SiouxRanger

23 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

We need to be very very careful about questioning the veracity of someone putting themselves forward as a survivor.  We wouldn't tolerate anyone questioning the credibility of the posters who have come forward on these forums as survivors.  We shouldn't --- and won't --- accept it about others.  

There are tens of thousands of survivors, that certainly means there are just as many divergent and honestly held opinions on what the best course of action should be.

I understand appreciate your post.  My position on supporting Survivors has been stated several times.

But, there is a huge qualitative difference between posters analyzing data from court pleadings, news articles, tweets, texts, press conferences, town hall meetings, and such, and, an anonymous statement in support of a position that attorneys will net $400 million in fees, especially considering that the bona fides of that block of attorneys is considered to be highly suspect.

This is not an easy nut to crack, for I am not willing to take the position that the Anonymous Survivor should reveal his identity, but unless the Coalition can present a Survivor who is willing do so, (Of how many thousands of clients and can't find ONE???), the statement of the Anonymous Survivor has no value.

Folks, I could claim to be a survivor.  Allege all manner of awful.  Swear or solemnly affirm that I am telling the Truth.  My profile could be fiction.

And CONDEMN the Coalition recommendation.

And what would you have from all of that?

NOTHING.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS

https://scoutingabusesurvivors.com/survivors/

There are MILLIONS at stake.

How do we know that the "EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS" is a human being?

Surely, no one would lie to earn $400 MILLION.

11 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

But after waiting decades for most we ALL have to think about the day after a bankruptcy is resolved or a check comes in the mail.  Then what?  How much "moving on" will there be?

I asked this question many moons ago on this forum (it seems many moons, but maybe not that many).

Of  a survivor, I asked, "What are your expectations of this bankruptcy?"  (Or nearly that was what was asked.)

In my experience I have NEVER seen an alleged wrongdoer, in any legal setting, admit doing wrong, even with a Full Release in hand protecting them from any admission.  An admission that might lessen the damage done.

NEVER.

From the movie Amistad, Cinque, an alleged slave is relating the facts of his life and the capture of he and his cohorts.

John Adams interrupts him, and says, "No, what is your STORY?" 

My interpretation is that the facts don't "carry the case."

Cases are won by the Plaintiff's "story."

The converse is that Plaintiff's will accept less of a settlement if the Defendant admits to the damage caused.

That is, Apologizes.

The offended tend to accept apologies.

Offender humans nearly 100% of the time REFUSE to apologize, even though paying millions for the damages that they caused..

It is a "human thing" to apologize, and corporations are not human even though all the corporation's actions are conducted by humans.  Corporations don't apologize.

A conundrum and an enigma.

An apology goes a long way to remedy wrongs.

But the downside for corporations-NATIONAL-is that if it DOES NOT APOLOGIZE, Survivors will and should demand greater payment to make up for the lack of an apology.

So, as to the "Then What?"
 

Without an apology, there is a bank deposit.  In person with a clerk who knows nothing, a mailed-in deposit, or by some sort of scams-the-check process.

Sterile.

No letter of apology, or condolences.  You are left to the condolences of your close friends who you have let into the loop.  And what will you tell them of the settlement you received?

My best friend from high school, who moved away to college thereafter, never confided in me until about 5 years ago.  I had seen a number of times in the interim.  When he told me of this abuse, he said that he felt that I best understood him and that I was his best friend.

His trusted siblings knew.

And his pattern of abuse was simply horrific.

AND EVEN YET, he told me he did not want any compensation, ONLY AN APOLOGY.

He held a Phd.

(And not to make this too dramatic, his pattern of abuse, confirmed by an educated sibling, spanned scoutmaster abuse, cleric abuse, Christian Brothers abuse, and abuse by the staff at the facility that was to counsel him about his abuse.)

And the alleged scoutmaster abuser is NOT listed on any IV files now available, though I understand that N National has not released them all..  Though, in my contacts in my council, it has been confirmed that the alleged abusing Scoutmaster was a known/suspected child abuser.

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

I contacted them before filing a claim since I've known for 40 years I was SOL on the SoL.  I was told SoL didn't apply because it was a bankruptcy claim.  And that's what I thought for the first 9 months or so.  Then came the Grey Scale.

Whomever advised you advised "poorly."

