ThenNow

Ah. I understand now and I agree with you. I'm not sure about the 60%, but those I speak with may be biased, even if they don't know my situation. Many have little sympathy for anyone accused of child sexual abuse, especially to the degree the BSA has. Again, historic "per capita" numbers and the upsides of Scouting are disregarded after hearing the number of claims and reading the stories.

Seems like an easy ask and a fairly simple app build and rollout. How is it monitored, by whom and with what impact? Just wondering, again, if it's a good exemplar with proven results. I can research, as well. Update: From the App Store reviews, it falls down in the implementation. Kids are frequently told they need to report in person. Also, lots of false reports to get alleged abusers/bullies in trouble. Seems to have the potential to be a nightmare for the abused, accused and administrators.

This is a great point and almost assumed it was happening, at least to some degree. Seems right, good and fair, ensuring all parties sign up and on the dotted line.

What organizations and do they have materials available to the public?

My apologies. I shouldn't have used the word "rumor" and then reinforced it with jocularity. All points are solidly sourced.

A few random points: 1) Rumor is, compelling data illustrating the YPT has not been as effective as claimed will be released soon, countering the narrative that the existing program is sufficient and there is no need to address enhanced measures in the Plan. I'm told the data is dispositive. I make no assertion about the effectiveness one way or the other, since I don't know the facts. I do know this is a major issue for many claimants, some of them with positions of influence in the case. If the BSA is unwilling to adopt and implement additional measures, whatever that means, those playe

One thing I would note on the other side of the "slowing down" argument is the cultural mood against iconic institutions doesn't necessarily result in slowing down reforms. Some people would love to "burn it all down," as has been seen across the country and stated pretty much verbatim in this case. I am not inviting a discussion or debate on culture, ideology or politics, just stating that in the wave of "cancel all vestiges and institutions of the colonizers!", some will see the demise as a thing to be praised and hastened. I hate that, but there it is.

I understood his statement to question whether the filing and "litigating" of 95,000 sexual abuse survivor claims against the Boy Scouts of America, an iconic American institution trapped in time with the #METOO movement, would be enough to inspire SoL reform in the area of child sexual abuse. He said he didn't believe it would have any impact. I said several organizations and state legislators disagree. That's all. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

When Members of Congress take note, in the midst of publicity over the release of the dreaded files and fending off abuse suits, it's on the radar of advocacy groups. In our conversations related to child sexual abuse SoL reform, they specifically mention the BSA and RCC in the same breath. I should have added that CHILD USA and CEO/law professor, Marci Hamilton, have filed friend of the court briefs in BSA cases. They are adamant state that courts are have proper jurisdiction for child sexual abuse cases, not bankruptcy courts.

Nah. I'm sure you're not alone. The explosion of the case numbers in particular, plus the fact that CHILD USA and these legislators HATE the use of bankruptcy to dodge child sexual abuse liability is the combined driver. Magnitude, whether legitimate or not, have elevated the case to a Exhibit #1 for abuse liability avoidance abuse. Doubly abusive, if you will.

CHILD USA and multiple state legislatures strongly disagree with you on this point. I have spoke with the both groups numerous times about this case and the matter of state by state SoL reform.

The TCC's Complaint for Declaratory Judgement on the allegedly restricted assets has this at the heart of their contention. "The Debtors' History of Commingling Assets" is the leadoff hitter.

I've been thinking that for a while and asked others involved in the case why some LC's, who don't sense a legitimate "threat" to their asset base, would submit to voluntary surrender. The answer is as you stated, plus the BSA wants unanimity in order to be "one and done for all." I still didn't like that answer, because I can see it from a LC's viewpoint. If I were risk officer or any officer of a LC, I would know: exactly which legislators and groups are interested in SoL reform; the substance of all bills proposed, when and by whom; the disposition of each with votes cast;" what's goin

Yeah. What he said. (I already loosened the lid, he just took it off...)

I have a vague recollection about this somewhere in my little brain. In those cases, an individual Diocese effectively equates to BSA National in this case. The RCC suits aren't against the local churches, though many are named I believe, because they don't have the big dollar assets. The local churches are more like Troops/Units. I don't believe there is a "RCC of the USA" or otherwise, in terms of a legal entity. The Vatican is a sovereign state and not reachable.

Not knowing a ton about franchises, I have looked at this more like the employee vs. independent contractor scenario, which is more familiar to me and provides a number of boxes to check to see which is which. The BSA and LC's want to say these are completely "independent contractors" who do their own thing, not sufficiently directed and dictated to by National to be deemed an "employee." I know this is apple to oranges, but bear with me. When you do a test of employee or indie contractor, you look at the factors of control, autonomy and influence on behavior and the overall relationship.

Right. I recall now. Thanks to both of you for the prompt. This reinforces the negative inference: the absence of any notices of appearance and/or a reservations of rights reveals the that ain't no "there there," I'm thinkin'.

The resolution of those points pretty much holds the keys to the kingdom, me thinks. There's a lot of arguing, resolving and ruling represented on that one page.

Docket page 19 or page 19 of the filing? Sorry. Just want to be sure. Oops. I looked. They're concurrent this time...my bad.

Does anyone know if the entity or entities said to hold these restrictive interests/reversionary rights gave notice of appearance of counsel to assert those rights to prevent sale or encumbrance? If I gave some mack daddy property and wanted it back if x or y happened, or if z was no longer going to happen, I would've been asserting those rights from the jump.

Given the BSA's assertion that the properties/assets are restricted and the TCC's exasperation over not receiving timely documentation which fueled the need to file the lawsuit, I say the restrictions are legal fictions. They look legit, but back to my previous quip: they are a ride with a V12 badge on the side but a Volt e-engine. If these were ironclad and locked down, why wouldn't they have handed them over pronto? I could be 100% wrong, but if that were the case, this tap dancing pee-pee dance wouldn't have been necessary. The TCC has given them more time to figure out how they're gonna sp

I guess there's something to be said for consistency. Well, it may be misapplied here.

Per the statement from the TCC, I believe the answer is an emphatic, "No!" If an artificial structure was used to restrict the property in question, it is the same sort of thing that's been going on with transferring real property and liquid assets to trusts, as called out over the summer. You know I am on the "side" of claimants, though not seeking the demise of Scouting, but this sort of stuff was bound to bite back and damage the entire process. The transfers are particularly obvious and onerous, smack in the middle of the reorganization and in the nick of time before the mediation/neg

Exactly. Thanks for this.

Not being an NGO attorney, but having been an Executive Director of one and an associate pastor of another, this is a sticky wicket of issues and mechanisms. For this purpose and often with this type of thing, it's by way of a restricted deed or reversionary clause, though the latter may negate the gift as tax deductible. Not my area, to restate. Maybe another member is better educated in this. One thing that muddles the area of earmarking and directing funds is there are "advised" donations and "restricted." Back when, we used to call the former "allocated" donations. This may help with