ThenNow

To confirm, I have.

This may amount to no more than "just for gee whiz" type information, but in one of my incarnations I represented real estate developers. We targeted conservation easement properties, based on our history and track record of being able to weave through the legislative, statutory and political maze and emerge with a "clean" title. Buy cheap, build big, sell bigger. Land Conservancy, Century Farm, Williamson Act (CA) and Conservation Easement are all terms used to describe this type of thing, with some variations.

By way of reassurance, would someone please confirm that this avoid, deflect and deny position on grooming is extremely limited among volunteer and professional Scouters? Thank you.

Besides the confirmed case of asset transfers in Tennessee, has this been happening elsewhere? From an attorney's perspective, I would've been advising it for years, not unlike a basic tax and estate planning review directs some clients to transfer identified assets to trust, whether revocable or irrevocable. With the assault on the ramparts since the $19M OR case, I would think asset protection measures would've exploded. If I may, I also want to bring back one of my posts now moved to the spinoff thread on YPT and Other Stuff. This is regarding the continuation of Scouting and goes to financial and programatic viability of LC's if the full force of Scouting National is greatly diminished or gone: I also wonder if it depends on the resources and current strength of those LC's (few?) that can fairly easily give some millions [to the Settlement Trust, be released] and still pivot on the strength of community support, leadership and donor base depth and breadth.

Maybe this also belongs in the discussion of the YPT? It is relevant if some Scouters don't believe grooming exists, which is a big component of protecting kids from abuse of many kinds. I'll leave it alone, in any case and stay here. Thanks for the bodycheck.

Do you believe there are any "universally agreed upon views" in science or other subjects you teach? If so, may I know a couple? I assume you do not believe the field of psychology falls within the sciences. Correct? Finally, do you have any background or education in neuroscience? I hesitate to conclude that you are informed by ignorance, but I'm getting painted into that corner. I'm struggling to find a reasonable thread to hold with you. As someone who experienced years of "grooming," as defined, and years of study in psychology and sociology examining the "ways" of people and culture, I'm at a loss.

That solves everything. The children are providing the frame of reference and setting the terms of discussion. Roger that. "NO universally agree upon view" and "any of these issues." Is that your final answer? Moving on to the next contestant. I need the DavidCO dictionary to keep up.

I also wonder if it depends on the resources and current strength of those LC's (few?) that can fairly easily give some millions and still pivot on the strength of community support, leadership and donor base depth and breadth.

Precisely my reason for saying I think it would be good for all adults to know, especially those who work with youth. It's critical to being both proactive and defensive/protective of those in one's charge from potential abuse.

So I don't completely write this off, define your terms, please. If all psychological terminology - depression, PTSD, attachment disorder, mania/bi-polar disorder - amount to your term, I have a bucket into which I will place all of these comments. Maybe two buckets; one inside the other to keep it well contained.

When I referred to the eery feeling that the sexual predators in Scouting must've had a manual, this is what I meant. It may be metaphoric, but I wouldn't be surprised if they conspired and shared stories. The pattern of behavior, techniques, methodology, timing, language and "tools of the trade" are frighteningly familiar. I've read many, many retellings by former Scouts who were abused and it's chilling. I'm 100% serious. Believe me or don't. It matters not to me. This, my friends, is "grooming." Call it grooming, call it setting the trap, call it emotional and situational manipulation, call it luring, wooing, courting...whatever. The word has been universally accepted as describing this behavior by sexual predators. Oh. Drat. I stand corrected. Carve out a few teeny tiny itsy bitsy satellite exceptions within the vast expanse.

As I said before, previously, back when and also about other topics [insert greatly pained look], again I say, "What he said." Thanks for sparing me the need to comment on any of this. Seriously. "Good grief, Charlie Brown!" Oops. I did it again, one more time...

If you're referencing my comment, I didn't say that. 1972 fellas. ThenNow. I know the former, and its wreckage (and good parts). You know the latter like I never will. That's the entire point of the moniker.

Um, you're a teacher. Okay. Did I say "know" or "believe"?

Yeah. I'm talking about 1972, in my town and in my experience. I wasn't trying to make a universal statement or judgement. I was an Eagle Scout and I'm hecka important. Ha.

As with my other answers and the note about "cool, rich kids," that was not my experience at all. I was in Scouting before what feels like the "Eagle Mill era (term from a Scouter I knew, not me), college resume building that starts at pre-school and the degree of public praise and recognition that can come from achieving Eagle.

Is it of any interest or simply irrelevant to for you in this context? It's fine if not. I think it's critical for any adult to know, at least the basics, especially anyone working with young people. I'm pretty sure I would feel this way regardless my abuse. Knowing and understanding all of this doesn't go to the issue of what Scouting needs to survive, or what survivors receive. Granted. It does go to why someone would persevere in Scouting in the midst of repeated, long-term abuse, not tell an adult and fail to fight back or flee. Most of us froze, as I did. Extremely common with children who are abused. Anyway, my opinion.