Bankruptcy addresses legally enforceable claims.  It must. 

Why?

Good question.

So, Sears files bankruptcy October 2018.

Sears was founded in 1893.

A claimant from 1897, Grover Cleveland was president-remember him-files a claim in 2018 against Sears.  "I did not get my-whatever-from the Wish Book which I still have!

Well, the bankruptcy court is charged (has legal authority and legal responsibility) to collect the assets of the bankrupt, determine legally enforceable liabilities (bills and debts), and distribute the assets to those who have valid claims.

Folks whose claims are barred in any fashion are simply not entitled to any recovery whatsoever.

(And I remind folks, this is an analysis of the legal rules, and I am a rabid supporter of maximum compensation to survivors.  I am not a survivor.  My best friend is/was (now deceased) who struggled all his life with his abuse.)

SO, the $64,000 QUESTION is WHY did National include time-barred claimants in its bankruptcy?

Surely, National's attorneys understand that those folks have no legal claim.

"Jack, the Ruskies don't don't do *** without a plan."  --Admiral Painter, Hunt for Red October

National HAS a plan.

We only need to figure out National's plan.

And, I think that scheme is:

1.  If the Plan allows EVERYONE who has any claim, barred or not, to VOTE to approve the Plan.  Well, won't folks with NO legally enforceable claim vote YES, and thereby "stack the deck" against Survivors with legally enforceable claims?  Certainly.  Wouldn't everyone in Paraguay vote to approve the Plan if they were to get $3,500?  (Never having any connection whatsoever to National?)  National WANTS the Plan to be approved.  And the Survivors who hold the claims most damaging to National to be cut off at the knees.

So National's strategy, in my humble opinion, is that National is proposing a Plan which provides minimal,  inadequate (pathetic and insulting) compensation to Survivors with legally enforceable claims, and hope to carry that Plan through to approval by the Court by offering a bribe of $3,500 to those who would, in a proper bankruptcy proceeding, have NO VOTE.

In plain English, assume there are only 4 claimants with legally enforceable claims, and those claims were worth millions and that they'd likely recover 1/2 their claim from the bankruptcy if only their votes and claims were considered but N.ational's Plan only pays those mega- claimants $50,000.  Assume further that National's bankruptcy Plan not only allowed those 4 mega-claimants to vote, but also every Scout who ever earned First Class was allowed to vote, and that they'd get $3,500 IF they voted YES.  AND IF the Plan is approved by the First Class Scouts, National saves MILLIONS.

THAT, I think is National's Plan.

The PLAN is nothing less than a dereliction of duty by National.

Trustworthy.

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I doubt it, but if it is I’m sending it to every media contact I have. It was weak with a capital EEK. I’m serious. If they were representing me, I would have a high degree of disappointment, concern about the focus and preparedness, and no small measure of embarrassment. 

Thanks.  I'd love to see it.

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Any idea how many participated in the Coalition Best of Breed dog show? 
 

Humphrey said Thursday’s TCC TH had over 1100. 

Was the Coalition Town Hall recorded and available somewhere?

I was on staff teaching a merit badge at a camporee most of the day.

Something "Scouting" other than bankruptcy!

On 10/15/2021 at 8:44 AM, ThenNow said:

I second all of that. Factor in this little story, as well. Add it to the consideration of “who [you] are dealing with” and “Don’t send your Eagle badge back to National. It does not seem to care.” You may or may not have read this post of mine long long ago, but here’s a recap.

While in Wilmington applying to be on the TCC, I spoke with a lot of guys. The tension and raw emotion was palpable. Nervous sweat and incredible anticipation. Hopeful, but intensely vulnerable. Attorneys and BSA big-wigs milling about. I connected with one fella who was literally wringing his hands. We got to talking. As I am terrible and chit chat, I invited him to unburden. He shared what he had been through, in a shallow dive, and went on to what was really vexing him (in addition to waiting to be interviewed). He described how he had reported his abuser, an important Council player, while he was Life and finishing his Eagle. The reports weren’t taken seriously and it sort of got swept away. Like me, he continued anyway and filed all his paperwork, project completed yada yada yada. Well, his paper work was “lost.” Chronically. Perennially. He never received his Eagle. I was wearing my pin. I took it off and put it on him, after I dropped it because my hands were shaking. “There. You earned your Eagle and we both know it.” And we cried. 

