SiouxRanger

Precisely true. However, the BSA is not unique in this respect. EVERY (not some, not most,) lawsuit targets those legal entities against which liability can be established (that is, the law and facts make them liable), AND which has assets capable of paying an award of damages. The legal principals which establish liability have long been established, without reference to the existence of the BSA. (Theories of negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton, intentional, products liability, vicarious liability, strict liability, and so on.) So, if you really have a problem with BSA being caught up in this tangled web of legal liability, take it up BSA National, ITS lawyers and ITS administrators. These principles of liability existed when BSA National made its decisions on how to handle abuse claims. And, either: 1. those folks failed to appreciate the risk and application of the rules (entirely understandable considering that many decades have passed and societal norms have changed significantly), or, 2. those folks were business and legal geniuses and decided to run the risk, nonetheless. (Leaving future BSA employees to deal with the consequences.) (The sentiment being: "I'll have my pension in 2 years, and the guy I just hired will hire someone in 20 years, and that newly hired will have to deal with it 20 years after that, or if really lucky, pass the problem downstream to someone else.") Regardless, "that day" has come to pass. No matter, the future of the BSA is not a burden the survivors have any obligation to bear. If according some measure of justice (haven't seen it yet in the whole bankruptcy process to date) results in the dissolution of BSA National, so be it. The Scouting Program has been my only activity outside work. From age 6 to 70. My Scouting resume is 4 pages long, single spaced, most positions held 10 to 15 years and 3 or 4 held simultaneously. It is what I know, love, and I can participate with my children, all Eagles. I am no BSA basher. But the BSA cannot move forward until there is some closure regarding the damage done to the Survivors.

I don't think I've seen evidence of that. BSA is being held liable as a co-tortfeasor along with the miscreants. Miscreants have natural lives. Corporations have infinite lives. At some point, only the corporation is left standing on the field as the miscreant is deceased. In fact, other than in a legal context, most folks, at least in my realm, hold the BSA in high esteem. Despite all the legal turmoil.

Meaning what? That a continuation of the failed IVF system continue?

Which socio-political groups?

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.

A very long time ago, a "handful" CIT was dropped off at camp and the parents went to Europe! Had to track down relatives to pick the scout up.

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.

Been there. Done that, except at the council level. National saw it my way and retired the council exec. Not fun, but necessary. These things do not play out according to organization flow charts, Robert's Rules, or the Queensberry Rules.

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.

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. Absolutely agree. More discussion below. Again, absolutely agree. 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." 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. Not so sure what they can do. Seems likely that both are passengers on the ship and have to ride out the storm. 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.

It appears that both audio files and written transcripts of US Supreme Court oral arguments are posted to the Court's website. The site indicates "posted the same day" as the argument. This will be helpful in studying the questions asked by the Justices.

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.

Just wondering what it is supposed to do. Why not just have professionals who run the not-for-profit? Our board only meets quarterly. Hardly any committees and those (maybe one) are/is barely active.

Why does the BSA, like so many not-for-profits, have a volunteer board?

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Strange, virtually no response.

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.

There are some serious trivia questions here.

"Trustworthy" And has anyone been paying attention? TRUSTHWORTY NOT.