johnsch322

1 hour ago, David CO said:

Would they then need to balance it again by letting a cute little cub scout get up and tearfully expound on how the bankruptcy will negatively effect his participation in scouting?  

I would be perfectly fine if a cute little Cub Scout got up and tearfully asked the court that thru this bankruptcy he would never be harmed in the way that all the abused have been. To ensure that every safeguard was put into place so the future within BSA is a safe place for him and all his fellow scouters. 

33 minutes ago, David CO said:

Please stop twisting my words.  They are my political opponents because they want greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I think I made that very clear.

 

So who are "they"?  In your opinion are the people who believe in bigger numbers of victims than you do also "want greater government involvement in all of our lives"? 

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

So, I tend to be very suspicious of any numbers that tend to support the political viewpoints of my opponents. 

Please don't tell me that the numbers one believes have been abused has anything to do with political views.

46 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The older Eagles are friends and relatives in their mid 60's. The friends do not know the relatives. My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

Barry

Hopefully none of your friends and relatives are victims but factually they may not tell you and might be claimants. As far as the court records go we are just numbers not names. 

5 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My son and I, both Eagles, were both solicited to file suits though neither had claims.

The court required the BSA to show that 95% of all men from some age (I think 50 or 55) and older were made aware of the bankruptcy to be able to file by the 16 November 2020 last day to file.  They hired a firm to certify to the court that the goal was reached. 
I do not recall by whom we were contacted.  

Big difference of being contacted to be made aware of the bankruptcy and being solicited to file suits. If 95 percent of all men over the age of 55 or older were to be shown to contacted I wonder why I wasn’t?  I wonder how they got contact info?  If they only contacted active or current adult scouts whom BSA would have current contact info that would not sound Kosher to be able to certify anything. 

How I have been feeling about so much of what people post:

"People say believe half of what you see.
Oh, and none of what you hear.
Whoa, I jus' can't help being confused.
If it's true please tell me dear.

I heard it thru the grapevine"

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

In this case, I know a lot of elderly Eagles Scouts who were approached several times in the last couple years to join this law suit.

Since most scouters do not attain the rank of Eagle Scout (Eagle Scouts are older scouts and abuse victims tend to younger) and the fact that most victims withdraw from scouting old Eagle Scouts (exception @ThenNow) would tend not to be abuse victims.  But how were they approached...it couldn't have been thru the perversion files since victims names were redacted.  Do you know for a fact if they were abused or not?  If they were not abused are you saying someone (who) was trying to have them file false claims?

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Some folks just want to see the facts..

Here is a fact 82,500 claims.  Nobody in this forum has the right or the knowledge to discount not one of these claims (including myself).  Not one of them to my knowledge has been discounted in any type of court of law.  I have my suspicions that some are false but I have no proof of fact.  Yet some people on this forum who want or tout facts are quick to discount this number and are critical of anyone who chooses to believe based on other studies this number could be quite higher.  BSA was founded in 1910 and it would be quite reasonable and factual to say the majority of those who had been abused in the first 30 years are dead.  How many would that be? Statistically how many victims would have died off between the ages of 40 to 80? I posted a few months ago a number using mortality rates for men at certain ages based done year that abuse happened by the claims and the number was amazingly higher than 82,500.

40 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Oh, I see. You're only using a teeny, tiny itty bitty bitty predictive model. Well that is different. See how well that works when engineers used the same amount of design to defend a car wreck or plane crash..

You folks admittingly don't have a clue of the numbers, high or low. Nobody does. Lots of emotion, but not a lot of data.

I'm curious, I can understand lawyers using these numbers in court to your advantage. But what do you gain defending those numbers on this forum where it doesn't make a difference. You're situation implies an obvious bias, so you aren't changing any minds. I don't get it.

Barry

I believe that the number of 82k is low and here is why. My abuser per the perversion files molested at least 11 boys. When looking at the claims I am the only claimant on the local council. What happened to the at least 10 others?  In the highest number of years statistically a large percentage of men have died. They aren’t counted. The reason this matters is so that some people can’t just say oh millions have been scouts and only a minuscule amount have been abused and then trumpet oh look how good a job the BSA does or has done. 

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No, they literally called them the "perversion files" or "P files" since at least the 1930s.

Well that predates Tim Kosnoff.  And the name "perversion files" or "P files" pretty much says that the BSA knew what they had in their ranks.

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

That one word, perversion, likely has done more damage than anything else,, even if it tells very little of the realities within those file,s. 

I am pretty sure the BSA would not have named it the "perversion files" instead they called it something that would was more innocuous  the "IVF". As soon as one report had to do with the abuse of boys it became perverted on it's own.  

I am sure you do know that it wasn't Tim Kosnoff who thru the Oregon Supreme Court had the BSA release the IVF files.  It was an attorney named Kelly Clark who is now deceased.  Also it was the media who named them the "perversion files" and that happened immediately.

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

Not saying he should not have won, only that the level of hype and amount of the payout was onerous and extreme. 

