Jump to content

SiouxRanger

Members
  • Content Count

    765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Posts posted by SiouxRanger

  1. My son got a CIT position at the local camp.

    Now, to my feeble mind, that means, "Counselor In Training." Menial work hired out in the past.

    He worked in the kitchen for two weeks, all day. No "counselor," no "training." He hated it.

    He never went back to a camp staff position.

    I don't blame him.

    My hopes that he'd have the benefit of the local camp staff experience and the Philmont staff experience I had were shattered.

    That was an enlightening event. Scouting could not be trusted. Had I an inkling that he would not have actually been a Counselor In Training, but sent to the kitchen, I never would have signed him up.

    My local camp staff and Philmont staff experiences were the best thing that ever happened to me and changed my life.

    • Sad 1
    • Upvote 2
  2. 53 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    based on fraud in disclosure

    And, for all I have read about National's modus operandi in these matters, and local councils' complicity therein, councils are now complicit in that fraud in disclosure and have huge legal liability exposure.

    Councils took the easy course mandated by National and may well pay the price.

    • Upvote 1
  3. 41 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I think it is clearly time the SC weighs in on non debtor releases.

    When I first read the BSA trustee's objections to non debtor releases, I was persuaded.

    I do not expect them (non debtor releases) to be upheld.  That's where I place my marker on this issue. Just my legal judgment.

    (Scouting has been of huge importance for me in my youth, and as a parent. The Program is great;  National's handling of abuse issues is a terrible failure. If only we could separate National from the movement's ideals.)

    The BSA trustee's legal objections are very serious, legally. And the SCt seems to think so, too.

    • Thanks 1
  4. 5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    The consensus....if the Supreme Court thought Third-Party releases were such a good idea then it wouldn't have taken up the case.

    It could also mean that the Supreme Court wants to resolve a known conflict among the appellate courts. The Supreme Court recognizing that the conflict has grown to such dimensions that it is "ripe" (not in a purely technically, legal sense) to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

    The SCt tends to let conflicts among the appellate courts develop to a point where there has been sufficient exposition of the issues in the lower courts to step in and bring it all to a head and set a rule.

    5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    Also, this is not a "Sackler-Specific" issue.

    Absolutely agree.  More discussion below.

    5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    It's all about interpretation of the bankruptcy code regardless of whether a wealthy family is involved.  Had it not been the Sacklers it could have been the BSA's case to push this to the Supreme Court.

    Again, absolutely agree.

    5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    The only way this goes away for the BSA in the interim is if the objections are dropped completely.  This would mean that the two attorneys (representing Guam Survivors and the other various survivors in several States) would need to have their clients compensated at a level so that their Survivors are much better off than other Survivors in this Bankruptcy AND the non-settling insurers who object also drop their objections.  All of that isn't outside the realm of possibility but doesn't seem probable right now. 

    The SCt taking up the Purdue case hands "advantage" to those parties who oppose releases for non debtors from non-consenting claimants. Those who object to the BSA bankruptcy now find themselves handed a hammer.  Heavy, or light, it is still a hammer.  Competent legal counsel will seek to leverage that hammer as the "market will bear."

    5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    All of that isn't outside the realm of possibility but doesn't seem probable right now.

    Agree.  Not likely that the objectors will be offered an acceptable concession. And even if so, it may not stop a SCt ruling in the Purdue case from affecting a settlement.

    5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    If I'm Century or The Hartford I'd be trying to rescue this. 

    Not so sure what they can do.  Seems likely that both are passengers on the ship and have to ride out the storm.

    5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    If the BSA's plan is DOA, it would need to re-enter Chapter 11 or throw in the towel and go Chapter 7, Local Councils are again exposed and in "open" states especially, Chapter 11 becomes their reality.

    Agree with this paragraph and the balance of the post.

    The Purdue case is docketed as:

    William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.

    Case/Docket #:  23-24

    A synopsis of the legal issue of interest to the SCt, from its website, is:

    The parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

    To my recollection, that is precisely the issue raised by the BSA trustee very early on.

    And now, it appears the the SCt is poised to resolve it.

    "Watson, step lively-the game is afoot." Holmes.

