Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, yknot said:

Over the decades I think there's been a mix of institutionalized arrogance and incompetence which, while it might have been honorably intended, has resulted in BSA being inexplicably too blind or too slow or too in denial to see or react to certain dangers. Being good people, which I'm sure some of them are, doesn't justify doing a bad job.

Right, and I would also make the following distinction:

1) The people who drove BSA into the ditch are, in many instances, long gone. Some are still around (the people who thought Summit was a good idea, etc.) but many are not.

2) The people who inherited the mess. Let's keep in mind: Roger Mosby took over on or around December 29, 2019. In his first days he had to

a) LDS formally ended its relationship with BSA on January 1.

b) immediately decide on whether to take BSA into bankruptcy (although the papers were not filed until February 18, I have no doubt they were being drafted as Mosby was walking in the door.)

c) COVID/states of emergency declared about 2 weeks after that filing.

2 of which Mosby had precisely NOTHING to do with (LDS and COVID) and the third he had some control but, I will continue to argue, was the smart thing long-term.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

They talk about (in no particular order)

  • Depression
  • Mental illness
  • Suicide attempts
  • Drug abuse
  • Alcohol abuse
  • Fear (lived in a small town, couldn't tell anyone)
  • Shame/Made to fell "less than"
  • Relief (that the victim was not alone in being abused)
  • 50-60 years later, still feeling as victimized as the day it happened
  • Lucky (that it only happened once/the victim left BSA before it happened again)
  • Constant or lifelong counseling

And all 8 letters have one thing in common: they all talk about wanting BSA to be held accountable. To pay what it owes, to not get off with a slap on the wrist.

I don't want to pile on or call (further) attention to myself and my story just for some additional acknowledgement or affirmation sake. For what it's worth, I will put a "face" on this and speak for others like me, as I try to do where appropriate. My experience tracks with all of those, except numbers 6 and 10. These are not isolated experiences nor are the letters from a select few who were most impacted or 8 handpicked and designated spokesmen. 

Caveat: I don't want to misspeak. Perhaps the TCC or some state attorney or consortium selected the men to write the letters. I should say, "nor, to my knowledge, are the letters from a select few..." Even if they were asked to write the court, their stories are not unique and there are thousands that stand with each of the 8 who can relay virtually the same experience. 

Edited by ThenNow
Oops.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

You cannot hold an inanimate object accountable for anything.

Assuming you're talking about the BSA (or any other corporation) as an "inanimate object," this is simply not true. It is a total misunderstanding of the nature of corporations. In fact, they are sometimes referred to as a "legal person." Corporations exist separate from their owners, but can do most all of the business, financial and property/asset transactions an individual person can. They can sue, be sued, invest, own property, hire, fire, borrow money, pay taxes, and, etc. They are very much alive and fully animate for all purposes relevant to this discussion. Specifically, they are 100% legally and financially accountable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Specifically, they are 100% legally and financially accountable.

Therefore, since my son and I are members of said corporation, the BSA, then we are expected to fund the victim's fund or leave the BSA. All the time and money we invested towards scouts will no longer go to scouts. You can not say that you are only impacting the BSA, the organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Therefore, since my son and I are members of said corporation, the BSA, then we are expected to fund the victim's fund or leave the BSA.

This is per California non-profit law and likely similar in other states. Are you a “member”?

The term “member” is a term of art defined in California Nonprofit Corporation Law (the “Law”). Generally, a member under the Law (sometimes referred to as a “statutory member” or “voting member”) means any person who, under a provision of a corporation’s articles of incorporation (“articles”) or bylaws, has the right to vote on (1) the election of directors, (2) the dissolution of the corporation, (3) a merger, or (4) a disposition of all or substantially all of the corporate assets; or any person identified as a member in a corporation’s articles or bylaws who has a right, under either governing document, to vote on changes to either document.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/14/2021 at 2:32 PM, Owls_are_cool said:

All I did is point out is that the lawsuit will punish the scouts in my troop and punish the adults associated with the troop who invested time and money into the program. The wrong people are being punished.

Then under your theory a non-for profit or charity that works with children and:or uses volunteers could never be sued for anything.

You in effect make non-for profit and charities judgment proof so long as they can demonstrate that they’re working with kids?

i’ve asked you before at least three different times i’ll ask it again because I’m a glutton for punishment.

in the event a non-for profit like the Boy Scouts of America commits a civil tort such as negligently allowing the young people in its program to be sexually abused by adult volunteers do you really believe that the non-for profit should be judgment proof and never have to pay anything?

Keep in mind this is not a hypothetical about something that may have happened four and five decades ago there are some sexual abuse claims that BSA allowed kids to be abused as recently as 2019.

 

are you really arguing that BSA can do whatever it wants act as negligently as it wants and no one can ever suit it for anything?!?

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

Therefore, since my son and I are members of said corporation, the BSA, then we are expected to fund the victim's fund or leave the BSA. All the time and money we invested towards scouts will no longer go to scouts. You can not say that you are only impacting the BSA, the organization.

First of all as has been pointed out you were not members of the Boy Scouts of America you are volunteers and donors but you were not members.

 

Second of all the fact that you’re a donor and volunteer does not mean that the Organization you’re donating to and volunteering for shouldn’t be held legally accountable for its actions.

The fact that an organization is a non-for profit working with children should not give it immunity from civil liability for its negligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

You can not say that you are only impacting the BSA, the organization.