What would you say would not be onerous and extreme.  The victim in the case in Oregon was awarded 18.5 million.  Any time that a judgement is rendered it can always be appealed if it is excessive.

56 minutes ago, skeptic said:

He simply played the system to his benefit by praying on vague innuendo and the media hype

What do you mean by this?  Could you expound please?

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

As I've tried to say, love or hate, this man h

He has to be the most interesting figure in the three ring circus.  

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I do think those who are on the winning side of these issues have been less than magnanimous in their victory.  Having won the policy issue, they could afford to be a little less hostile with those who are still disappointed in their defeat.

This is a little disappointing to read as it was @mrjeff who started this thread. As was said if you want to post your opinion be ready to hear the other side. Hasn't history taught us anything?  

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

Perhaps I'm the only one who will not allow my boys to go away with a gay scoutmaster, and still encourage my girls to be girls. 

Gay scoutmasters are not attracted to young boys...period!  Gay men do not seek out straight men.  Lesbians are still girls/women and I know this because my daughter is lesbian and every inch a girl and acts like a girl.

12 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

Sorry guys but you can blast away all you like but as my Scouting career draws to an end so does my participation in this forum.  If you disagree or have other opinions you certenly have a right to them.  But don't try to force them on me because I have a right to have my own opinions.  In my opinion the open acceptance of gays and girls into the Boy Scouts is a mistake that is irreparable.   Good By.

It appears that you are homophobic and you have that right.  I think BSA and these forums might be better off without your participation and some of the old sad opinions.

55 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

 

Hence the requirements in YPT (and similar training I had to go through for my church) that adults take an initial youth report of anything that sounds like abuse at face value, and personally report it to the authorities; and report anything that looks like deliberate or careless noncompliance with the rules internally within the organization.

But there's a difference between taking a child's report at face value for the purposes of starting an investigation and taking immediate steps to make sure the child is safe on the one hand, and being completely credulous about a story that has lain dormant for more than half the lifetime of an aged adult on the other.

I wonder about some of claimants in this case, not just the thousands who submitted claim-forms with basic details missing (or on whose behalf certain attorneys submitted such forms), but even some of the parties who have written letters to the Judge.

Here's how one recent letter, from "T.K.", [D.I.5749], begins...

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b96e52f4-034b-4b34-9423-62ff75855b3c_5749.pdf

"Your honor,

"This, my second letter to you is to clarify any misunderstandings as per my first letter to you."

(There are other letters from "T.K." on the docket, but they don't match this writer's handwriting or the details in this letter, so perhaps his other letter was lost in the mail, or misaddressed, or perhaps it was filed as his claim.)

"I've written other similar letters before, except for the 'scouts' part. When events and circumstances repeat themselves enough times, that I'm essentially 'tipped-off' that my current letter for help was not successful, by also the behavior of enemies. [...]"

"I thought it a necessary gesture to tell my sister about the BSA litigation and my attorney [redacted], so I am confident about my assumption of my sister contacting you, the BSA, my attorney, etc. to cause harm. | So if they did communicate with you, they lied."

The writer goes on to say, as far as I can tell, that he worked/volunteered as an undercover drug informant while still in High School, in the mid-70's. The sister of one dealer was killed as retribution for various dealers being caught in a sting. The writer then says "... her brother threatened me with a gun, threatening to rape my little sister." He told his Scoutmaster and his sister (assuming he only has one sister, that would be the same sister who was threatened, and who now might be contacting the BSA to contradict his story) about the threat, and "one or both put the badmouth on me right away." That's the only mention of his Scoutmaster in the entire 15-page letter.

He does claim that reports that he is a registered sex offender, performed a drive-by shooting, pushed dope while in the Army, committed burglaries, and took "psycho-meds" are all untrue, and that the NCIC record is for "someone with my same name".

I've seen other letters that have more details about the actual abuse (or appear to have them, hidden by redactions), followed by allegations that the writer took drugs, got drunk, was abusive to spouse and children, committed other crimes, etc., all in reaction to the abuse.  That all makes sense as plausible consequences, but the older the claimant is, the more time has elapsed during which he didn't tell anyone, the less external evidence he has that he even was in Scouts at all, and the more serious his intermediate drug-use, commitment or incarceration has been, the harder it will probably be to convince a jury that any particular person or organization is responsible for his current challenges.

In other words, someone who submitted a claim-form or wrote a letter may sincerely believe that certain people did certain things to him in 1965 or 1975, but if he later took LSD or some other drug, did the "bad trip" alter his memory? Perhaps he really was abused, but by a different person, and the drugs altered his memory of who abused him or where it happened? Perhaps he had a consensual sexual experience as a young adult (or while above the age of consent under state law or actual community custom at the time), and the drugs caused him to misremember his age and the fact of the consent? Or perhaps the drugs caused him to remember a report he saw on TV once as something that happened to him? Or if he was in solitary confinement in prison, could that have had a similar mind-altering effect?