    • Thanks 2
  5. 9 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

     

    Well, if anyone was looking for a sign that this would be moving along a little quicker, you didn't get it today.  What this means is that the Supreme Court will hear the Purdue arguments in December.  Then, they will probably rule by the end of June when they go on recess.  Lately they've issued a lot of decisions at the very end of the term.  Purdue is in the Second Circuit and the BSA Bankruptcy is in the Third Circuit.  BUT, the third circuit will most likely wait for a Supreme Court ruling on this so that it has guidance.  This guidance has been long overdue since different Circuits/Districts are more and less favorable to non-debtor third-party releases.  That's also the reason the BSA went venue shopping and set up an entity in Delaware shortly before entering bankruptcy.  So, the Trust can continue to operate, and even make "quick pay" payments, start issuing award decisions, and even making a portion of payments with the money it has on hand.  BUT....there is NOT $2.7B in the bank because full payment from settling insurers isn't due until ALL appeals have been settled.  As well, yes, should the Supreme Court strike down third-party releases before the Court of Appeals rules then the current bankruptcy plan blows up.  IF, and no one expects it, the Court of Appeals rules and denies the objections then the plan does move forward.  A supreme Court ruling can't undue that after the fact.  That said, the objectors can file a writ to the Supreme Court to have this paused, as is the case with Purdue.  The Supreme Court would decide whether it will accept the writ.  Again, the Court of Appeals is expected to avoid that scenario by waiting to see how Purdue shakes out.

    Lots of "what-ifs."  Survivors are awaiting the Trust making the claims questionnaire available.  Then, there will be a six month window to complete it.  Since that will expire before a Supreme Court ruling Survivors will have little choice but to complete the questionnaire and keep their fingers crossed.  In the interim, at the most will be some tea-leaf reading at the end of this year when we hear the tenor of the questions being asked in Purdue.

    If you want the bankruptcy to blow up then today's pause gives you a bit more hope.  If you want this to move forward then you have a little more reason to be concerned.  Regardless, if you're a claimant then your task will still be to submit your questionnaire and get back to waiting.  I can only shake my head in frustration over all of it.  Again.

     

    Normally, I don't quote a post simply to "agree" with the post.  I usually just upvote, but this issue is an exception.

    @MYCVAStory has precisely and concisely summed up the current state of the BSA bankruptcy in light of the Purdue case and the Supreme Court's recent action.  The questions asked by the Supreme Court Justices during oral argument in December will be the next, best hint as to which way they are leaning.

    • Upvote 1
  6. And Scouts-children-are birds.

    Once taught, they "fly away."

    Were the lessons learned? Did the effort to teach pay out?  Has it impressed them?  Was all the effort teaching a waste of time?

    And, critically, "Will they pass that lesson learned to others?"

    Fortunate is the mentor who sees confirmation of the impact of their efforts..

     

    • Upvote 1
  7. On 8/5/2023 at 6:17 AM, 5thGenTexan said:

    I want to ask here.  Is demanding Scouts do one thing OR do push-ups considered corporal punishment

    It is, no question in my mind.  Totally inappropriate.

    I attended all the troops campouts for all my sons' scouting years.

    I'd buy a Leatherman Micra (handy little tool-my favorite) for about every third campout.

    On Sunday morning before the police line walk-through camp looking for trash (and teaching the importance of being responsible to leave a campsite in better condition that one found it) I'd place the Micra where some scout in the police line would be likely to find it.  Usually toward one end of the line and usually close to where the line would start.

    A scout would find it-"Lucky you."  "Good job-eagle eye."

    "Keep an eye out scouts, you might find something like this...we've got a ways to go."

    Cost me about $6 a campout extra. Priceless.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  8. Another critical factor you need to consider is that your scout will only be in scouting for a limited number of years.  Waste a year dealing with idiots is very precious year lost. (Well, they may not be idiots, just idiot impersonators, or perhaps much worse-sometimes hard to tell.)

    You can't afford to lose a year dealing with the Big "I"'s for that year will never be back for you and your scout.

  9. On 8/1/2023 at 5:43 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

    Of course that was all true, but there wasn't much to respond to in terms of how to right the wrong exactly. Of course it has to be righted, for the reasons you articulated, but the question is how to deal with the situation skillfully so that the right thing really happens. (Bully stops bullying, victim feels welcomed and supported by the whole group.) 

    What response were you expecting?

    Thanks for your reply.

    I thought there might be a flurry of objection to my compassionate view of things.  I don't have the training or answers either, but there has been so much bashing of those least able to defend themselves.

  10. On 7/25/2023 at 5:10 AM, RememberSchiff said:

    Camp Roland (Buckskin Council,  Bastian, VA) located near Bastian, Va., is to be sold after serving Scouts for about 90 year, according to Dan Trent, program chair, Mountain Dominion District.

    Scout Executive Jeffrey Purdy said there were several factors behind the decision:

    • several Boy Scout councils have merged since 1970. “Each one brought in one or more Scout camps through the mergers,” he said. “There have been six or seven camps we’ve been responsible for.”
    • Covid-19 pandemic
    • national organization declaring bankruptcy impacted the BSA’s finances.
    • membership drop
    • a “world-class” Scouting facility, the Summit Bechtel Reserve in Fayette County.  For example, Buckskin Council will hold an Emergency Preparedness Camporee at Bechtel Summit on Oct 6-8, 2023.

