SiouxRanger

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.

Just have to say, with today's marvelous word processors, that can be said in 72 point font!

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.

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.

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...

Jaded, or educated? Well, then, perhaps, biased or prejudiced? I just want to understand you.

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.

TCC Letter is well done. Succinct.

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

Which, may be a deterrent. (Though apparently abusers are not inclined to change their behavior.) But it would get them out of the program.

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.

Has no one vetted the "Claimed Restricted Assets?"

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

"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?)

Sorry-mon (mes?), apologies! (Just too easy.) I LOVE blood pudding! As long as it is somebody's else's blood. (What is "blood pudding?") Can I get it from Mountain House, freeze-dried?

I am sometimes reminded, when reading posts, of the Pogo panels by Walt Kelly: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

National has sat down to a table to play the ultimate game of Texas Hold'em. Where a Chapter 7 liquidation is the "All-In." National has yielded control of its future to a formidable number of powerful players-a "Hail Mary" strategy.

Well, in the beginning, National did start with nothing, and 100± years later built it into what it now has. So, even starting at zero is doable. But, the second time around,, National would have its intellectual property, and a tradition (some of which is laudable), and a shell of a structure, though hugely damaged, and some camp properties with which to carry on the outdoor component of the program. It won't be what is was before the bankruptcy, but what does one expect when they burn down their own house?

I've never seen Articles Of Incorporation which did not provide that the corporation was "perpetual." Likely, they all are. My state has statutes providing for the voluntary dissolution of a corporation, (and the involuntary dissolution, for that matter, in the event that the corporation fails to pay annual corporate fees, and such-but not likely a BSA issue.) Seems to me there are only 3 likely scenarios regarding BSA intellectual property:: 1. BSA keeps all its intellectual property, having no right to sell it, or for the bankruptcy court to dispose of it due to some provision or interpretation of the statute you cite, or its Federal Charter. This option leaves open the possibility that BSA continues as a corporation, owning its intellectual property, but without a cent to afford even a custodian. In this scenario, BSA is a hollow shelll with no on-going operations. BSA, in this scenario, does not have the financial strength to operate, and Congress does not want it back. Some group might come along and rescue the Movement. This seems to be the least likely scenario. 2. BSA's intellectual property reverts in some fashion to Congress. Surely, Congress can revoke BSA's Federal Charter. Congress can't pass a law it cannot amend or revoke. In this case, Congress could control to whom the intellectual property was granted as a successor to BSA. I cannot think of any analogous procedure in my state. The assets of dissolved corporations do not revert to the state. But perhaps, BSA would be different due to its Federal Charter. The situation presumes that Congress would have to find some entity willing to fund a new startup BSA and then transfer the idle intellectual property to the startup.. 3. BSA's intellectual property remains assets owned by and controlled by BSA, subject to sale (or pledge as collateral) by BSA, and subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. A Chapter 7 liquidation would put these assets on the auction block. In this scenario, BSA is treated like a typical state chartered not-for-profit corporation. BSA's entitlement to exclusive use of its intellectual property appears to me to be nothing more than a "super trademark." I don't see how it adds much, in that trademark holders are also entitled to exclusive use. Though, normal trademark holders have to "defend" their trademarks (so that their trademarks don't become "generic" and thereby in the public domain where anyone can use them) to continue to be entitled to exclusive use. " Yellow Book" is a trademark that lost its status. So, the "exclusive use" provision may mean that BSA need not defend its trademarks to prevent them from losing their trademark status and becoming generic. I would also note that BSA National has many aspects of a franchisor-and appears to be licensing its intellectual property to its franchisees-the local councils. Which councils are separately state chartered not-for-profit corporations, which themselves are chartered (franchise agreement?) by BSA National. As with so many aspects of National's business model and relationships with other legal entities, things are very fuzzy.

So, if National liquidates, does its intellectual property go on the auction block? And, if so, are the potential buyers limited to those who wish to carry on the Scouting Movement, or could someone buy the intellectual property and simply put it on a shelf to collect dust? Seems to me National is in the franchise business-it licenses its intellectual property, its name, logos, designs, merit badge pamphlets, handbooks, etc. Some tycoon buy Philmont? What is American Scouting without those?