johnsch322

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The question is ... is this channel about the legal case?  Or do you want to re-hash and debate the past.  Many of us believe though BSA had bad incidents, BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little.

The answer to this question is within what you wrote "BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little." What BSA was doing was ineffective (unless maybe you count the last 10 or 15 years).  If it was effective there would be less claimants/victims.  Also there would be no bankruptcy if there was minimal amounts of abuse.  The small numbers that BSA believed they had drove them into thinking bankruptcy and then the volume came forward. 

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For example, the one I question significantly now is about abusers have hundreds of victims.  BSA case files show some with multiple.  (not sure number or percent ... @ThenNow has a pretty clear example of multiple multiple).  But, I've not seen files that reflect hundreds.  I've seen few BSA IVF files with more than a few.  Even recent cases.  Yet, I've read of cases of roller skating teachers that have hundreds of victims (one guy bragged of 200+ ???) ... 

If a roller skating teacher bragged of having having 100's of victims what would make an abuser in the BSA any different?  Larry Nasser in gymnastics had 100's.  I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1.  One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused.  I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly. 

16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

Yup. That’s what I’m talkin’ about, Willis. Now we’re cooking with Hickory!

On my Traegar!!

31 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

We want you to prove that 82,500 claims of child sexual abuse over the 100+ years of Scouting is a fairytale concocted by bad lawyers and fraudsters.

To have only 82000 victims the stat would have to be 1 in 1400 which would be a fairytale

31 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

1) Statistics indicate sexual abusers abuse approximately 100 victims in their period of active predation. Remember, sexual abuse is not limited to touching. It starts at elements that constitute “grooming” (did I just babble?), distribution of alcohol and pornography, and, etc.;

7000 known abusers with 25 victims is 175,000 with 50 is 350,000 which is a nightmare. So what would the stat for how many were caught vs got away with it?  Lets say 1 in 4 were caught that would be between 700,000 to 1.4 million a bigger nightmare.

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

2) The stat is 1 in 6 men will be sexually abused. For our purposes, let’s say it’s 1 in 12;

lets try 1 in 100 and then maybe 1 in 300

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

3) BSA has had 115M minor Scouts since inception; and

At 1 in 100  115 M scouts =1,150,000 victims

At 1 in 200 115 M scouts = 575,000 victims

At 1 in 300 115 M scouts = 383,333 victims

Wow

7 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

So how did at least 2 abusers get into my troop? - Did either have family in your troop?  Were either former youth members of the troop?  Not knowing the time frame, could also have been due to not having the background check system now in place; or could also have been due to having no prior record to show in a background check.  Could also have been a case of a CoR just signing off on them without checking references.  (although they would have to have been exceptionally stupid to list someone as a reference who would have incriminating information on them)

The abuse happened in the late 60's and neither had relatives in the troop.  

8 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

The IVF may not have been the best system in the world, but it was an attempt to keep people out of the program.

The IVF was reactive and not proactive.  Maybe slightly better than nothing but looking at what happened thru that period of time it was ineffective to keep the abusers at bay.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, you want a disclosure statement at sign up saying that "your scout may be sexually abused"?

This, by the way, is the information currently on the registration form.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406.pdf

Youth Protection Begins With You™. Child abuse is a serious problem in our society, and
unfortunately, it can occur anywhere, even in Scouting. Youth safety is of paramount importance to Scouting.
For that reason, the BSA continues to create and consistently improve its barriers to abuse.
The BSA is committed to providing a safe environment for young people. To maintain a safe environment, the BSA
provides parents and adult leaders with numerous online and printed resources and adult leaders must complete
Youth Protection Training (YPT) and renew their training as required. Parents who participate in Scouting activities
are highly recommended to complete YPT. To learn more about the BSA’s Youth Protection resources, go to
www.scouting.org/training/youth-protection/.
Mandatory Reporting
All persons involved in Scouting must immediately report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion or belief that
any child is or has been physically or sexually abused; physically or emotionally neglected; exposed to any form of
violence or threat; or exposed to any form of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution
of child pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. No person may abdicate this
reporting responsibility to any other person.
Additionally, any known or suspected abuse or behavior that might put a youth at risk must also be reported to the
local Scout executive or the Scouts First Helpline (1-844-SCOUTS1 or 1-844-726-8871) if your Scout executive or
local council cannot be reached.
All parents must review the How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse: A Parent’s Guide booklet in the
Cub Scout or Scouts BSA handbooks or at www.scouting.org/training/youth-protection/.
Youth Protection Policies
• Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings.
There must be a registered female adult leader over 21 in every unit serving females. A registered female adult
leader over 21 must be present for any activity involving female youth.
• One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.
These and other key Youth Protection policies are addressed in the training and at www.scouting.org/training/
youth-protection/.
To learn about the BSA’s other health and safety policies, please review the online version of the Guide to Safe
Scouting, the Scouter Code of Conduct, and the Sweet Sixteen of BSA Safety, which are available at www.scouting.
org/health-and-safety

That is better.  I went and looked at the form.  Do you know when it was first written on an application like that?  That form was from 2018 I think.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's what we've told him over and over and over. That 82,500 is NOT a scientifically valid count of total amount of scouts abused. It is, at best, a count of total number of SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS FILED IN THIS PARTICULAR BANKRUPTCY. And that is ALL it is.

