Jump to content

SiouxRanger

Members
  • Content Count

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by SiouxRanger

  1. My understanding of "mandatory reporting," at least in my state, is that only certain classes are mandatory reporters: physicians, counselors, etc... Lawyers are not. Which raises the question, is anyone in the Claimant claim process a mandatory reporter? I don't know. It is like walking down a path: Claimant calls a law firm about a Claim. Speaks with a receptionist, then an info intake person, that information is passed along to a somebody (firm case manager, junior attorney, etc.), then ultimately (maybe never, according to some) by the lead attorney, then filed, with the Court, and
  2. Pretty sure I understand the meaning of "terminate." I also understand the principle of de minimus non curat lex, but that has broader application to matters beyond mere semantics. The issue is: resolving this discussion so that a single post clarifies and clearly states the issues relating to insurance for the benefit of all the posters and guests, namely: 1. The significance of National's apparent position that its interests in the policies somehow end up in the Settlement Fund as assets. It is my understanding that when a debtor files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, A
  3. @cynicalscouter. Your first sentence " you do not have access to BSA insurance policies" sounds a bit like "terminating" to me. But if you read it as "You've got access to BSA policies, but that access (benefits to you CO's) is not what you thought it was, and your coverage is pretty thin, because:" 1. "You CO's have no coverage before 1978, regardless what you assumed. Where did you get that idea?" 2. "There are aggregate caps and per occurrence caps, some of which we, National, have already accessed, leaving less for you CO's to cover your liability. Coverage/benefits will run
  4. So, does National's Plan leave the CO's uninsured, or leave them with whatever coverage the policies provide by the policies' terms, and the difference to the CO's is whether they: 1. make some $ contribution to the Settlement Fund, and thereby be entitled to a release from all liability, or, 2. not make a $ contribution and be left to whatever coverage the policies provide, and retain all liability for claims. And, I guess this analysis of #2 is complicated by the Hartford deal which would effectively reduce the coverage that the Hartford policies would provide to the CO's i
  5. Though I can't yet convince myself that I understand how or on what theory National's plan or threat to dis-insure the CO's is based, if the underlying policies are somehow transferred to the Settlement entity, Adult Scout A is likely being dis-insured along with the CO which charters that unit. Lovely.
  6. So, regarding National insurance policies under which the CO's were allegedly insureds, would that coverage also extend to adult leaders in the unit chartered by that CO? Adult Scouter A attends a Troop campout. An incident of abuse occurs on that campout. Adult Scouter A has no knowledge of or involvement with the abuse. Later, a claim (lawsuit) is filed against National, LC, CO, and Adult Scouter A. Is Adult Scouter A afforded insurance coverage to defend and indemnity for any damages under National's policies, or is Adult Scouter A uninsured and on his/her own? Has Adult
  7. I had this vision of Native Americans herding buffalo off a cliff. There's a plan? So, considering all of today's events, is National closer to its toggle plan? I see all of this as a cascade of positions, each a fall-back to other positions in this order: 1. Initial plan of little money from National. 2.-? Maybe a couple of iterations to PLAN 4 with RSA and Hartford. 3. Plan 4 without RSA-seems unlikely to pass. (Now we know Hartford deal is OK with the Judge). 4. Plan 4, like #3 but with CO's agreeing to something via mediation and negotiati
  8. Interesting, Thanks. I have a volume on the debates over the Constitution, I will check it out. Nonetheless, in practice, Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of why democracy has (sort of) thrived.
  9. Freedom of Speech is in the FIRST Amendment, for a reason: primacy of importance. TRUSTWORTHY is FIRST in the Scout Law. And, what is National's track record judged by that law? Who will ever trust National again?
  10. I only have experience with one Catholic Parish CO, and, as an institution, it could care less about the units it sponsors. Elderly parishioners always smile at scouts when scouts are part of an activity parishioners see, but otherwise have little knowledge of the unit's principal scouting activities. Senior Troop adult leadership in my troop know nothing about National's bankruptcy unless I tell them. Given that a SINGLE ABUSE CASE could create a multi-million dollar liability for a CO, if they continue to sponsor units-they are not paying attention. And if they listen to their lawye
  11. Sadly, these types of considerations now become part of the "routine" of making camp safe, and on our list of things adult volunteers need to be alert to. So, my council camp has three separate buildings, two shower houses and the pool house. All are relatively new, perhaps the last 8 to 10 years. They are built on the single stall model, single stalls for restroom facilities, and single shower stalls. Each stall locks from the inside. All stalls open to the OUTSIDE. In full view of anyone present. Each building has a central service corridor for mechanicals to service each
  12. I suspect that both churches have solid leverage with little bluff in it. What organization needs substantial legal liability with little to nothing tangible to show for it? And when so bit, do you stick around to be bit again? And, the churches may well use that leverage to obtain better terms in the bankruptcy, AND THEN, drop out as CO's in the future having determined that National is unable to adequately protect them in the future. That seems to be the finesse play for the the Methodist and Catholic interests. If National believes the Methodists and Catholics will drop out as
  13. Does anyone know where in the bankruptcy procedure objections such as these are likely to be argued? Will they actually be argued orally, or simply considered by the Judge from the pleadings with no oral argument? Thank you.
  14. After a long day doing maintenance at my council's only camp, I arrived home to an email from the sister of my best high school friend, advising that he had passed away on Wednesday last. He is the scout I described elsewhere as having been abused by a scout leader, but not willing to file a claim. And abused by Christian Brothers teaching at his high school, AND by the staff at an institution he was sent to for therapy for the previous abuse. It is through him that I see the effects of BSA sexual abuse on the lives of CHILDREN. Our high school years of camping in rain, snow,
  15. I confess that I grow weary of discussions of whether all 82,500± claims are valid, or some smaller number or larger number (not counted as a claim was not filed, or a deceased victim, or a prospective claimant who remains silent-for whatever reason.) As near as I can tell, all processes are a slave to the Bell Curve. Shift the Bell Curve left or right, flatten the peak, raise the peak, give it a few bumps, whatever, the Curve retains it primacy as a descriptor of facts. And if not all the facts for every case, certainly the bulk of the facts. So, The Bell Curve tells us that some c
  16. After my 25 years of active adult scouting, more of less, I do not doubt that the National Board has no control over the BSA. My Local Council also has a Board and Executive Committee of that Board, but, I think that all decisions of significance are made by the Council Scout Executive. The sentiment, "He's the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL, what do we know, being "mere volunteers???" And so, the professional viewpoint carries the day. That National appears to have authorized $850 MILLION in expenditures with no paper trail and apparently no discussion is simply ASTOUNDING. What? The B
  17. Document No. 5971, "Massey Law Firm Claimant's Supplemental Objection..." is a good summary of the complex issues regarding claims and BSA's Plan. (Sorry, but I can't seem to figure out how to copy a link.) "All politics is local." Same applies to claims. Claimant A has a claim against Abuser B, Local Council C, and Chartered Organization D. Perhaps against Insurer E. Claimant A DOES NOT HAVE a claim against the AVERAGE of Abusers, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and insurers. It is a question of "mapping" the claim to the defendants. A
  18. @CynicalScouter Thanks from me and frankly, surely everyone, for tracking on the status of National's bankruptcy pleadings, and the procedural steps, past and pending, in the Bankruptcy case. And your commentary thereon. It is no small task to monitor, summarize, and report on the significance of pleadings filed. Your efforts surely enable many non-lawyers to meaningfully follow along on a largely otherwise indecipherable process. Thank you.
  19. Would be interesting to see the IVF for those excluded for reasons other than sexual abuse-those excluded for political reasons only. And why would National be in the business of political purges?
  20. My apologies for tone.

