SiouxRanger

So, I've made this argument before. So, as I understand the issue is that we have an individual who has taken on TWO jobs as scouting volunteer, done one (perhaps both) well and is going to be DENIED performance recognition because of being double (triple, quadruple…) registered? Seriously? Who thinks up this trash? Being DESPERATE for volunteers, Scouting has rules to insult them? There are folks who can perform 2 or 3 or 4 Scouting unit, district, and council positions simultaneously in great form. I personally know many. I have held so many positions, at so many levels, for so long, many overlapping, and I have no interest in applying for whatever knots I might qualify for. I don't need any such motivation. (Anyone here getting a knot for the untold hours of reading and replying to posts on this forum? Yet we do it. No knot needed.) But, recognition is important to some to encourage their continued leadership. But, instead there are rules to defeat recognizing them for their efforts. Hmmmm.

I would note that I have been counseling distressed individuals and families for 45 years. And giving folks a bit of leeway, consideration, and forgiveness can work wonders. And that every injured soul appreciates a kind word. And a kind word costs nothing.

Another poster made a comment about this ending with "And now we return to your regular programming." I agree with his sentiment. Benjamin Franklin is attributed as saying, "We must all hang together or most assuredly, we will all hang separately." Long interpreted as "we all have to stand together." From that I take, in these difficult circumstances, we all need to make a special effort to cooperate for the greater good. There is a measure of patience (always underestimated in its significance by those who have the luxury of never having to demonstrate any), and humility (not easy either but I have several times upon the presentation of superior evidence by posters on this forum and learned thereby) to "stand together" for the greater good. There is a saying in the law: "Disagree without being disagreeable." (Well, perhaps, "Good Luck."). I have not seen the actual post which included the allegedly offensive contact information, and exhortation to contact the attorney. But, under the ancient concept of "demurrer," which means "we agree that all that is alleged is true, but that is insignificant." So, from my memory, I recall several occasions of posts of Mr. Kosnoff regarding all manner of issues and comments. Twitters (tweets?") and maybe other social media posts. I do not recall any objections by Moderators with regard to any of them. And, I think that there is a significant difference between a post which says: "Hey, have you seen this Tweet:" and one which says: "Hey, look at this Tweet, he has his act together, call…" It does not seem to me that @ThenNowwas endorsing Mr. Kosnoff. But even if so, I stand with @ThenNow as myself being something of a dunce on the rules. But I want to be PERFECT.Y CLEAR that @RememberSchiff has been a steady and sensible voice of moderation during my entire membership. And he would not be a moderator if not so. And I have absolute confidence in @RememberSchiff. I am not sure where the fault, if any, or issue lays. To move on, perhaps a modification of the rules on what can be quoted, and identifying the required redactions of phone numbers and email addresses.

This is a huge topic, but I agree that a complete review is required. My bio, resume, or whatever it is, on my profile, many positions held for 5 to 15 years simultaneously, I have had extensive experience as a scout, camp and Philmont Ranger Staff (one year responsible for the training of the entire Ranger staff), observing, teaching, and mentoring scouts, my three sons included. I have noted a tremendous diminution in the outdoor skills learned, or that are required to be learned, by scouts. And that few to none have actually mastered them. There is much to be said for requiring scouts to be organized in their thinking and in the expression of that thinking (written, spreadsheets), but adding that to the program to the extent that it has been, seems to have diminished and out-paced the former focus on outdoor skills. Scouting seems much more like school than development through outdoor education. Scouting today is not what is was when I was forming to become a fossil. But, I can save a life (Lifesaving was required in my day-I have), build a fire in a pouring rain, select a campsite on high ground devoid of widow makers, navigate, make shelter, signal searchers, select edible plants, and TIE MY KNOTS. And schools teach (perhaps) spreadsheets, but not fire-building or knots. Or Lifesaving… There is some balance to be struck, but what we have now, I do not think is it. I have seen many Eagle Scouts-ALL of them to be exact-who could not build a fire. Even in ideal conditions. So, some of it is the result of technology. Tents are all clips-no knots. Some sort of snap together, so "step back as it assembles itself." Who needs to build a fire, learn their wood types, make coals, tend the fire, and cook dinner? Nobody-we've got stoves! At Philmont in the 1970's, breakfast and dinner were cooked over wood fires. Just think of the time that that took. And crews still made it to program at the next camp. Today, with cold breakfasts and lunches, crews struggle to make it to the next camp for program (well, not all of them). Just some perspective on how Scouting has changed. Limiting Scouts to a mere 7 elective merit badges and the rest being heavily bookish, seems unbalanced to me.

