100thEagleScout

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Since the Board selects the Board, there is no real chance of progress.

That said, I think these last few posts belong on the NAM thread, not the Ch. 11

Wasn’t aware there was one, thanks for pointing that out

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This was a show to try and cheer up the dedicated faithful, preaching to the choir if you will. NOTHING of legal significance was going to be mentioned or done. Even the proposed changes to the bylaws and electing new board members were shelved pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy.

It’s a real shame, because I know some amazing and I mean truly incredible scouters who should be up there running the organization and instead we have the same people who can hardly use a computer.  I hope BSA can bring in younger board members with newer ideas, but that seems pretty far fetched.  Any “new ideas” this board comes up with like LGBT+ or female Eagle Scouts is all just a PR show to try to build membership instead backfiring in their faces.

14 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

This is hard evidence nothing will change in this organization. If you wonder whether BSA is doomed, watch these guys. They are borderline delusional. 
 

It’s true, for scouting to live, BSA must die. The movement needs a new birth of freedom to wash away decades of failed, discredited, amoral National non-leadership. 

Kind of a shame I like Rex Tillerson but he’s acting like all of the others at the moment.  Everything is fine while the walls are crashing down.

4 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'm not sure why you think this.  A cram down only requires that a plan be better than liquidation, have at least one creditor's support and be fair.  You could argue that the judge won't do it, but it's certainly an option for her.

Just because it’s an option doesn’t mean all creditors are equal here.  A few executives from JPMorgan != 84000 survivor’s voices.  That would be a huge miscarriage of justice.

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As a matter of law: a cramdown doesn't require the consent or support of the survivors/claimants.

As a matter of practicality: no judge has ever ordered a cramdown where sexual abuse victims are involved.

It would also die on appeal if she tried a cram down.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I understand, but my question still stands. All other things being equal, do you want to see BSA survive or not? I've read through many of the victim statements/letters to the judge.

ALL (or effectively all) say they want BSA to pay/be held accountable.

• SOME letters say "and BSA needs to end."
• SOME letters say "BSA needs to survive"
• SOME letters are simply silent on the subject

Etc.

It’s a difficult decision for me because I loved the program, but I believe the program will survive past the organization somehow.  So, I’d say I’m in the BSA needs to end camp should a solution not be found.

I haven’t liked the BSA’s decisions for a long time now that isn’t just limited to this bankruptcy.

BSA tries to use CCP-style tactics of saying without them Scouting cannot survive.  That is a LIE, I know a new program can be made and we will continue to encourage the current program until it can be substituted.  Sure, there will be no more Eagle Scouts but a new equivalent award can be made.  It wouldn’t be completely reinventing the wheel and we could draw together input from current Scouts, minority groups BSA states they want to include and survivors still active within the organization to create a better organization for the program with less stupid rules and more safety for children.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

True. Is that what you want? If so, then it appears the answer to the previous question of what is "adequate compensation" from BSA is "no such number exists."

I’m only saying that’s the reality of the situation.  Insurance has plenty of liabilities to cover the cost with a battered and beaten BSA coming out of bankruptcy and barely surviving liquidation.  Whether they pay is a different story.  If there isn’t a solution soon I can only see this case escalate in tensions.  BSA will say “oops we’re out of money”, BSA professionals will be working for no pay, lawyers will still be charging the same outrageous fees they have this entire year, and local councils will be forced into their own Chapter 7 and 11s.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, but the point is the judge has said she is NOT going to let BSA die, and BSA cannot be forced to liquidate (it may voluntarily do so), so what is the solution?

Or do you simply want BSA to die?

While BSA can’t die on paper, it certainly can become so financially strained that it ceased operations indefinitely and essentially “dies”.

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

I tend to agree. Hard to imagine the Coalition lawyers settling out without the official committee. That would create a firestorm. It would be opposed by the US Trustee and it’s protnot possible under the bankruptcy code. Similarly situated claimants have to be similarly treated under any plan. 
 

KOSNOFF controls 17,000 clients. He’d go berserk. 

I wouldn’t say he controls them.  I think he just has a big persuasion initiative.  It’s similar to how the US President on paper doesn’t have a lot of power but his word can make the stock markets move.

They don’t always do, but in Kosnoff’s case it’s a symbiotic relationship.  Kosnoff takes the heat from Century while being the political figure behind liquidating BSA.  Clients call to complain to him about BSA’s so far awful attempts at a sufficient plan of reorganization.  Lawyers on the back end file more state court lawsuits as more windows open up.

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

For my money, the 3 P's: Purely PR and Public Pressure. The press release on the MI investigation is itself powerful. Sure, I'd love all the substantive outcomes, but I've lived long enough not to hold my breath when something spurs a flutter of hope me bosom. Let's see what happens when 5, 10 or 15 states hop on the chuckwagon...

Still, this is not a good day for BSA.  Especially any council with claims from the last 5-10 years.  Those councils’ staff are mega screwed if they didn’t follow proper protocol to the letter.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

It isn't inevitable. There are very good legal arguments why LCs should not be considered part of BSA National. And I assure you, if BSA were suddenly to unilaterally "declare local councils are part of the whole" they'd be opening up an entirely new front in this mess with the LCs suing BSA and refusing to turn over a dime absent a court order.

 

How is it not inevitable?  Obviously this would be by region but all of the bigger, wealthier councils also have more liability exposure so every council will be in danger if the cram down happens.