    1. SiouxRanger

      SiouxRanger

      Well, I stand embarrassed at my brusque language, and I do need to reign in my comments .  This is only the second time in my 45 year professional life I have so transgressed.

      Thanks for your understanding, my Brother in Scouting.

       

    2. The Latin Scot

      The Latin Scot

      Well, I hope I will be a little kinder, a little wiser, and a little better after this exchange, and I have you to thank for making known these areas of improvement for me to work on. So now, let's put it behind us, and look forward to working as allies in a world that needs the values of Scouting today more than ever. 
       
      “Come on dear Brother since the war is past,
      For friends at first are friends again at last.”
       
      ⚜️😄⚜️
    3. SiouxRanger

      SiouxRanger

      Nice quote.  Agreed.

    4. Show next comments  45 more
  21. Hey, I am OLD. I can hardly see. My hearing is worse. On good days, I can hear some, on most can't see much. Maybe due to too much meds, or too little-can't tell if my nurse is stealing mine or feeding me hers. Well, just won Bronze at the Tokyo Olympic Trivia Challenge, so, what was it, your concern...you a Scout, perchance? I was a scout once...can you tie a tautline? I can untie a Gordian knot. Well, I could back during the Bronze Age. Didn't need a sword. Used a laser-wasn't credited for my scientific innovation. Have a good Epoch. (I don't like to look stupid.
  22. I have to agree with @yknot. Seems like @The Latin Scot is agreeing with you. I have trouble following the rest of the post of @The Latin Scot. The use of the word "chose" or "choose" in a discussion of "being gay" opens a whole level of discussion and debate that likely will never resolve until future Watsons and Cricks explain it to us. And, I don't really follow the notion of judging someone by how they seek to define themselves. Few think of Gacy as a benevolent, community-minded clown. Perhaps, "Do as I say, not as I do," becomes, "Judge as I do, not as I say." A
  23. This is a particularly devious and brilliant idea. The lawyer has the choice of standing by all the claims he/she filed, and perhaps losing a lot of money as claims are ruled to be invalid, OR, to protect his/her income, taking a position, on the (court) record, that a claim filed by him/her is not valid, thereby admitting to incompetence and/or fraud upon the court and subjecting the lawyer to court imposed sanctions), AND, at the same time, taking taking a position on the record AGAINST his/her own client! (Thereby violating ethics rules.) Catch 22.
  24. Not having come across much about the basis of the insurers' position, is it more in the nature of: "that the insurers have a contractual obligation to insure over legally enforceable losses suffered by their insured, and that claims barred by a statute of limitations, not being legally enforceable, are outside the insurers' contractual obligation?" If that is the insurers' position, it is not a statement that the abuse never happened, only that the insurers no longer have a contractual obligation to compensate barred claimants. Frankly, that position would be understandable as surely i
×
×
  • Create New...