johnsch322

Some of the posts that I have read here are starting to sound a lot like:

Holocaust Denial
Holocaust deniers know they won’t be believed if they just outright deny that the holocaust happened at all, so instead, they decided they would take the stance that the holocaust happened but not to the extreme degree that people claim it to be. Most scholars believe Holocaust denial started because of issues with Israel, anti-Semitism, and skepticism of the widely accepted history. Holocaust denial has been going on since the Holocaust began. It would be incredibly difficult for me to convince you that the Holocaust never happened, but it would be much easier for me to undermine the validity of what you think you know about the Holocaust.
The name “Holocaust Deniers” can actually work in favor of the people trying to discredit the Holocaust. They claim instead that they are not Holocaust deniers, just trying to have an honest debate about what happened during the Holocaust. Then they can make the claim that they aren’t extremists because they don’t deny the whole holocaust. The use vagueness as a tool against facts, the minute they get into clear specifics their argument starts to fall apart. Their argument relies heavily on the argument that Auschwitz is the perfect example of what Nazi concentration camps were like. The general public tends to forget that there were upwards of 40,000 Nazi concentration camps active during the Holocaust.
 

12 hours ago, skeptic said:

Blow it out of perspective and suggest it is rampant all over the country.  Just not the case, nor ever has been.  Hype, hype, hype and negativity where it really barely exists. 

And now the BSA and cohorts are victims?

40 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

"Winning the lottery" is a common idiom to mean getting something unexpected and perhaps somewhat randomly. The random part - state of abuse and legislative action to open a SoL window - I think is operative here.

Please, let's not turn on each other as survivors. Words matter, but I think this was truly intended as idiomatic and not literal. It hurts being in a closed state and it's hard not to feel slighted. It's not the fault of our fellows, however, and let's keep that in mind. 

Also, I don't think JLSS likes the 20k pay to play at all and will open up the entire TDP process to a highest value calculus. I don't know how that gets funded, but may I suggest by contribution of the debtors' council? 5% should do nicely.

I made a statement to you about a year ago that I felt all victims should share equally based on their abuse. I stand by that statement still. I honestly do not feel that as a victim and a survivor  like I have won a lottery. Those are the types of words that other posters would use to create divisions among survivors. 

14 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Never meant as absolute reality, as in a boy buys a ticket to be molested.  If you prefer to criticize my word, rather than understand my point, there is no need for me to contribute.

Honestly there are no winning lottery tickets in any of this. To equate any award as something akin to a lottery ticket is crass. Words matter. 

33 minutes ago, skeptic said:

But it is your option to refuse to look at the worst as the norm.  But, as noted before, I cannot make you get beyond whatever demons push you to ignore the larger and more complete picture.  Please just stop painting others with your same negativity.

I guess you are right it just a part of society at large let us look at the good to negate the bad.  I mean 100's of thousands of abused boys, no big deal.

And remember that Dr Joseph Mengele guy his experiments on living humans saved other lives and advanced medical science.  Maybe him and those he was associated with are not so bad if you take a look at the bigger picture.

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

I just wish you could see beyond that cloud of negative and recognize the positive and opportunities that are there with efforts going forward.

And I wish you could see the real world.

Read this.  This is reality.  He molested at least 12 boys do you think at least 12 boys were molested in just one night? What if I told you he had a partner in his perversion. Have you read the files any of the files?  There were and still may be thousands of perverts just like him in the BSA.

bsa_john-l-brady.pdf (boyscoutssexualabuse.com)

20 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Again, not unusual for the times.  Was there a problem?  Yes, but I fail to believe it was the magnitude that is played in the frenzy to paint BSA as some are doing.  Should there be some penalty to BSA for episodes of very poor decision making and maybe on occasion actual coverup? 

Once again blame it on the times and occasional cover up? what about the thousand in the Pervert files?

20 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Our society needs is begging for the leadership and service BSA has tendered in the past, and still does.

According to who? What leadership?

21 minutes ago, skeptic said:

But, the yellow press and a few misled or simply "bad" players ignore the positive and push the negative. 