The message just is not getting through.

More than one message isn't getting thru.

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

the identified number for the BSA is 130 M / 82,000 = 0.06%

When was this study done?  Because there was 82,000 claims does not mean that is all who were abused.

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Well, there is info in every handbook. It is required to be covered in every cub rank and at least 2x in Scouts. It goes on and on about how abuse happens and how to prevent it.

So, other than putting it on all flyers, it is pretty well covered. 

100-015.pdf (scouting.org)

 

But a disclosure in a handbook would be after the fact of signing up.  How about a disclosure when signing up that had to be signed by the parent? And one every year after?

9 minutes ago, David CO said:

That really isn't true.  The committee chairman was expected to thoroughly review all applications for unit leadership.  If the committee members weren't personally aquatinted with the applicant, they expected references from people who were well-known in the Chartered Organization.

At one time, the local Superintendent of Schools was expected to review the charter renewal and unit roster.  They were pretty well aware of most of the disreputable persons in their school district, and were in a good position to point them out to the unit committee and chartered organization.  

This was a lot easier when scouting was more local, school districts were smaller and less bureaucratic, and each unit had only a handful of leaders.  

So how did at least 2 abusers get into my troop?  How was one of them able to go to another state and allowed to apply and only when his name found was his application denied?  Only god knows what the second person was able to continue doing.  
I think that the imperators in your reply is “expected”.  Judging by the size of the perversion files this was not routinely carried out. 

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

beyond the anomalous predators that have been allowed to sneak in.

30, 40, 50 plus years ago they weren't just allowed to slip in because the door was open wide for the abusers.  The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period.  Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files and you hadn't changed your name from your previous time when you had been caught.  

6 hours ago, IWasAbusedinScouting said:

Sir, I find your comments juvenile, vile and disgusting. You certainly disgrace the few decent people I have personally spoke with who are still trying to defend the organization as being still worth-while, in light of all that has happened in regard to rampant sexual abuse by Scouting leaders for decades.  Tim has been on my side for almost ten years, as I waited for some modicum of justice, after being sexually abused by three of my adult Scouting leaders but finding myself outside of "the law" (limitations stats) and it's inability to hold my abusers accountable for their crimes.  I went to the Boy Scouts back then, not now. Back then being 2013. And what did they do? After waiting on the phone for almost 20 minutes, they transferred me over to one of their attorneys. Because THAT is what they cared about the most, the legal ramifications of their actions, not the moral ones.  I see people in this thread bemoaning AIS and the sheer number of claims. I will have you know that many more boys in my own troop were being sexually abused and yet they never came forward and will never come forward, for reasons some of you dispassionate creeps will never understand. The shame of it all. I have even recently spoken with two of them. People I hadn't talked with in years. And they were willing to talk with me but they will never come forward for reasons many of you will never understand. The unwillingness to involve themselves in something they have deeply buried their whole lives. My life was ruined. My self-esteem shot. Can you imagine? Unless its happened to you, you cannot ever understand it. And the lack of empathy and understanding I have seen right here in this forum, belittles the notion that Scouting is a decent organization, instilling moral fiber in our youth.

First I want you to know that as a survivor I feel your pain.  If you look at my posts you will know most of what I have personally gone thru in my journey.  Most of us will welcome your comments and hope that you find some peace by being able to post your feelings and your thoughts, I know that this forum has done that for me.  We are an eclectic group of individuals who post here with many varied views not all of whom I personally agree with.  I am also quick to voice my opinion when I don't agree so feel free to give your alternate opinion when you have the urge.  

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

I officially have a fan as do others including @ThenNow

 

And me also!!  Unless he was just being polite LOL!!

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Oh, those of us with even a modicum of awareness and ability to evaluate beyond the hype understand you Mr. K.  That is why certain large, unsavory scavenger birds are used in referral sometimes.  

As I have said previously he seems to be the most interesting character in the circus.  He would definitely be someone who I would like to have a conversation with.

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The day is coming, and arguably already is here with some of the briefs, where there will be a reckoning between attorneys for claimants in time-barred states vs. attorneys for claimants in non-time-barred.

Therein lies a dilemma and I will use my own legal representation as an example.  They have offices in the following states AZ, CA, CO, HI, IL, MN, NJ, NY, and PA.  My understanding is that they represent 1600 claimants.  I would say that it would be reasonable to assume that they have claimants in all of those states.  On who's behalf would they file a brief for or against time barred being able to vote?

I think brief is the correct term? @ThenNow?

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ah, but here's the thing. The disclosure statement contemplates weeding out the false and invalid AFTER all those claimants vote for the plan.