    "On July 6, the Buckskin Council BSA signed a memorandum of understanding with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). This memorandum will to utilize various state parks for activities while encouraging scouts to contribute to the conservation and preservation of these natural treasures through service projects.

    Under the terms of this agreement, scouts from the Buckskin Council will have the opportunity to camp for free in designated state parks, such as Pipestem Resort and North Bend, as long as the requested facility is available for use on the requested date. Recreational activities may also be provided at a reduced or negotiated rate, depending on volume, availability, operational hours and the time of year.

    Before starting a service project, scouting units will be required to complete volunteer agreements and obtain project approval from the WVDNR’s West Virginia State Parks section. State Parks personnel may also provide educational programming, such as merit badge classes and counseling, to visiting scouts."

    More at Source:

    https://www.bdtonline.com/news/boy-scout-facility-camp-roland-in-bland-county-up-for-sale/article_701b6536-264a-11ee-bbcb-eb3bcbcc4383.html

    My Council's President recently represented the fact of selling off about a third of our council's camp to pay the council's share of the bankruptcy as "fortunate" as the land sold (for about $1 Million) had never been used by the council for scouting activities.

    Who is this fount of wisdom? A bank president. Hmmm.

    No mention that the land sold was a "council asset worth $1 Million," which if truly unused (part yes, and mostly no) and never needed in the future, could have been sold for $1 Million and that money used to provide program (why is "program" a "dirty word?") to youth.  Instead of selling a $1 Million asset and receiving the money for council purposes, the money was sent to the bankruptcy.

    The sale of those portions of the camp, when all boiled down, was a GIFT of $1 Million to National for which NO BENEFIT was received by the youth of our council.

    (Well, it does perpetuate the existence and governing control of those who brought this curse upon our council in the first place. And for all the money the councils have paid, do they have any enhanced control over National-to prevent further abuses-I don't know of any. It is essentially "tribute.")

     "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."  --Robert Goodloe Harper

    It is an abject, total, and unmitigated loss of $1 Million for no benefit to the service of youth.

    Yet presented as a "positive thing."

    Nope.

  11. On 8/1/2023 at 4:49 PM, 5thGenTexan said:

    Personally, I dont really care about a person's uhhh affiliation...  if that is the right word. People are who they are. I make my judgements based on one's character.  I will fight for them though when others decide to cause harm because of who they are. 

    I agree. Thank you.

    (I really thought my post would ignite a firestorm considering how divisive the topic is in the national arena. Comforted that it has not. They are just children.  I don't have the answers, but they need emotional support.)

  12. Well, some folks just cannot be reasoned with, nor have the insight into their own actions to see any other path but their own. The reasons are varied, but no amount of discussion will change anything.

    Move on to a "better fit" unit.  They are out there. 

    Thoughtful folks are always at a disadvantage in dealing with the thoughtless.  "Surely, if I explain well enough, they'll see the light."  Generally, no.

    It is not a big deal to move on.  Some from the old troop may follow, hopefully some of your scout's friends.  Or you can invite some of your scout's friends to "test drive" your scout's new unit.

    you-parent-your attendance at troop meetings and campouts in the new unit is critical to "lead by example" to your scout and reassure your scout that the new unit is OK.  Tell your scout that we are just "test driving" this unit-some troop meetings and campouts. "Give it a try and we can talk after we've attended several activities."

    Good luck.

  13. On 7/30/2023 at 10:38 PM, SiouxRanger said:

    Well, one can start with the feelings in one's gut.

    I do not understand LGBTQ+. Nor am I any of those.  (And maybe I've missed a group, or two.)

    But I do know that everyone wants to be recognized by their name, and to feel included and accepted by those they have selected to associate themselves with.

    Like joining Scouts.

    "You are welcome here."

    Scouting was once described to me by a Professional as the place everyone can participate all of the time.

    Skill and ability were not required.

    INTEREST in participating was the only requirement.

    I am convinced that one's orientation is genetic and/or chemical.  And that none of us ever had a choice. We just picked up the cards (after delivery), and all was then set in stone.  How one acts according to the cards so dealt out to them, that is another matter.  And how society reacts is another level of the situation.

    And the LGBTQ+ individuals.

    They are individual human beings, with family, friends...

    and they are among the least protected and least able to protect themselves.

    Pretty sure LGBTQ+ folks did not consciously decide to make themselves social pariahs.

    But that is where they find themselves.

    They are oriented as they are.

    And so those of "accepted" orientation pounce upon the weak.