So by ""bad" players" you are referring to whom....survivors?

21 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Please understand that I am NOT denying recompense is due in some manner to the survivors,

You have consistently said this without giving what type of recompense you mean and always imply survivors are asking for to much.

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Were there episodes of abuse.  That is also likely a given, as Scouting afterall is still part of the larger society.  The difference is that most likely the bad players were less common there, especially given the multitudes that passed through in the first century, than in the broader society.  

Perpetrators always go for environments that are the easiest and where they are less likely to be caught. "Bad players" chose the BSA because it was easy to prey on victims and they were likely to have no consequences if caught.

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Your path to a good recovery just got better. Now you have to take me on that fishing cruise.  

Will do 

I suppose I should let the dust settle a bit. It is probably a good thing I have Anderson and Associates as lawyers.  I am sure they will be contacting me and I would suppose that if they feel that the 20K is a good investment on their part they will front it.  Then again plan has to be confirmed first.

Just now, ThenNow said:

On the monetary side or all of the above? I'm looking at the process of winding our claims through the Trustee process and feeling a bit queasy. $10,000 for an independent review. I'm not far into digesting any of it quite yet. Hang in there, Brother John.

On the monetary side.  

I feel so let down.

"Thank you sir, may I have another"

8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I wouldn't.  They said this was signed in 1991. It was probably paper and put away in a filing cabinet.  The individuals who were involved are likely dead or long retired.  BSA has been pretty clear as to restricted vs unrestricted property. My guess is that this is a surprise.  Also, the objectors could be wrong. 

The Rockwell collection being part of the settlement has been known for at least the last two years and Brown and Bigelow only just found out?  Surely, they would have contacted the BSA and their lawyers before today to make them aware of the agreement.  Instead, they had to go to the DOJ trustee and ask him to file an objection at the 11th hour to file an objection on their behalf....hmmmm?

9 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is many of the same people who hired attorneys that are said to be the best in the business for the needs of the BSA and then followed their advice.  That seems to be a valued strategy for other parties as it should be for the BSA.

So maybe the lawyers should alter the scout oath to "honest and trustworthy as my legal powers approves".

10 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

It is fascinating how people on this and so many other threads always assume the worst about the BSA.  I know most of the upper management and National Executive Board personally.  They are bright, hard-working, dedicated to Scouting, and honorable.

My guess is that the contracts were executed long ago - in the 19 teens or twenties.  That the contracts have been misplaced or lost over the many decades and many moves of the national service center.  I would further posit that volunteers who wish to see the BSA retain the Norman Rockwell collection have been scouring the landscape for a way to do so.  They could have asked Brown and Bigelow to search their files for anything that might allow the collection to be removed from sale due to Chapter 11.  I would further posit that Brown and Bigelow did not know that they had the agreement.  Clearly, this is only conjecture based on no information.  However, incompetence or dishonesty are not in my opinion as likely as other explanations by knowing the people involved.

Would this be the same great group of guys and gals who want to keep the rest perversion files from seeing the light of day?

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

They were commissioned early and used on the cover of Boys' Life first to help promote the calendar. They are linked. 

It's possible BSA didn't know, but the incompetency of that would be beyond belief. 

I would be shocked if the BSA only found out about this today thru the objection. 

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

How can an attorney pledge an asset that is jointly held or otherwise encumbered without written consent? Um. Did BSA not have that document on file somewhere? Did the firm that did the asset appraisal not know? Due diligence? What about the professionals on the survivor side who rummaged through the assets? Something's hinky. Pah-lease. Maybe this is bogus. Meh. More trauma, er, drama.

If BSA knew about this situation prior to the settlement being voted on it would also cast more doubts on the voting.  How could they say vote yes and you will get paintings?

And now there is a party who said that the BSA does not wholly own the Rockwell collection hence they cannot dispose of it in the bankruptcy.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a6eadea4-101c-4c41-b171-e4659b3d8f08_8748.pdf

I did not see the earlier paost

Today I feel anger towards what happened to me and to this whole bankruptcy process.  Most of the time I can have my feelings under control but for whatever reason today is not one of them. 

