clbkbx

19 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

many (most?) cases, the youth would not testify or file charges.

I see this idea often, not just from @HICO_Eagle

“The BSA would have done something if only the abused kid would testify.”

First, that’s pretty classic blame the victim. 

Second, in my case in the 90’s, an ASM did raise concerns and was told it was fine and the YP rules were being followed. After several years of abuse I did testify, on my own with the support of my family and zippo from BSA. So it’s always frustrating to read that because in the instance I know, the exact opposite happened. I doubt I’m one in a 100 thousand.

On balance wouldn’t it have been much much better to have been sued for defamation from a false accusation and erred on the side of protecting kids? 

9 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

They did hold themselves to a higher standard and they chose to eliminate the threat as best as they (thought they) could.  Saying or insinuating someone had homosexual or bisexual inclinations was a far different matter in 1968 than in 1998 or 2008 or 2018.

Now we are talking about BSA in general. 

You are way off on the homosexual vs bisexual comment. The great majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/

On whether the Boy Scouts did their best... I don't think I can add anything that will change your mind but note that your description of how an SE or TCC would have analyzed the situation has no mention of doing the right thing and is all about liability and reputation. 

8 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

BSA removed him and prevented him from rejoining

You misunderstood what I was saying: my recent posts are not about one single instance.

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

you need a law to know that was wrong?

And from the Boy Scouts who very prominently purportedly hold themselves to a higher standard! 

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

a logical fallacy to change scope

It is pretty clear that the topic is about BSA’s culpability in general. You make an over arching conclusion about that… in the same post where you say you were only talking about one specific example and the goalposts were being moved. 

19 hours ago, fred8033 said:

This sounds like BSA's files worked well.

The BSA doesn’t think so: 

"There have been instances where people misused their positions in Scouting to abuse children, and in certain cases, our response to these incidents and our efforts to protect youth were plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or wrong,"

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/boy_scout_perversion_files_off.html

44 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

be nice if the same thing happens to the lawyers

That is exactly what happens for most of the lawyers. They get a percentage of the distribution.  
 

@Eagle1970Thanks for sharing and sorry to hear that. The state by state difference is terrible. 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

There is nothing healing in this process.

For you, maybe.

Some survivors (including myself) do find on balance that it is healing. It got me back to therapy and there will be some sort of finality.

How many people actually post in this thread regularly, 20? Are even half of those stating they were abused in BSA? It's just such a small representation of the number of victims.

I'm glad to see @Bzzyadding a voice and it's crushing to know this is not the case for everyone. That was me for a good portion of the bankruptcy process (mad at the underfunding, inequity of distribution, the lousy lawyers, the amount of time, etc.)

That some victims will find some peace through and around this process is a good thing. The Boy Scouts could have done this better and there would have been more positive outcomes.

13 hours ago, Ojoman said:

This was and is about a huge 1 Billion $+ payday for lawyers and law firms. 

That’s not really fair, especially after a post from a survivor saying he thought it would bring a measure of peace. It’s a big mess and about protecting assets and making money for lawyers, etc. but it’s not only the bad parts. 

4 hours ago, Tron said:

summary really broken down to the council

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0q1ox20xqw5mmzjz4i5im/a3fa6777-ba03-42a0-a73b-5c9a90600938_2022-03-11_FINAL_REDACTED_Supplemental_LC_and_CO_Voting_Report.xlsx?rlkey=t7x65kvcmqmypuvp5zhedg4tl&dl=0

That is the excel sheet that was provided after the vote that was accepted. I don’t recall whether the question was for current council or at time of abuse. There’s a lot of empty cells and it only reflects the data from people that voted… but maybe you can use it. 

On 12/11/2023 at 10:31 AM, Ojoman said:

BSA was doing youth protection training way back

Hey @Ojoman, I know you’re tapping out and I’ve done the same at times so I’m just using your post as a jumping off point. I’ve learned a lot in this forum both confirming and disproving what I thought previously.

Here is my (and everyone’s) actual recent experience: the Boy Scouts negotiated around and waited to implement YP measures during the lengthy bankruptcy process. My point of view is that this indicates that they are not always acting in good faith and they err in balancing their desire to protect their brand over preventing abuse. 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

are being disingenuous

Can you post them or provide any documentation like @SiouxRangersuggested?
 

BSA knew when my abuser was arrested in the late 90’s and didn’t do anything helpful. Radio silence. They didn’t offer to help in any way (to me, family, police). Hard for me to believe they would have involved the police when they wouldn’t even engage to help an abused scout when there was a credible accusation. 

On 12/9/2023 at 6:24 PM, skeptic said:

but it does not control those outside it, or even completely control those within

Here’s a comment about the Boy Scouts’ current actions: the only substantive change from the last bankruptcy plan voted down to the approved one is more youth protection. Negotiating on the level of protection clearly shows that they are a corporation trying to protect themselves. Agreed there is always risk but they are foremost managing the risk to themselves and hard to believe this approach has only changed recently (to be more cynical).

