...and no other organization had the vulnerabilities of Scouting. Combine several such activities/organizations and Scouting is still more problematic and attractive to pedophiles.

Thanks for the topic. I think it's good to focus outside the clutter of the main thread. Have you discussed this with anyone in the organization or outside? It's a very intriguing idea. I also think improving YPT, specifically, will require adding survivors to some element of the training and education. No one can speak to it like we can. They would have to be selected carefully and the context of their input thoughtfully crafted, but it would be powerful imho.

I'm unclear why I would want this.

The session is probably available on Villanova's website if you want to watch it. I heard nothing constructive on this point.

In an attempt to humanize this and put a point on it, the abuse I suffered comprises one claim among the 84,000 claimants. On the infamous chart, I am represented by one tick mark in the 22,898 CAT 1 claims row. However, in reality I have at least 50 additional, distinct claims spread across all Categories, top to bottom, that don't appear on that chart and are not represented within the 84,000. Ponder that for a few minutes. One claimant. Conservatively, 50 incidents of abuse, as defined.

Yes to the former. Yes. No. It didn't occur to me I should need to do that. In my mental and psychological state at that time, it was not high on my priority list. As to verify via phone number, I also gave all my history in Scouting, CO, home town, they had my name and his name, my email address, etc. etc. Not sure what you're getting at that I failed to do. Thanks, in advance, for clarifying. (I paused, reread and am being kind...)

Eliana’s presentation and Q&A went directly to issues of the bankruptcy. Some of my takeaways, based on her thoughts and opinions: 1) BSA historically and systemically failed to protect children, which leads her to conclude she would not trust her kids to the BSA and understands why others don’t; 2) if the BSA is preserved in some form following the bankruptcy, it should not be under the same leaders that “allowed this to happen;” 3) she prefers criminal prosecutions in matters of sexual abuse so “people go to jail”; 4) She doesn’t believe any amount can truly compensate for “altering the trajectory” of someone’s life, but it’s more important to see survivors compensated than allow the BSA to retain HA and other major properties/assets; 5) she was not extremely well versed in the numbers of the case, admitting that her coverage was more on survivor stories and the movement to see people come forward with their abuse; 6) she has no knowledge of international cases of sexual abuse in the BSA, but wouldn’t be at all surprised if the same scenario was found to exist elsewhere; and 7) it’s her opinion that another group could do what the BSA set out to do (and be) as well as the BSA or a reboot of it. That organization would have a better chance of being safe with greater inherent accountability and protections established from the jump. She didn’t elaborate.

Two of her articles: https://time.com/5645097/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-lawsuit/ https://time.com/5785874/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-sex-abuse/