Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

If we wait until the bankruptcy is final, we will be too late.

The middle of a bankruptcy involving sexual abuse of minors is not the time to go to "war" against the victims, claimants, and their attorneys.

And as BSA said, and I noted, once they are out of bankruptcy they have a plan ready to go. But until then, they won't move forward until they know for sure what is going to be even be left of BSA.

Remember: there is a non-0% chance BSA doesn't survive this or that the bankruptcy fails and BSA has to fight sexual abuse claims in state and federal courts for years (see Catholic Church abuse scandal which has been ongoing since 1994 but in earnest since 2003, 18 years ago).

But I'm with ya. War! War! WAR!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is legally right is not always morally right.

I would encourage everyone to not ask @ThenNow to rehash particular circumstances. They can be found by patiently browsing his posts. From what I read, they were far from legal. His claim would have b

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

Embattled organizations that survive crises fight for their lives in the court of public opinion.

Great. You go right out with your PR "war". Meantime, every statement denying (or embracing) the abuse will be used in court against BSA to seek additional damages and/or liquidation. You'll win the PR campaign just in time for the court to order BSA into Chapter 7 because Mosby went out to the press and "allied" and conceded all 95,000 claims and went to "war" with everyone else.

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

If BSA does not start laying some groundwork to counter all the negative publicity, it won't matter what the bankruptcy judge leaves it with. 

They have with things like the female Eagles. But in the meantime, declaring "war" is only going to antagonize, well, everyone.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The middle of a bankruptcy involving sexual abuse of minors is not the time to go to "war" against the victims, claimants, and their attorneys.

And as BSA said, and I noted, once they are out of bankruptcy they have a plan ready to go. But until then, they won't move forward until they know for sure what is going to be even be left of BSA.

Remember: there is a non-0% chance BSA doesn't survive this or that the bankruptcy fails and BSA has to fight sexual abuse claims in state and federal courts for years (see Catholic Church abuse scandal which has been ongoing since 1994 but in earnest since 2003, 18 years ago).

But I'm with ya. War! War! WAR!

You are responding without reading. The war is not against the victims or the attorneys. The fight is countering the non stop onslaught of negative publicity with proactive positive messages, of which BSA has many.

Let's take the Catholic Church. Lawsuits have never shut Pope Francis up.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, yknot said:

You are responding without reading. The war is not against the victims or the attorneys. The fight is countering the non stop onslaught of negative publicity with proactive positive messages, of which BSA has many.

Let's take the Catholic Church. Lawsuits have never shut Pope Francis up.  

Yes. James Burke, the former CEO of Johnson & Johnson demonstrated this when he responded to the tampering (cyanide) of Tylenol (1980's).

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, yknot said:

Lawsuits have never shut Pope Francis up.  

Because the dioceses are being sued. Not the Vatican.

And again, you are more than welcome to encourage BSA national and Mosby to go out on the press circuit and answer questions about the abuse cases or whatever. His email is readily available online.

But what I am telling you, and an actual attorney elsewhere on this thread, are telling you is no lawyer in his/her right mind is going to let the client go out into the press and start getting peppered with questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

tampering (cyanide) of Tylenol.

Yes, that was in 1982 (a lifetime or two ago) and Johnson & Johnson was a victim itself. The tampering damaged J&J and killed people. It was not J&J's fault. It was an EXTERNAL force/action not of J&J's doing. And J&J was not sued for it.

Did everyone here seem to forget that there is active, pending litigation against BSA for actions it did (or did not) take regarding sexual abuse? This isn't like J&J/Tylenol because the criminal act occurred WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION? BSA has already been found in several abuse cases to be at fault here for at least some of the abuse. J&J? Never happened, never found at fault.

I mean. Wow. Talk about apples and oranges.

As I said: stop thinking about this like Scouters and starting thinking like lawyers if you can. The WORST thing a client can do in civil case is go out and start to talk about it. And don't you believe for a second that the minute a reporter gets in front of Mosby, that's exactly what questions 1-9 will be about.

Again: when there is active pending litigation involving 95,000 cases of sexual abuse,  the best LEGAL strategy might just be the worst worst PR strategy. But best PR strategy is almost certainly the worst LEGAL strategy.

But go ahead, push for your "war".

Fortunately cooler heads are prevailing at BSA National and its lawfirms.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because the dioceses are being sued. Not the Vatican.

And again, you are more than welcome to encourage BSA national and Mosby to go out on the press circuit and answer questions about the abuse cases or whatever. His email is readily available online.

But what I am telling you, and an actual attorney elsewhere on this thread, are telling you is no lawyer in his/her right mind is going to let the client go out into the press and start getting peppered with questions.

I think you keep misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not advocating putting Mosby on CNN. But plenty of CEOs are able to still get messages across in a controlled setting.  I've been in corporations during crises and you can put your CEO in front of an internal lens -- whether that's a camera or in print -- to communicate messages to the troops. Invariably, these messages will be leaked to mainstream press. No hostile questions. It's really not that hard.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, that was in 1982 (a lifetime or two ago) and Johnson & Johnson was a victim itself. The tampering damaged J&J and killed people. It was not J&J's fault. It was an EXTERNAL force/action not of J&J's doing. And J&J was not sued for it.