Several things: 1) Agreed. Aside from the actual number, the issue discussion has been around how that "initial offer" is seen by claimants, attorneys, the public and court. It has been, overall, received very badly, including by their insurers. When you're negotiating in public before God and the press, one needs to be cautious of lowballing. Yes, it is often done, but not so much when an embattled and historic youth organization is negotiating "against" 83,837 men who we abused IN that organization as children, some as young as 7. If the offer came out too low it can be perceived as an insult, not a strategic play. Many think not even the pretty good foot, was put forward, forget about the best one. I think most agree the BSA should've known that it would be perceived as it has been (and probably did). 2) There are 83,837 claims now remaining after 10,000+/- were cut from the 92,000+/- due to clear fraud or duplication. You may say that's not much, but it's almost 7000; 3) The 83,837 number is likely to go down, if only a bit, IF/WHEN the insurers are allowed to review the claims mining shenanigans. I hope they are allowed. Personally, I think it will go down by another chunk, perhaps 5,000 or more; 4) Of the 83,837 claims, 59,837+/- are time-barred under the state of abuse's Statute of Limitations law. Though CynicalScouter makes an excellent point that the insurers may well offer an amount to the time-barred claimants to have them out of their hair for good, that is TDB. Regardless, I think we can be fairly confident the 59,387+/- will not be getting a "due and equitable" settlement relative to their abuse. The time-bar devaluation factor ensures that. This is how I understand it, based mostly on CynicalScouter's "magical assumptions" analysis.

Not uncommon in my town. What time period are you talking about?

Why did you assume that? Seems like an odd assumption. I'm thinking you don't grasp the concept and reality of grooming, the mental and psychological state of a 10 year old boy, the "power" of a pederast in creating and nurturing a hyper-attachment, the confusion a boy goes through as result of male/male sexual abuse or the conflict inherent in concurrently admiring someone while being abused by them. I was very achievement oriented and that was a motivator. As I said, I only thought of telling my dad once, but never considered quitting. Eagle was the goal and I wanted it. My dad never attended any of my sporting events, concerts or the like, though there were very many. He did attend my Court of Honor, which was a big deal to me. He did not like my SM, but I was very independent and focused in all respects. Also, as with many predators, my SM recognized my "father hunger" immediately. As in, we're talking about my first Troop meeting. He complimented me, said he heard "great things about me" and would "make an exception to allow me into the Troop early, since you're just 10." It started from the first words out of his mouth."

I have no idea about today, but in my day most cool, rich kids weren't in Scouting. Several from my school joined and all but 2 quit within a year or two. We had no money (I started working when I was 10 and buying my own clothes at 12) and couldn't afford golf, skiing, expensive field trips, Babe Ruth (fees) or activity that wasn't super cheap. My parents grumbled about Scouting fees, though I paid them.

I agree. I don't like the reality of it, but I agree. It may not seem like it, but I understand the mournful sentiment raised by several, recently with punch by OldScout448. Whatever cash goes out has the potential to negatively impact the life and Scouting experience of current and future Scouts who, through no fault of their own, are in Scouting during this tumult. On the same note, those of us who were abused happened to be in Scouting at a time when the house was not in order and we suffered the consequences. In both cases it stinks and innocent Scouts suffer. I hope people involved in this and in the general public clearly see who the victims are, yet again - kids. Just innocent kids. This goes to none of the topics and adds nothing to the discussion, but I'll say it anyway. I've done plenty of pointless blathering, so why stop now. Reading your posts and hearing the wanderings from the intensity of the moment into small Scouting quips, jokes about dodgeball, tales of memorable campouts, making do when more wasn't an option and being the better for it, HA trips or HA longings, how much you value your Scouts, upcoming Eagles and how passionate you are to sustain the experience, makes me both happy and sad. Sad in the better sort of way. I regret I didn't have an unblemished Scouting life as some did, but cherish the good parts. I keep a couple trinkets in my office to this day. I wish our boys had been able to be in Scouts, but I couldn't handle it at the time. That is a major life regret. I imagine being active now, but that has many complications and pointy edges. Oh, well. Anyway, I appreciate being on the forum. I appreciate you putting up the lane bumpers when my understanding is lacking and the ball careens over the gutter, pushing back when needed, voicing support for the survivors when you do, calling the BSA to account and generally being so involved in the lives of young people. You seem to most sincerely want the best for them and demonstrate it by giving your best to them. It's a very rich and deeply meaningful quest. It encourages my soul. This situation at hand is not wonderful or encouraging in any direction, but continue to strive for, protect and cherish the good parts.

In situations like this, not unlike a class action I was part of, I worry fees and costs are not examined very closely. They seem incidental in the grand scheme at the time, so they can easily slide. When you see $7.2M, reality sets in. I have no idea how they breakdown here, but that's a ton of cheddar.

Having practiced in the 80's and 90's when expense accounts were flush and pass-through fees could be a bit wild, I'm always curious to see these. I recall a firm that billed for dry cleaning, new French cuff shirts and room service while in LA for a protracted negotiation. Not my firm. I am not at all insinuating that's the case here. Some fee pricing for mundane admin services are still crazy these days.

Since this relates to the nature, duration, degree and impacts of the abuse, I'm wondering if anyone looked at the point system metric from the RCC NM case. If so, thoughts? It more or less corresponds to information requests in the Proof of Claim. If you haven't seen the POC in this case, I would be happy to attach a digital copy.