Keep it, brother. You earned it and then some.

My offer stands.  You and folks similarly situated need friends.

At the end of the day, I get back to one word:  "Children."

This horror was visited on children.

Adult perpetrators visited this horror on children, and adults-at BSA- COVERED IT UP.

I've lost track, for 60 or 80 years???  More than a century?

I ask, "Who stands to protect the children?"

BSA does NOT.

On 10/14/2021 at 11:16 AM, HelpfulTracks said:

I can say anecdotally, I have heard people make the assumption if someone is made ineligible that it is because of CSA, even in cases where there is public knowledge of some other crime, like assault. 

I think that is mainly because most people had no idea the IVF existed prior to the CSA stories broke, so that is their only knowledge/perception of what IVF is, So it is not surprising if someone finds out that an individual is made ineligible they make that assumption, unless they are directly familiar with that particular case. 

What is more alarming, I have seen people leave scouting for personal reasons (not related to any IVF violation) and at times people assume that it MUST be CSA. Even when in reality, it might be financial reasons, health reasons or just fed up with BSA for some reason. People have a tendency to fill in the blanks and usually with worst case assumptions.  

If by "reported" you mean the media. I have little doubt that early reports included non-CSA in their numbers. As I stated earlier, the file dump I saw was inclusive. However, I think the numbers we see generally have been cleaned up to only include CSA. Frankly, using a larger number may have better shock value, but could backfire if people realize that the number was inflated by non-CSA violations. Some would just assume the whole thing was bogus and move on. If it were me, I would want the number to be accurate so as to prevent anyone from making that assumption. I am sure the legal teams would say the same. 

In my council, at one time scouters were banned from scouting for raising questions about the council's insolvency-first, to silence them, and second, to brand them as child abusers.

Time and again, I see documentaries about domestically abused women who refuse to press charges and return to the person who abused them.

I just don't understand it.  That process/dynamic remains an open question in my mind.  I will sort it out, but not yet.

And the folks in my council ousted, were reinstated.  From what has been posted here, perhaps that was a miracle, or perhaps the system actually worked to correct a wrong.  ("How can anyone tell?" -Hunt For Red October.)  Maybe they appear in the IV files-even though being reinstated.

20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

We have decades of experience managing disappointment.

One of the saddest things I have ever read, particularly considering it is written in the context of a "principled" youth organization's failure to protect children.  Particularly with respect to an organization that has a mandatory religious declaration component.

"That which you do the least of mine, you do to me."   --Jesus.

For me, BSA has no answer to that.

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I was disappointed it didn’t say, “This Plan sucks,” in the banner nor was Dr. Kennedy’s footnote included, “And, by the way, this Plan sucks.” It was good, though. Just coulda used that little punch up, ya know?  

Just have to say, with today's marvelous word processors, that can be said in

72 point font!

27 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

All true. But Ex Post Facto was what SCOTUS used (in part) to strike down retro extensions of SOL for criminals statutes in 2003 for 1993 California law

SCOTUS:   An enigma wrapped in a paradox, encased in concrete....Allen, Churchill, Alfred E. Neuman, Maynard G. Krebs, Bugs Bunny? (I get my mentors so confused.)

I was just trying to distinguish the different concepts for folks.

After the decision in Korematsu vs. United States, who can trust SCOTUS to follow the Constitution?

80% non CS

Do you have a source for that estimate?  That 80% of the IVF names are NOT CSA seems to imply that the 80% are what? Victims of political repression? Or what else?

The next question is if BSA has two IVF lists, those based on CSA, and "Other" (political, troublesome, ???)

Have the non-CSA IVF files been released through the Oregon case?

Or are they still hidden?

Thanks.

15 hours ago, yknot said:

I reached that point earlier than this, maybe a year ago, but found Johnson's comments validating about some of the deep concerns I have developed over the years about National and how it runs the program. In my estimation it has become a self affirming, self congratulatory out of touch cult rather than a functional, modern day nonprofit youth organization.

I hit that point 25 years ago.  Cult.  Yep.  "Toxic culture."  The operation will not change until all the senior leadership is trashed.

They MUST go.

Another poster waxed eloquent about how he relies heavily on council staff and how they perform wonderfully.

I do not doubt his experiences.

