johnsch322

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.

59 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

I'm probablygoing to catch flak for this, but no.  There was nothing in the ASMs background that would have indicated predatory behavior. The scouts were looked for and found probably within 10 minutes, certainly within 15. The scouters talked between themselves for years about this, attempting to figure out how this slipped thru the cracks, and how to best prevent any type of recurrence.

I could certainly get on board with suing the perp into oblivion. Yas,he is still alive. At least he was 7years ago. A chance encounter. He didn't recognize me, but I'll never forget him. 

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

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Prior to Mandatory Reporting Laws for youth organizations, starting in the 1980s if memory serves and varied state to state, policy was for removal of abuser, and report to the Scout Executive (SE). SE would encourage family to press charges as BSA could not legally do so at the time.. Whether charges were pressed or not, SE filled out paperwork and any supporting documentation to national office. Once in the IVF, every name registration form was checked against the IVF. This could take months as it was prior to computers, and names had to be checked manually. It was also time before SSNs and drivers' licenses were required on forms, so I did read about a 2 to 3 folks using aliases to get back into BSA after moving. But that was rare.

Initially when YPT came about in the late 198os, want to say 1988 or 89, any abuse reports would go to the SE because mandatory reporting laws varied greatly. Nowadays it report to local authorities then the SE.

Were these policies written as national policy or was it just something that was general knowledge?  If this written policy do you know where the policy manual was written and is there historical evidence?

14 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Also I want to apologize to @johnsch322 for the snarkiness  of my post at the end. YP is an extremely big deal for me,

No need to apologize....I am not immune to go off myself.  The point I was trying to make was there may not have been YP if pressure had not been exerted upon the BSA.  I was a scout in the 60's and I am not sure what exactly was the formal procedure for reporting was then. 

11 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

I also wonder if they are among the 82,000.  

If they are part of 82,000 do you believe they should be compensated for their abuse?

34 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

So what were we to do?

In this situation you did the correct thing by calling the police but were the two boys offered paid for counseling/therapy to help them overcome the trauma that they endured?  I wonder if they are now part of the 82,000 claimants? I also wonder how many other young boys did he abuse in and out of the BSA?  Unfortunately too often the acts were not interrupted and when they did come to light the abusers were not reported to the authorities. 

In my personal situation at least 11 boys were suspected or known to have been abused but for some reason no one ever asked me.  

I would like to add one more thing.  Were the other scouters in the troop individually and privately asked if this ASM had ever done something similar to them?  It would have been rare that the ASM was caught the first time.  Was all of the parents of the scouts in that troop made aware of what had happened? Was the ASM ever involved with another troop before this incident and or did he have access to young boys from other troops?

17 minutes ago, skeptic said:

For the most part, this subject was hushed and Not discussed, and authorities also chose to not believe or make excuses because so and so was a good guy, as most knew.  Parents often chose to not press the issue due to the embarrassment and community tendency to call it he said, he said or it is a kid making things up.  It was not right, but that was the world most of us live in.  Now, when it did actually get beyond the disbelief and was taken seriously, the laws were not yet particularly strong, and reinforced to some extent the idea of not believing.  Again, unless their was absolute proof, it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, just like rape of women and even spousal abuse.  So, today, we are trying to fix something that cannot be fixed, and doing it at the expense, for the most part. the current youth in the program, and even the mental state of the victims.  I think that it what most of us that are so awful are referring to as different standards.  None of us thinks it should have been brushed aside, but few thought about it the way it is looked at today.  Bye, no more attempt to explain.

The files were kept secret until 2012 when the Oregon Supreme Court ordered them to made public.  That is only 9 years ago.  Was it a different time in 1981, or 1991, or 2001, or 2011?  The Boy Scouts of America did not advocate to it's membership to go to the police when knowledge of abuse happened period. There were congressional hearings in 1973 and child sexual abuse was part of the hearing.  Yes in the latest incident with the videotaping the police were called but I would bet you donuts to dollars if the pressure wasn't on the BSA it would have been covered up like so many other incidents.  One other thing I would like to say is please do not use the line "at the expense, for the most part. the current youth in the program".  In my opinion it makes the current youth to be victims of the survivors when if anything what the are losing is due to the past and recent leadership of the BSA.

13 minutes ago, David CO said:

Please don't use my name in your hypothetical stories about rape.  I don't think it was coincidental, since you were responding to my post.  Using my name in that way is insulting and unscoutlike.

I change the wording to abuse I hope that makes what happened to myself and countless others more palatable. It kind of like saying "cultural norms of the day were different" makes it everything that happened appear to be a little more normal...kind of like acceptable almost. 

3 hours ago, David CO said:

Those of us who were around in those days know that the cultural norms of the day were different.  We lived through it.  We remember how it was.  

I am pretty sure that cultural norms of the time wasn't:

Hey did you hear about Joe down the street?  He abused the little Smith boy.  Oh yeah well lets make sure the police don't know about that!! 

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes. Exactly. I’ve argued against that view over and over again. That’s why I suggested, “Are we really going back to that tired yarn?”

And yet there seems to be a widespread belief from people who occasionally comment in this forum with that argument. What bothers me is that they seem to be older scouters (such as myself) who have a long history with the BSA.  The other point that seems to be made quite often is why punish the new scouters.  All of this is not against scouters per se but the organization BSA and it's LC's and CO's etc. They failed under the law!

25 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I guess we revert back to the “different cultural norms of the day” argument?

Child maltreatment[edit]

Child sexual abuse has been recognized specifically as a type of child maltreatment in U.S. federal law since the initial Congressional hearings on child abuse in 1973.^[1] Child sexual abuse is illegal in every state,^[2] as well as under federal law.^[3] Among the states, the specifics of child sexual abuse laws vary, but certain features of these laws are common to all states.^[4]

I copied this from Wickpedia. For me it takes away any argument of  “different cultural norms of the day”. Society had laws on the books to punish those who victimized children. It was illegal, in every state period.  If it was known and not reported then those that knew are as guilty as those who abused.  If you have knowledge of a crime and you don't report it you aided and abetted.  They may not have let them be part of BSA but they were free to find other areas to full their pedophilia.  When an organization has a policy of cover up it makes it that much worse.

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

How close in time to your abuse was the record created?

Within one year.

On 6/29/2021 at 9:19 AM, fred8033 said:

Me too.  I have no magical hat either.  BUT, it seems like we are in for some type of mapping / tracking of insurer paid versus victim was in which org and when.  Same reasoning as property sales from a LC would get allocated to a specific set of scouts that was victimized from that area and not for all 84,000 scouts in the case.  ... Some policies will have limits.  Some won't have umbrella coverage for these cases.  I'm sure will be pooled as similar coverage.

Is the real question ... is there one or two major insurers for this whole thing?  Is it really just Chubb and (???) for most of BSA and the LCs?  Or are there other insurers involved.  Are there different COIs involved?  The 1970 COI has no limit versus 1980s has a limit per case and the 1990s has a overall limit per policy?  

It seems like a mess to