The insurance companies are arguing along with some abuse victims lawyers that the invalid claims (time barred) have no business voting in the first place and that by allowing them to do so they are swamping/diluting the valid-voters.

Vet first and let those with valid claims vote later.

What the other parties are saying is that the Proof of Claim is prima facie evidence of a valid claim and is enough to get the 82,500 to vote their 82,500 votes.

Personally I am OK with letting all time barred claimants to vote (and I reside in and my abuse occurred in California).  I am also OK with time barred claims getting full shares from the settlement fund.  Their pain and suffering is just as great as my own and if we are thinking fair and equitable how could one think any different.  I can see the argument from the other side but I do not see the morality in it.  

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There's two (and a half) levels here and gets into the difference between false and invalid.

I am NOT a lawyer so @ThenNowtell me if I err here.

1) Prima facie: Is there enough evidence to even GENERALLY support the claim at all such that the BSA or the judge or the settlement trustee has enough evidence to proceed? This would get a lot of "invalid" claims. Remember: due process works both ways. If the victim wants to have his claim accepted, there has to be a minimum of evidence. NORMALLY the Proof of Claim meets that prima facie case, but the insurers have indicated based on the amount of fraud in collecting and signing these things by the claims aggregators/their attorneys that the presumption of prima facie validity is waived.

2) Sufficient to prove a claim: and here we'll get into fights about what standard but GENERALLY in civil cases it is a preponderance of evidence. That "burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true." Insurance companies will want a higher standard like "clear and convincing evidence. ("This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true.") How "substantial" is "substantial"? There's literally VOLUMES of books written on this. It's nebulous.

The inability to prove a claim does NOT mean it is a fraud. It just makes it "invalid" for purposes of a claim,

3) Sufficient to DISprove a claim: Raw fraud. Evidence demonstrating the claimant perpetrated a fraud, etc. This is a fraudulent/fraud. GENERALLY courts do NOT like getting into fights about whether what a witness said or what a person said was fraudulent because then you have to prove that a) the statement's false AND b) the person making the statement did so WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD. Much easier to simply dump into category #2: Insufficient to prove the claim. That rejects it without calling someone a flat out liar.

And that is why if I am not mistaken that the disclosure statement was set up with a process to weed out the false and invalid claims.  I would also like to believe that the TCC is OK with that process.  The only real valid reason I could see to push for this vetting process at this time is to delay the entire process.  The cost of vetting claims now would negate the savings later.  Only the insurers win if delayed.

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Again, I didn’t say that and put it in a separate category. My point was they want to go after ALL of it. Invalid...

I just wanted to reiterate that for you.

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Maybe CS would cut and paste from the discovery motion. They don’t make any bones about facially defective claims (lacking critical details), those found to be fraudulently filed (outright lies, critically contradictory assertions...shown by some research they’ve done or will do), filed/signed improperly (however that gets defined). Time-barred being its own category of “invalid” on its face, per the insurers. 

Time barred is not fraud or false. the only reason to investigate the claims would be to delay the process.  I am sure that the cost of setting standards (legal wrangling means more BSA spends on legal fees) would cost millions and than fighting every motion put forward by the insurance company's (more wrangling and more fees) counter motions by every lawyer who feels there clients claim was deemed fraudulent (more wrangling and more fees) etc. etc. Then you have the actual time that all this would take and bingo insurance company's win again.  Not counting the mental anguish to all other claimants.  I read over the investigators report and I very much doubt that the fact you may have a burglary or assault conviction on your file means that it is a false claim.  

I might add that having a social media presence where you appear to have a happy married life very much does not indicate what really happens in ones real life. 

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

That said, I think vetting does take on importance if there are a high number of fraudulent claims. 

What would the standards be for a fraudulent/false claim?

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Again, my main concern is why AIS was telling people they were acting on behalf of BSA to intake claims. If they were misleading people who just wanted to give BSA information, not file a claim, then that needs to come out it court.

Although the claims process thru AIS appears to have cut some corners I would find it hard to believe that if someone called and said I have info it would be turned into a claim.  If that did happen and there is proof yes it should be brought to the court. Could it be possible that the few people who confided in you actually made claims but didn't for whatever reason want to fully confide in you?

44 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

As for Tim Kosnoff... I have had direct contact with that vulture (tim@kosnoff.com).

What kind of contact did you if you do not mind me asking?

2 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Would it be out of the realm of possibility that BSA was working with AIS to get the numbers so astronomically high that it puts them in the position of being able to pay a very large "speeding fine", and then come out on the other end with no more lingering claims to hold them back from being able to get back into the fast lane again? As in... "AIS... you bring a ton of claimants to the table and we'll make sure you get paid a lot of money. We'll pay your fees, and then you can also hit your clients with a 40% bill, take even more money, and then we get to proceed without any worry of old claims coming back to haunt us in the future."

Sounds very much like out of the realm of realistic probabilities.