ThenNow

4 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

do you really think there will be 'future generations of scouts'?

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.

1 minute ago, swilliams said:

It's also very troubling that someone who is involved in scouting refuses to acknowledge the way in which many abusers form the kind of relationships that allow them to get close enough to begin the abuse.  A child is made to feel like they encouraged the behavior, leading to the belief it's their fault, and that no one can or will help them.

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.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

Psycho-babble.

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.

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Speak with victims and you will find that the established grooming behaviors are real.  In fact, victims realizing that the way they were unknowingly "groomed" was not unique to them and not their fault can be a very important step in dealing with the trauma they have suffered.

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. 

35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That you dismiss this as "psycho-babble" is sick.

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...

26 minutes ago, skeptic said:

"The cool kids don't join scouting."

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. 

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I'm a teacher.  I work with young people.  Are you saying it is critical for any adult to know, or it is critical for any adult to believe?  Two different things.

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

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

2000

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.

19 minutes ago, David CO said:

So many scouts are pushed into it by their parents.  

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.

1 minute ago, David CO said:

No.  I don't understand that at all.

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.

2 hours ago, elitts said:

In pretty much any negotiation working towards a settlement, the first offer on each side is going to represent "The Dream Number".  So the Victim's Attorneys have established their opening position at "We'll take everything", the BSA has now established their opening position at $6100/victim and neither should really be expecting those propositions to be the end result.

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. 

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I have no guess to how that happened.

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

1 hour ago, David CO said:

That surprises me.  I was guessing that your parents were pushing you into scouting.  I assumed you were trapped and couldn't get out.  If your parents grumbled about fees, you had the perfect excuse to get out.  

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."

12 minutes ago, David CO said:

The average kid thinks so.  Scouting has never been a very popular program, and it has steadily declined over the past 40 years.  Yes, scouting has some very enthusiastic participants, but they are few in number.  The average youth has little interest in scouting.

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.

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Saw that too thru IT automation.  Billing every phone call, every DB search, every piece of paper copied, every office expense, etc.  

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. 

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

nearly $7.2 million in expenses

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.

15 minutes ago, David CO said:

Yes.  The current offer is unreasonable.

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.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

87,000 claimants

Got it.

Personally, I think if the insurers get a crack at those claims, the number will be reduced. By how much, who knows. Will it be allowed, only the judge knows, as far as I know.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

if you want a scenario where ALL abuse claimants are paid out, regardless of time-barred or not, $11,500 is probably as high as you can possibly go.

I really appreciate that assessment. Since so many are in the time-barred bucket, yes, I am asking about how everyone gets something. The guys with live cases and/or in open states will get a running start at the insurers. We likely will not, at least have no momentum and a greatly reduced upside. That said, you gave me insight into the possibility insurers will offer something to ensure a clean break.

35 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, that wouldn't happen.  What I mean is that a cram-down would take anything the judge didn't find critical to the functioning of the organization, but it would leave the organization functioning, not a non-functional shell.  But this could easily leave the BSA with significant assets as long as they aren't effectively saleable.  So they could theoretically keep Philmont (even independent of any claims that it's deed restricted) if the liquidation price less fees and taxes are less than the amount of the mortgage on it.  (but I agree Bechtel is a potential problem given the recentness of the financial maneuvering there) The whole point of a reorganization is that the creditors get more with the organization functioning than they would if it was liquidated because the organization can be required to continue making payments over a period of years.

You guys have an excellent grasp on all of this as to the BSA itself, what's needed to sustain programs, assets overall, and the relationship of the BSA and LC's contribution to the insurance side. When you look at the $6100 in Plan as proposed, overall assets - assuming the large property restrictions don't hold - what do you think would be fair to direct to each claimants. I know there is tremendous disagreement even among you, in part because it is so speculative and subjective. I am very curious and would welcome your opinion. Well, I'm most interested to hear from those who agree that the current offer is unreasonable. As we know and you've reported, many agree $6100 does not respect the abused nor represent the BSA being earnest about what it can give. Others are clearly frustrated, saying there is no way to say what's fair or will satisfy the attorneys. "If $6000 isn't enough, is $50,000? $100,000 even if it crushes the organization...?" (paraphrasing).

Thoughts?

On 3/6/2021 at 10:44 AM, ThenNow said:

2) Continuing with the next verse of, "I heard it through the grapevine," apparently National has until Monday at 4PM ET to satisfy the TCC that they are working on and will produce the requested asset data from the LC's. If that doesn't happen, I'm told, the TCC will formally oppose the BSA's motion to extend the protective injunction shielding the LC's from lawsuits. Joinders to that opposition are expected.

Forgive me if this is duplicative. The TCC and BSA reached an agreement for the production of rosters.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877749_151.pdf

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurance companies may offer a settlement now to the time-barred in order to buy stability. As you noted, LOTS of states are opening look-back windows. If the insurance companies don't settle now, they'll be answering suits for decades to come.

Having now learned my emotions have both gotten me in internal trouble and caused me to miss the trees for the forest, I'll endeavor to keep my hope in check.

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yes.

Looping back, then it is as to #2 that we time-barred people are up the fecal creek without a long-handled wooden implement to move agua. I think I got it.

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA is offering BOTH groups a choice:

Group 1: You may have a valid and "live" claim against BSA, but a lawsuit will take years. Take $6100 now and be done with it.

Group 2: Maybe, someday, your currently time-barred claim could possibly become live again. Take $6100 now and be done with it.

So, there are two components to a prospective award from the Settlement Trust:

1) BSA award component, as described; and

2) The "go fight the insurance companies" and see what you can get component.

Yes?