In my council, we only need the camp Ranger and a full-time Assistant camp Ranger, and someone in the Scout office to handle recharters.

The rest are worthless to my Unit.

Only in the last 10 years did lower level Council folks asked me to re-engage.  I did at functional levels where something is ACCOMPLISHED, not at Board levels where everyone gets mediocre meal four times a year for $1,000.

On 10/12/2021 at 8:03 PM, HelpfulTracks said:

The principle of Ex Post Facto is so old and and entrenched I seriously doubt they will allow retroactive SOL changes for criminal law. That is a good thing because of broader implications. 

But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

There are two issues here: 

1.  Ex Post Facto is changing the definition of a law TODAY to make actions prior to TODAY, criminal.  So a year ago, I cut my grass to 2 inches in height-perfectly legal, then.  Now, a year later, cutting my grass to 2" a year ago is a crime!  I had no way to avoid being guilty as I cannot predict what the legislature will make illegal, years after the event.  The Constitutional issue is that citizens are entitled to know at the time they take action whether or not it is criminal.

This is completely different from:

2.  "Years ago, I committed a crime.  It was a crime on the books when I did it.  The statute of limitations was 10 years and I managed to avoid capture and charging past the 10 year date."  Well, this issue is whether the statute of limitations can be changed for crimes already committed.  This is not an Ex Post Facto issue.  In my state, "no one has a vested interest in statutes of limitation for civil matters."  I know little of criminal law, and the answer could be different for all the several states.

Just to help clarify...

10 hours ago, qwazse said:

We are all jaded by our experience.

Jaded, or educated?

Well, then, perhaps, biased or prejudiced?

I just want to understand you.

42 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Maybe it's normal now, but I don't remember any sex talk going on in my troop from 90-94.

Gee, not just me.  Whew.  I don't remember any, as a youth, nor as a parent involved for 25 years, attending nearly every troop meeting and campout.

Internet the culprit?

This opens a whole new world of concern for me as a leader.

10 minutes ago, Wondering said:

TCC letter recommending voting to reject plan on tccbsa.com

http://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA TCC letter re plan.pdf

TCC Letter is well done.  Succinct.

So, what is Mr. Johnson's motivation to come forward and make any statement at all?

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

Which, may be a deterrent.  (Though apparently abusers are not inclined to change their behavior.)

But it would get them out of the program.

2 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Do you think that people who have not had any criminal complaint should be included in what is put out publicly?

This is precisely the conundrum.

On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  But, why all those cases were not referred to law enforcement-well, I can only conclude BSA did not want the publicity.  I fault BSA for that, and that policy is the prime cause of this mess. And had every case been so referred, to some degree, at least, BSA would have had developed a reputation as hostile to perpetrators and perhaps a fair measure of these incidents would have been avoided.  And, I'll say, such accusations, if false and publicized by BSA raise a distinct possibility that the falsely accused will sue for defamation.  (Damages measured by salary, times number of years left in the accused's work life, plus benefits, and perhaps punitive damages, if permitted.)

How many cases are based on false accusations?  That children are able to report facts of which they would normally have no knowledge heavily favors their truthfulness.  As we have little data, we sit in the dark.

On the other hand, if the names of the ineligible volunteers are not made public, then volunteers are not able to self-police their units, and AGAIN will have to rely on some opaque process that failed so miserably to this point.  We  will all have to trust that someone, somehow, vetted the new volunteer arriving at a unit meeting.

Part of the problem, is that everyone presumes that a person is designated as ineligible due to CSA.  And that is likely the case for the vast majority, but there are political reasons also totally unrelated to CSA.

10 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Restricted Net Assets 1,432,473,515

Has no one vetted the "Claimed Restricted Assets?"

11 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Anderson

What background about "Anderson" can you provide?  Many may not understand the reference, nor do I.

And so the plot thickens.

People sometimes say 'the plot thickens' when a situation or series of events is getting more and more complicated and mysterious. -Collins

National:  "We want to out of bankruptcy in August, 2021."

"I love it when a plan comes together."  --Hannibal, A Team

46 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I have to admit it felt good to hear the TCC say so many times that the plan sucks.

"Draws a vacuum" is the legally sanctioned term.

(No, wait, that is a physics expression, and we know physicists only speak math.  "S...

" musts be legal-what do those folks know about English?)