Did everyone here seem to forget that there is active, pending litigation against BSA for actions it did (or did not) take regarding sexual abuse? This isn't like J&J/Tylenol because the criminal act occurred WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION? BSA has already been found in several abuse cases to be at fault here for at least some of the abuse. J&J? Never happened, never found at fault.

I mean. Wow. Talk about apples and oranges.

As I said: stop thinking about this like Scouters and starting thinking like lawyers if you can. The WORST thing a client can do in civil case is go out and start to talk about it. And don't you believe for a second that the minute a reporter gets in front of Mosby, that's exactly what questions 1-9 will be about.

Again: when there is active pending litigation involving 95,000 cases of sexual abuse,  the best LEGAL strategy might just be the worst worst PR strategy. But best PR strategy is almost certainly the worst LEGAL strategy.

But go ahead, push for your "war".

Fortunately cooler heads are prevailing at BSA National and its lawfirms.

 

You are getting hysterical. No one is proposing Mosby talk about abuse. Mosby needs to motivate the troops. Mosby can also talk about all the aspects of scouting that have nothing to do with abuse in a controlled setting. There is nothing to fear. Nothing to stop him. Much to be gained over this silence.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yknot said:

No one is proposing Mosby talk about abuse.

Really? Want to go back upthread and see the demands he "ally" himself with the victims (effectively conceding all 95,000 claims as valid?

That the PR campaign be waged against the plaintiff's attorneys ("Find a way to make this a discussion about how lawyers are playing both the victims and the youth of today to line their pockets.")

No, thank you.

And if you won't listen to me, how about from a lawyer?

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

This is where the attorneys come in and say, "No can do." Too many ways that can go south. Quickly.

Have your little war.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because the dioceses are being sued. Not the Vatican.

And again, you are more than welcome to encourage BSA national and Mosby to go out on the press circuit and answer questions about the abuse cases or whatever. His email is readily available online.

But what I am telling you, and an actual attorney elsewhere on this thread, are telling you is no lawyer in his/her right mind is going to let the client go out into the press and start getting peppered with questions.

OK forget about Pope Francis. 

The Cardinal in my archdiocese hasn't been hiding under a rock. There is plenty for him to talk about that has nothing to do with the abuse scandals. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yknot said:

OK forget about Pope Francis. 

The Cardinal in my archdiocese hasn't been hiding under a rock. There is plenty for him to talk about that has nothing to do with the abuse scandals. 

 

No doubt. If your Cardinal was here, he would be talking about the increased enrollment in Catholic schools during the pandemic, i.e., meeting the education needs of children with a Catholic education (program)

Similarly, Mosby needs to find a need (get outdoors with friends) and state how this is met with Scouting (program).

My two fruits - one Macoun apple and one Navel orange :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those tracking, the look back windows on abuse claims have usually been limited in scope (e.g. only 1 year, or extending back only XX number of years).

Looks like Colorado is going to simply end statute of limitations entirely.

https://coloradosun.com/2021/02/25/colorado-child-sexual-assault-civil-statute-limitations-2021/
 

Quote

Colorado lawmakers are once again debating whether to give recent and future victims of child sexual assault unlimited time to sue their abusers after a similar effort failed last year because of infighting among proponents of the policy change. 

Senate Bill 73 cleared its first hurdle on Wednesday, unanimously passing the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Victims of child sexual assault have just six years after they turn 18 to sue their abusers. The bipartisan legislation would eliminate that restriction. The measure would apply to people abused after Jan. 1, 2022, as well as for those still within the window of the statute of limitations by that date.

A companion measure, Senate Bill 88, seeks to give past child sex abuse victims an opportunity to sue their abusers and institutions that failed to intervene.

 

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, that was in 1982 (a lifetime or two ago) and Johnson & Johnson was a victim itself. The tampering damaged J&J and killed people. It was not J&J's fault. It was an EXTERNAL force/action not of J&J's doing. And J&J was not sued for it.

Did everyone here seem to forget that there is active, pending litigation against BSA for actions it did (or did not) take regarding sexual abuse? This isn't like J&J/Tylenol because the criminal act occurred WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION? BSA has already been found in several abuse cases to be at fault here for at least some of the abuse. J&J? Never happened, never found at fault.

Actually BSA IS a victim. With very few exceptions, BSA did everything it could legally do at the time the bulk of the abuse took place. People are forgetting that mandatory reporting laws did not affect the BSA until the late 1980s/early 1990s, about the time Youth Protection Training came about. Prior to that time, if BSA accused anyone publicly of abuse, they could have been charged with libel. BSA encouraged parents to press charges, because their hands were tied.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

If your Cardinal was here, he would be talking about the increased enrollment in Catholic schools during the pandemic, i.e., meeting the education needs of children with a Catholic education (program)

Yes.  My bishop does talk about that, and I find it a little bit disturbing.  If the statistics are true, (and I have no reason to think that they aren't) how should we intemperate this?

Do Catholic students actually prefer having on-line classes over in-person instruction?  As a teacher, I don't find that very flattering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...