The person that abused me did go to prison. Before then, a Boy Scouts employee told an ASM his suspicions were unfounded (continuing the abuse), at least two Boy Scouts employees allowed him to take me to camps that were closed where I was raped, no one at the Boy Scouts reached about after this became public, etc.

It can’t be both ways: it’s always going to happen and we’ll only do what we need to do to in order to be a viable business. 

If anyone is considering the Independent Review option and is happy with their counsel, would you  drop a recommendation to me by message? Thank you.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

letter to survivors

I know there’s no good way to do this when it’s the finest letter you can buy from a PR firm… but it’s pointedly not just to survivors.  

45 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

71 years old retired cop

I wouldn't put too much on feedback from someone that hasn't been part of Scouting for at least 50 years. It's been half that for me and I couldn't tell if you if was fun anymore. 

The proof will be in the pudding: does Scouting thrive compared to today's alternatives. 

3 hours ago, PaleRider said:

pays-all-claims-in-full-100

The article says "the committed amounts to be paid under the plan total more than $3.0 billion" which is news to me... the last I recall was around $2.5 billion. That two plus years of negotiating with the biggest insurance companies yielded $1.6 billion but "additional funds from non-settling insurance companies could add another $4 billion" always seems laughable. 

A restated conclusion: A payment in full plan—100%—would be impressive.

I hope this plan goes into effect but I think many are willfully delusional about the required level of funding. Again, hope I'm wrong!

9 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

does NOT take into account any scaling factors that would increase or decrease awards and assumes that all claims can be funded at 100%.  It's merely a simplified way to look at the matrix and apply it to open and closed States.

Agreed this is not a helpful website but I’ll beat a dead horse: not even their own informational website assumes it’s currently fully funded.  

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

That leaves a few claimants who could likely not afford the experts and analysis to prove Bates wrong.  

I believe in addition to YPT the TCC also got the agreement for the alternative path.  That path technically allows full payment of any claim removing the limits of the matrix. 

I think it is too early to know if it is fully funded. 

Thank you for the clarification on the alternative path, I thought that was earlier in the process. 

The snippet above reads to me as: it's fully funded but... uhhh.... there is also potential additional funding.

The Matrix amounts wrt known claims, the various expert estimates, the funding amounts, etc. just don't square with each other. 

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Sure, but time will tell what percentage claims will be paid in the end.  As well, it's important not to cherry-pick statements as the objectors did.  The TCC didn't provide any expert testimony/evidence related to valuation at the plan confirmation hearing for one simple reason, the BSA, which the TCC and Coalition joined as plan supporters, provided it.   The Judge also cited the expert opinion of Bates as convincing so that move was the right one.

That's a good point about the TCC supporting this version plan. I also wanted to note that, at this point, I'd like it to go into effect.

You're also right about history fans: my recollection is that the TCC wailed that the settlements were "historically low" and then started to support the plan after the YPT sections were changed. That's always been a disconnect in my mind. [You've also heard me wail that youth protection had to be negotiated doesn't sit well.]

I don't think what I posted is cherry picking. Both judges leaned on the Bates testimony. It's referenced repeatedly, presented as "payment in full" and then typically qualified, like so: 

"Payment in full... uncontroverted evidence" to "no clear error" that it will "likely provide for payment in full" in three sentences.

I've posted this analysis before but... if you take the at least reasonable claims (no invalid votes, has to show a council) from the last vote (approx 43,000 claims), arrange them by claimed class, multiply by the matrix base (no scaling up or down) and weight by the SOL... the amount is $9.4B. Happy to share this or hear any feedback on the method. 

The Plan says that the "Trust Distribution Procedures’ Claims Matrix, Base Matrix Values, Maximum Matrix Values, and Scaling Factors.., are appropriate and provide for a fair and equitable settlement of Abuse Claims based on the evidentiary record offered to the Bankruptcy Court as required..."

So the Trustee is going to have to find 75+% fraudulent claims, scale down every claim or (as I think most likely) not pay any where near the full value of the claims. I hope I'm wrong!

Ouch. All that analysis for naught. 

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

that does not automatically doom the franchise members or transfer franchise corporation debts to the individual franchise members.  

Wouldn’t the LCs then be looking for bankruptcy protection individually as the lawsuits against them would move forward? I don’t think it’s quite like a non-culpable franchise member. 

53 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

the Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ will hold a meeting

It’s so odd to me that we have not heard anything from the TCC in a long time.

I emailed them a few weeks ago and wrote: it’s been a month since the ruling, you’ve noted in the past that you’ve been locked out of negotiations, we are interested in what you think about the ruling, can we get an update?

No response. 

18 hours ago, fred8033 said:

My question had to do with claims failed between the claim deadline and BSA emerging bankruptcy.

Not certain this answers your question but you might look at the role of the Future Claimant’s Representative. They (at least) represent people who haven’t filed a claim due to age or repressed memories. 

56 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

naming contest

Third Modified Fifth Amended Thread