At the hearing where she said she would go forward with the Rule 2009 motion, the Judge asked the attorneys to also brief her about the "thousands" of letters she had received. Actually, it's not quite that many. Each letter received goes on the docket twice, once as "SEALED", not viewable by the public, and once as "REDACTED". As of August 4th, there were only 1,150 such "REDACTED" letters on the docket.

And one of the attorneys who spoke at the most-recent hearing said that only about half of the letters appear to be from claimants connected with AIS.

In California before a claim can be filed in court for sexual abuse claimants above a certain age must have a psychiatrist interview and certify that in their opinion that there was sexual abuse. I forget what age that is but I did have to go thru that procedure.  I believe once the psychiatrists report is written that by itself is taken to a judge.  I can tell you for a fact that in my case the interview lasted for about an hour and was not just for rubber stamping purposes.  I am sure that something similar would weed out many claimants in the bankruptcy.  

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

On a related note, I've asked this before and didn't get any replies. I completely understand if no one here knows the details on this one. If I missed the answer(s), please forgive me and I'd love to be directed to anything posted.

I am keen to understand when the counseling reimbursement program started, under what/whose directive, if it was proactively offered or had to be discovered and sought by victims. To drone on, I first gave BSA notice of my abuse more than a decade ago and didn't get a reply, much less an offer of counseling reimbursement. (I do apologize for asking again, but it's all John's fault.)

John accepts the blame. 

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

"Past" depends on your time frame.

My time frame would be 30 to 60 years ago and yes I am asking about CSA trauma.

5 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I have heard of and known scouts who were victims of trauma offered help from our council. However, the trauma was not from CSA. As a policy, counseling from independent centers is made available, but my understanding is the wait times are much reduced by scheduling via one's health plan.

Thank you for your answer but my question is about the past.  Did BSA offer help the victims as BSA or local council/troops became aware of the incidents?

If you read the LA Times article they said that at the time of publication there were at least 50 incidences of leaders coming back after expulsion.

What keeps coming back to haunt me is that very little if anything was ever done for the victims. There was a crappy system for trying to keep abusers from reentering (not always though) they had insurance in case they were sued but so far I can see nothing for the victims.  I have heard about families leaving town.  Scouters continuing on but for the most part it seems like the victims were put to the curb as if they were morning trash. Has anyone heard, seen or read where a victim was given any voluntary help with his trauma?

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Ah. Gotcha. The other guys would be best able to update you on that.

I can also tell you, as you may have read in my posts, the SE managing this matter knew about the booze and pornography in our Troop. He participated, in fact. How can that be seen as anything other than willing complicity, failure of the duty to warn and effectively accessory to the crime of abuse? He was the dang SE for cripe’s sake. He knew we were being provided those things. In light of the criminality alone, exacerbated by his knowledge that these are elements OF abuse and precursors to illegal sexual contact, he did nothing. Well, other than *Wink wink. Nod nod* I hate that those two boys went through what they did, but finding that file changed my perspective entirely.

It is amazing what transpired in the BSA.  

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Was my post on the ‘73 IVF of any help?

Yes. My thinking over the last few days has been was there any formal written instructions from the BSA on how to handle abuse cases once the troop became aware of them. 
Also was there anything written on how to help the victims?

15 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It seems "employee" is bring thrown about a bit too loosely.  BSA may be responsible for it's volunteers, but ASMs are not employees.  ASMs are worse off than unpaid volunteers.  In fact, ASMs PAY to be members and volunteer.   ASMs PAY to purchase training materials.  ASMs PAY to get their uniform.  ASMs PAY to camp.  ASMs PAY to use BSA property. In reality, very little of BSA's treatment of volunteers looks like employees. 

It seems extremely shallow to summarize ASMs as employees.  In fact, BSA looks more like a vender selling a product to the ASM voluinteers (and all scouting volunteers).  

Anyone ever used an employment checklist test to see if they are employees?  I used to take one as a contractor at times.  Or how about a volunteer test checklist.  I'm not sure ASMs would even qualify as volunteers given the level of products bought from BSA.

Laws have changed.  This is not an area that has been clealy and consistently defined over time.  Volunteer responsibility law has been evolving.  

Wether he was paid or unpaid is immaterial to the situation. He worked for the BSA. In fact as an ASM he had authority  over others and more than likely used that authority in the course of the abuse. 

21 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I would be interested to hear others opinion on this...

My opinion:

At the very least this is a very good case for having no statute of limitations for child molestation in both the criminal and civil sides of law.  Who was really looking out for the two boys?  Were the parents thinking about the embarrassment or shame for the children or themselves?  Who was thinking about the long term ramifications of their mental health, the anguish and mental torture they more than likely have had to endure?  Also the monetary cost of treatment.  The ASM who committed crime did not have to answer for it.  How many more youth did he abuse?  How many more will he abuse?  If it happened in the early eighties it was more than likely not until their 30's did the worst of the mental health issues arise.  

As for compensation thru the Bankruptcy I vote very much for just compensation. The abuse happened when the 2 were 10 and in the care of the Troop/Local Council/Chartered Organization/BSA National.  The ASM was an employee of the BSA which makes the BSA responsible for his actions whether anyone could have predicted it or not.