    And claim "Victory" over the hapless.

    So, as a faith-based organization, what happened to the Biblical sentiment, "That which you do the least of mine you do to me."

    Everyone I've ever met, they are just "trying to get through their day." And most of their days are chaos.

    Strange, virtually no response.

  14. Well, one can start with the feelings in one's gut.

    I do not understand LGBTQ+. Nor am I any of those.  (And maybe I've missed a group, or two.)

    But I do know that everyone wants to be recognized by their name, and to feel included and accepted by those they have selected to associate themselves with.

    Like joining Scouts.

    "You are welcome here."

    Scouting was once described to me by a Professional as the place everyone can participate all of the time.

    Skill and ability were not required.

    INTEREST in participating was the only requirement.

    I am convinced that one's orientation is genetic and/or chemical.  And that none of us ever had a choice. We just picked up the cards (after delivery), and all was then set in stone.  How one acts according to the cards so dealt out to them, that is another matter.  And how society reacts is another level of the situation.

    And the LGBTQ+ individuals.

    They are individual human beings, with family, friends...

    and they are among the least protected and least able to protect themselves.

    Pretty sure LGBTQ+ folks did not consciously decide to make themselves social pariahs.

    But that is where they find themselves.

    They are oriented as they are.

    And so those of "accepted" orientation pounce upon the weak.

    And claim "Victory" over the hapless.

    So, as a faith-based organization, what happened to the Biblical sentiment, "That which you do the least of mine you do to me."

    Everyone I've ever met, they are just "trying to get through their day." And most of their days are chaos.

    • Like 2
  15. 1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

     

    Don Letarmen’s Top Ten Responses…

    10. I was texted by another granddaughter of Mr. Seeton and was told that E.T. couldn’t spell his own last name.  “He ‘phoned home’ to the wrong number. And, got bad advice.”

    9.  Auto correct is a failed concept.

    8.  What is the only sentence in the English language that cannot be written?  Try typing “There are three (and then phonetically, (to, too, two)’s in the English language.”

    7. Roger does not complain that his name is spelled as “Mudd.”

    6. Contestant:  “Who is Earnest Thompson Seeton?” Alex, “Correct-$200.”  (It’s an AUDIBLE-Hello!)

    5. "NOOO!!! You don't have to call me Johnson! My name is Raymond J. Johnson Jr. Now you can call me Ray, or you can call me J, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me Junie, or you can call me Junior; now you can call me Ray J, or you can call me RJ, or you can call me RJJ, or you can call me RJJ Jr. . . but you doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"

    4. Is it Harry S. Truman, or Harry S Truman?

    3. Who is, or are ( or now, were) Winston S. Churchill?

    2. The “a” only makes a difference if the equation comes out as “e*a=m*c^2.

    1.  What is “a” in the equation above? (And include a mailing address for your Nobel, please.)

    And, how many Pharaohs CAN dance on the head of a pin? (Nobody cares. Well, but, sorry, it DOES depend on the size of the pin head. Now if the pin head is of Summarian origin, 4,000 B.C., copper, not nickel,…)

    There are some serious trivia questions here.

  16. On 7/27/2023 at 12:46 PM, KublaiKen said:

    I can't even envision a scenario where I ask a girl to take her Gold Award off her BSA uniform.

    And so, I'll just jump in to the discussion of a female wearing a Gold Award on her BSA uniform.  (And I've posted with respect to other topics following this in the same thread, so I am "backing up" a bit.)

    Once one earns a patch and it is awarded to you, it is YOURS.  You can wear it according to provisions of the organization that awarded it to you, throw it way, glue it to your windshield, give it to a younger sibling.  Feed it to a pet.

    It is yours to do with as you like.

    So a young lady earns Girl Scouting's highest rank, and us BSA folks presume to tell her to remove it from her BSA uniform.

    Can anyone explain to me the merit in discouraging a youth to DENY their accomplishment by compelling the youth to remove a badge of their highest rank from another organization?

    "Yeah, we know you've earned THREE OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALS, but our organization's Rabid Rodent Medal dictates that Olympic Gold Medals are verboten.

     

    • Upvote 1
  17. And so,

    As an SPL of a Junior Leader Training Troop, 1967 or so, I was told that I needed to know the names and tent assignments of every scout in the troop.  Such stress.  I got that job done.

    And on Philmont Ranger Staff-we had to learn every Scout's name. And we did so.

    And, so as a lawyer.  Names ARE IMPORTANT.  Everyone expects to be addressed by their first name.  As they should. And in legal documents, it is critical.  Seton's legacy will thrive or diminish, not on the occasional spelling of his name, but on his actions.

×
×
  • Create New...