I am tired about hearing about the greater good...what did the greater good ever do for me?

I am sick of hearing no amount of money will ever make you whole.  How can $750 a year for every year I have lived since the hellish acts committed upon me be anything but scratching the pain and making it worse?

I want myself and my fellow survivors to get more respect from the organization that allowed our lives to be destroyed.

I feel for those who have gone thru worst then I have and who's pain has manifested in misery at a greater degree than my own.

I want to shout at the people who keep saying well it was a different time back then....it does not change what happened.

Most of all I am just plain old tired.

UCLA settles gynecologist sex abuse suit for $243.6M | Fox News

$1.2 million per claimant

33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA entered bankruptcy in order to ensure it can survive long term while addressing debts that exceed their ability to pay.  That is why any organization would enter bankruptcy.

I agree there is a chance BSA wasted a ton of money on legal fees.  As of the end of December they spent $150M on this case.  If they are not able to get the nondebtor releases, that is in part due to timing (Purdue pharma came in late), in part due to the loose nature of the laws, in part due to their legal team (perhaps) and in part due to the Judge.  I think there will be plenty of blame to go around.

I am somewhat hopeful that they will find a path out soon that will satisfy most parties.  Unfortunately, they can never undo the damage that was done to far too many youth and I feel terrible that anyone went through those ordeals.

If BSA wanted to survive they could have entered bankruptcy as National only. They made the choice of bringing into the settlement the LC’s CO’s and insurance companies. Someone had to give them legal advice on that strategy and would bet coin it was there legal team. I personally have my doubts that there is a path out that will satisfy any other parties at this point. 

24 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

This whole bankruptcy ordeal has never been about us victims.Its been all about the national and their money.Victems have over a hundred years of proof of that.They worry more about money and making sure their reputations not be tainted.The could care less about the 38 years of hell I went through because they did not protect me and all the others.Putting the names of these sick men didn't protect us it protected the pedophiles and the Boy Scouts Of America.They could care less about the victims if they did they would have started fixing this problem with the very first case that was reported.They didn't.I wasn't even going to file a claim but the more I researched and seen all the cover ups BSA are involved in I filed a claim.And at this point I will dance a jig if they get shutdown.And to be honest that is exactly what needs to I'm sorry but any establishment that is for kids that cover up these horrific crimes does not have any business running a program like BSA.THEY FAILED EVERY SINGLE VICTEM.SO GOOD RIDDANCE BSA.IM DAMAGED FOR LIFE NOT MATTER HOW MUCH THERAPY I GO THROUGH.

You are correct the bankruptcy was never about survivors it was all about the BSA surviving and giving the least amount they could to us and trying to let their affiliates and business partners LC’s, CO’s and insurance companies pay pennies on the dollar for our suffering. From reading yesterdays DOJ Bankruptcy Trustee objections the BSA may find out soon that they shot themselves in the foot. If the 3’rd parties are not allowed to be part of the settlement they will have spent over $100M on wasted legal fees. They might find out that their legal advice to follow the course they took was flawed. 

7 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

What is the basis of the objection or another place holder?

In a nutshell unconstitutional 

Well waters have definitely muddied now with the Bankruptcy Trustees objection. What do you think Hoochie Coochie Man @ThenNow

21 minutes ago, qwazse said:

"Just and fair" depends on the estimation of your LC board members -- many of whom probably

• have earned 10 times that in a year,
• donated that and more to your LC,
• have seen the SE perform under difficult circumstances,
• have probably performed a national search and were not satisfied with the performance of other SE's whose pay was less.

Regarding the governor of your state, for that position, he/she probably:

• didn't have to relocate from out-of-state,
• has amassed wealth, so accepting smaller salary for public service for a few years is of little risk,
• has a publicly funded residence at your state capital,
• has secured his job for at least one term.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I've met a few of the board members -- attended one meeting with the venturing youth -- and have some idea of how they think. For good or ill, they do not use the same rubric that you or I would.

Yet sadly 53 years of suffering from BSA personnel is worth about $750 per year.