SiouxRanger

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.

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.