Who?

Why not? Your reasons may help others consider their individual situations on sticking with their current attorney, or making a change. Thanks.

My state has statutory exemptions from certain types of liability-generally negligence-for unpaid volunteers serving on governmental or quasi-governmental boards. Perhaps such exemptions exist for unpaid volunteers serving as volunteer firefighters, etc. And, it could vary by state. I doubt that intentional torts are given the protection of an exemption, so the abuser would not have any protection, but those not intentionally committing abuse would likely be protected. Whether the government which sponsors the firefighting unit would be exempt raises the issue of "governmental immunity," which is complex, and also could vary from state to state. Retaining an experienced attorney who is knowledgeable in these legal issues is critical to maximizing the value of your claim.

A few paragraph breaks would help follow this.

I remember a TV series some years, ago, M.A.SH. There was an episode with a scene with the two principal characters sitting in their barracks tent, each holding a few playing cards, with a chess/checkers board between them, with checkers and chess pieces on the board. Another character came in and made some comment about the "game" noting the discordant collection of pieces, and asked, "What are you playing-and what are the rules?" The reply was "Double Cranko-there are no rules." And with the new bill, the entire dynamic of the BSA bankruptcy may change. Not so much for the BSA, but dramatically for the Claimants. There are currently two groups of claimants: 1. Those whose claims are legally enforceable under current statutes of limitation. By law, they are the only group legally entitled to any share of any settlement money. 2. Those whose claims are legally barred from enforcement and legally entitled to nothing in the BSA bankruptcy. BSA seeks to include these barred claims in the settlement for reasons I have mentioned several times previously. And so now, a bill proposes to eliminate the statute of limitations regarding child sexual abuse claims, which will, if enacted in time relative to the BSA bankruptcy, (might) convert all of the child sexual abuse claims against the BSA which have so far been barred by statutes of limitations (paragraph 2 claims above) into legally enforceable claims, which must then be recognized by the Bankruptcy Judge as legally enforceable, and thereby ENTITLED to be added to the calculation of the distribution of the total amount of money in the Settlement Fund to be divided up amongst the sexual abuse claimants. So, what is the significance of this bill to eliminate statues of limitation relating to child sexual abuse claims? Well, it means to the Claimants with claims not barred by statutes of limitation, that you will receive LESS because now there is a whole other group who will receive some of the funds that would have been paid to you. And to the Claimants whose claims are barred by expired statutes of limitation pertaining to you, you will now, likely, receive some payment, but it will come at the expense Claimants whose claims which have not been barred by statutes of limitation. ThenNow, I believe it was, expressed a concern that the process would "turn Claimant upon Claimant." Sadly, bankruptcy is a mathematical process of taking a FIXED AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS and dividing it up amongst those Claimants who have a legally enforceable claim to those funds, as determined by law. It is elementary math: The numerator is the funds available and is a fixed amount (Though that amount is not yet fixed-but once fixed, that is it). The denominator is the total number of Claimants (and their claims as weighted by the degree and elements of abuse which they were subjected to). Increase the number of Claimants in the denominator (weighted for degree of abuse) and the amount paid to each Claimant DECREASES. So, those Claimants who have legally enforceable claims and are not barred by statutes of limitation are, in effect,. subsidizing Claimants whose statutes of limitation have expired. And so, a poster expressed his concern that the bankruptcy process would pit Sexual Abuse Claimant versus Sexual Abuse Claimant. Sadly, it does, but it is not "personal; it is elementary math which is part of the bankruptcy code. In a nutshell, if you are a Claimant with a legally enforceable claim, and if those whose who were abused whose claims are barred by statutes of limitation are allowed a payment, YOU are paying that, and your payment will be LESS. IF that statute is enacted, and IF it is applicable to the BSA bankruptcy (filed prior to the effective date of the law), no one will have a choice. It will be the law. Upon the applicability of such a law, enacted AFTER the filing of the BSA bankruptcy proceeding, I express no opinion or thoughts.

Good point. Healed.