Of course if BSA were to suddenly declare local councils as part of the whole picture then maybe, but judging from the NAM they are denying the inevitable.

49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

From what I have read, the rumor is the TCC is not being included in the negotiations.  Essentially, the BSA has collected a group of claimant representatives >50% and is working with them on a settlement.  There may be some truth as the Coalition agreed to delay the hearing but the TCC objected. 

Does anyone know if the TCC is actively part of the current mediation or are the being excluded?  I know the target is 66%, but I wonder if the judge would accept >50% yes votes and if BSA has identified a path to yes with 42,001 claimants.  There could be a lot out there that are just looking for a quick payout.

The Bankruptcy Code wouldn’t allow for that.  That’s because they’re drawing in non-debtors to also settle.  The cram down option would have to be the BSA-only toggle.

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's why makes me so appreciative of what TCC is trying to do here. In addition to working on behalf of all abuse victims for maximum financial benefit (as they are by law supposed to do) they have also said they'll be asking for the FULL (redacted) release of ALL these files. BSA needs to finally come clean here.

And two years of operation costs for councils.  I think that’s a very generous proposal.

2 minutes ago, elitts said:

A adult staff member was raping 15+ year old staff members and only got warnings?  Wow, I would have thought that unlikely for a number of reasons; particularly since you must be talking about recent years since being openly gay wouldn't have been allowed for a staff member before 2015(I think?)

He was actually 16.  He was being sexually inappropriate to his peers.  Wasn’t an adult.

I have reason to believe he was heavily medicated because he was weird.

5 hours ago, elitts said:

I'm confused, what "paid counselors" did BSA hire with a known history of abuse?  Most pedophiles are pretty dedicated to maintaining their cover as "respectable" and mask themselves fairly well.

And what other action do you think the LC should have taken?  Typically with accusations of this nature you'd get an immediate suspension with orders to "stay away" following a review of the accusation, but then the actual investigation takes a couple of months because you have to do everything officially, with plenty of notice.  And then only after a complete investigation would official sanctions be imposed.  So 4-6 months sounds fairly normal.

But the existence of lawsuits and settlements in our country doesn't always indicate a "problem".  If it did then virtually every major hospital in the country would be guilty of ignoring their "problem" since most of them have plenty of suits and settlements on their books.  Lawsuits and settlements (in and of themselves) are just a fact of life and the cost of doing business in the US.

 

Really?  Mind telling me how that works out when an openly gay counselor preys on scout camp staff members, doesn’t get an immediate suspension, instead multiple “warnings,” then comes back as a CAMPER and sits in the merit badge classes of those whom he abused for an hour each day?  Then the BSA phone line goes silent and an outside party needs to tell BSA to kick someone?  

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Here is where I have an issue.  It isn't to me so much what the BSA did but what they did not do.  They did not help those that were in need and that was the victims of the "evil pedophiles". In my situation the local council knew that one of my rapists victimized 12 to 13 boys such as myself and never lifted a finger to try and identify any of us and get us the help that was needed.   Yes they prevented him from being a volunteer again in another city several years later but essentially covered up what he had previously done.  Does anyone know of a situation where after a Boy Scout was victimized that the BSA went to the victim and made sure that the proper counseling and therapy was provided?  Yesterday after 54 years I had my first therapy session and that is 54 years to late.

I tried getting into BSA’s therapy.  No therapist is taking new clients so oh well. I turned instead to pushing those memories behind me.  Psychologically I’d say it’s several lifetimes behind me because I binge television shows and read manga to push it out of my memory.  It hurts my wallet, but it’s my own way of getting past it.

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The reason BSA is being sued (and has lost numerous times in state courts prior to 2020) is that yes, the pedophile did it, but BSA was negligent in allowing it to happen. In short, and I mean very, very short:

1) Boy Scouts of America (BSA National, the Congressionally Chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils to carry that program out.

2) Boy Scouts of America directly chartered each year the units in question.

3) Boy Scouts of America knew from early, early on it had a pedophile problem and created the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout.

Therefore

1. Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed.
2. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc.
3. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough
4. Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor."

Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

 

What’s even worse is when BSA local councils hired/retained paid counselors they knew or should have known were likely to abuse children/their peers.  This isn’t just a problem from the 1970s like BSA likes to make us all think.  This problem stretches to as recently as 2 years ago right before COVID-19.  My council was particularly bad about it and is the reason I’m suing them.  Ridiculous that I had to go to my high school teacher at the time to report something I reported to the LC who didn’t take any action whatsoever besides being too late at firing from camp.  I think it took another 4-6 months for him to get banned from Scouting forever.

30 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Welcome to the forum. 
 

I can confirm from the survivors side that your intel is correct. Then NJ, NC and CA. 
Good to hear the LC’s are tuning in to reality. They have no good options. 

I tried posting about some of these happenings on Reddit, but to this day many Scouters don’t want to hear the truth.  It’s going to come smack them in the face in just a few short months.

Just joined this forum to say expect a huge wave of local council lawsuits in the upcoming weeks.  An internal email came across saying that all councils in New York state are about to get slammed with crippling numbers of litigation in the early summer right before the end of the state's CVA deadline.

Basically, if the BSA stays in bankruptcy, NY councils will have huge pressure to give up everything or lose everything to the settlement trust.  If the case ends up as a "cram down" these councils will face unprecedented numbers for their size.  If these councils did in fact prepare for this (should have started as soon as last year) they may enter Chapter 11 rather than liquidating through litigation.

Either way, New York camps aren't surviving.