And, I just want to say, I rather vented on what I consider "insiders" on this forum, speaking in a partially obtuse code. Speaking to each other. It is hard to follow at times. And anyone-me-who can post the quoted post above-does not tend to find anything hard to follow. And any lawyers on this forum who have refinements to make to my post, please do. I apparently have a completely different view of this particular part of the forum (political issues and bankruptcy) then many others. I understand the need for "insider" discussion and to support Survivors. All those folks chatting are likely Survivors or those high attuned to the needs and concerns of Survivors, and I have no problem with that. Survivors need huge support. And I am am a huge supporter. I have no issue with ThenNow or anyone else. My concern is that there a another 82,000± claimants WHO CANNOT FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION. And they seek INFORMATION and cannot get it from this Forum. Because the discussion is too obtuse to be followed easily. Some poster mentioned that he/she really appreciated PosterX because it made them look all the "hard words" that PosterX used. I have a Bachelor's and professional degree normally earned in 7 years I earned in 6. And I can slather all my posts with big words that no one understands. And the RESULT: I have FAILED to communicate. So, I say again, everyone make clear references so the outsiders can follow along. THEY NEED THE GUIDANCE OF YOUR WISDOM AND JUDGMENT.

Notices Of Depositions normally follow Requests To Produce (documents), and sometimes Requests To Admit (facts). Attorneys want the documents first, for review, and then structure their deposition questioning strategy around the documents produced, and admissions or denials of admission of facts. So, dig up TCC's Request(s) To Produce, and you will see what TCC is interested in investigating. Likely, the TCC is interested in the nature and extent of insurance carrier coverages: coverage type, time period covered, amount of coverage, deductible, identity of insureds, and the cooperation the insured is to provide to the insurance carrier, i.e, reporting potential claims and concealment of known or suspected claims. Typically, with each renewal of a policy, the insured is to declare if there are any known prior incidents which might produce a claim during the term of the new policy, and if any such incidents are declared, the insurer will "except" them from the coverage of the new policy. Meaning, those potential claims will NOT be covered in future policies. (It is their "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. And insurance companies love them.) In this fashion, insurance companies narrow their exposure by excluding potential claims from the new policy which have not "ripened" into a claim covered by the expiring policy. This means that the insured, BSA, is now "self-insuring" for those excluded potential claims, and thereby, the insurance company will pay nothing for those claims. If BSA does not disclose known potential claims at the time of renewal of a policy, and any of those potential claims ripens into a bona fide lawsuit during the term of the new policy TCC needs to know the true facts, good or bad, so that the TCC can evaluate the true strength of the aggregate claims of the abused.

And even with this explanation of yours, and your "cutsie" reference to Spartacus, you still communicate NOT to me. And yet I understand most of your posts, perhaps because I hold degrees equivalent to yours. This is a forum to make communication of serious information to abuse survivors.

I didn't bother to Google it. The point of communication is to communicate. The really important folks here are those who are NOT registered. They are looking for information. And it is our duty to provide that to them.

piobndinerinxsdingespoinesinberonobneqdsinxeonindeeeondeinonn !!! Well, at least we speak the same language. Can we try to communicate with those who are not on the "inside?" This forum is worthless if it does not EXPAND the audience of informed scouters. About a dozen registered members "trade messages," essentially a forum of "private discussion" conducted in public. That will not create a "movement" nor educate nor inspire the casual lurker on this forum. They are seeking CLEAR information. Those here who have it, should share it CLEARLY. And thus goodness is done.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks. I'd love to see it.

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!

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.

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.

Folks without your specific issue are struggling to deal with National's bankruptcy. Me, a non abuse survivor, Eagle, who has pretty much devoted my youth and adult life to Scouting, father of 3 Eagles, am trying to make sense of the whole situation. Later posts by you than this indicate your concern whether you completed all of a merit badge requirements for a particular merit badge-in light of the possibility that your abuser just "signed off" to send you out the door. If, as you indicated, there may be another merit badge you completed without issues that will "cover" a needed merit badge, then the issue is resolved. On the other hand, if the suspect merit badge remains suspect, consider this: Education is an iterative process. Graduates of a college survey course are not Phd's. They are merely introduced to the major concepts of the topic. They need to take course after more specific course to refine their knowledge. And so be it with Scouts taking merit badges. The knowledge imparted to the Scout from his merit badge work is merely entry level. If you feel you met that, then you are done. To my way of thinking, most of the benefit of Scouting follows WAY BEYOND earning, attaining (being awarded) Eagle. If you have noted deficiencies in your merit badge work that you feel you have satisfied after the merit badge was awarded, I'd call that perfect. There is a saying, "All's well that ends well." "EAGLE" does not mean that you are perfect. It means that you are headed in the right direction. Learning lessons from merit badge requirements not satisfied, but learning them nonetheless, is completion. Don't send your Eagle badge back to National. It does not seem to care. You earned it-no doubt. And if you do, let me know, and I will send you mine. Eagle Scout Philmont Ranger

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.