I don’t think I ever said that. Not once. In fact, I believe I’ve acknowledged my concern for current and future Scouts. How that plays out is not within my control. I appreciate you’re frustrated and, perhaps, angry with me and others for pursuing compensation from the BSA and related entities. Are you saying you would not do the same had you or your son been abused?

I was minding my own business, making my way as best I could when the BSA called for men like me to submit our sexual abuse claims. That’s why I’m here, along with the tens of thousands who also returned their RSVP. Because the BSA and you are surprised, shocked and angry about the (number of boys abused and) magnitude of the attendant liability is not our doing, concern or responsibility to assuage. I really want to know, apart from asking that we hear your frustration and anger at what you see as misplaced “abuse” and “punishment,” what you think I/we should do. Withdraw our claims? Take the $6100 offered? Take the $1500 opt out now and buy those 250+ Carmel Mochas? What would you tell your son? 
 

Check out today’s docket update at Omni Agent Solutions. Read the letters and consider what you would tell these sons, too...

 

Edited by ThenNow
Add
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Take the $1500 opt out now and buy those 250+ Carmel Mochas? What would you tell your son? 

I’ll step into this thicket a bit. I think there is an argument that there should be a statue of limitations for civil cases.  Otherwise, what company would be able to exist today that existed in the past.  Most Germany companies should probably go bankrupt over their involvement in WWII.  Many American companies should go bankrupt over lawsuits from their crimes 50+ years ago.  If we go back and look at actions that occurred by every organization with no time limits, I wonder if any organization but recent ones could survive. At some point, society moves on, admits the sins of the past but doesn’t destroy every institution that existed.  

I see a frequent question about ... what if it was my son.  Of course, I would  want the institution shut down.  However, that doesn’t mean the law should match my desire of unabated revenge.

I don’t blame anyone seeking compensation, regardless of the time passed.  I would do the exact same as those in this thread.   At the same time, I think these look back laws were not made to ensure safety today.  They appear to be a gift from Democratic politicians to their trial lawyer donors.  The biggest impact is that they simply jack up insurance costs to the point only wealthy families will be able to join scouting or many other youth activities. 

This is probably coming off more rough than I intend.  I really do think BSA senior leaders hid this, especially before 1990.  I’ve completely accepted the fact that based on law, BSA needs to pay.  I also know there are no winners here... those abused will get some funds but I’m sure they would trade that in to undo the abuse.  Scouts today will have less options.... but perhaps that was going to happen anyway.  

Im still hoping for a settlement soon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think there is an argument that there should be a statue of limitations for civil cases.

There is and are. That is what makes the instance/case of the sexual abuse claims so unique. To my knowledge, except maybe asbestos cases, I have NEVER heard of reopening a lookback window like this.

And asbestos was tricky because the question was when did the clock start on the statute of limitations: when you got EXPOSED to asbestos or when you found out? Some states amended their statute of limitations to say: when you found out.

50 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

They appear to be a gift from Democratic politicians to their trial lawyer donors.

There is absolutely NOTHING partisan about these bills. Most are passed unanimously or nearly so. Want to know why? Because what happens is you get testimony from those sexually abused (the Catholic Church in particular) who come and testify in a committee hearing that all they want is their day in court. And then absolutely no one (or effectively no one) is going to vote against that.

North Carolina: Republicans have dominated the state's legislature for the better part of a decade. And yet that lookback window was proposed (SB 199 of 2019) the three lead sponsors were Britt (R); Harrington (R); and Chaudhuri (D). The bill passed UNANIMOUSLY (108-0 in the House; 49-0 in the Senate) and signed into law by the Democratic governor.

New York: The first extension (which reopened the window from 2019-2020) was S2440/A2683 of 2019. Passed 60-2 in the Senate and 142-3 in the Assembly. The second (S7082/A9036 of 2020) which extended it from 2020-2021? Passed 60-2 in the Senate and 134-10 in the Assembly. The lead sponsors were all Ds, but then again the Ds controlled both chambers, so not a complete shock. Signed by Democratic govenror.

Arizona: Rs controlled both chambers HB 2466 of 2019 passed UNANIMOUSLY in the House 59-0 and 29-0 in the Senate and signed by a Republican governor.

New Jersey: SB 477 of 2019 was (you guessed it) effectively unanimous: 32-1 in the Senate and 71-0 in the Assembly. Signed into law by a Democratic governor.

So like I said, this is not just nonpartisan, this is just about the most BIpartisan thing you can imagine.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I see a frequent question about ... what if it was my son.  Of course, I would  want the institution shut down.  However, that doesn’t mean the law should match my desire of unabated revenge.

I appreciate you/someone saying this. I’m a bit amazed no one has to this point, but I’m glad you did.

Can you help me understand your “However” qualifier? Personally, I’m not seeking “revenge,” don’t know of many guys that would characterize their involvement in the case as such, and the SoL law in the state of my primary abuse has not undergone substantial change or reform. From my understanding, 50,000+/- victim/survivor claimants are in that last category.

11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

don’t blame anyone seeking compensation, regardless of the time passed.  I would do the exact same as those in this thread.   At the same time, I think these look back laws were not made to ensure safety today.  

Again, thank you for those first two sentences.

The laws facilitated law suits seeking compensation awards, which snapped the BSA out of a YPT compliance malaise, which hopefully leads to greater safety in the BSA and other organizations. They were not “made” to that end, but likely will achieve that result, especially if the TCC/we claimants get the non-monetary awards we are demanding. 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

The laws facilitated law suits seeking compensation awards, which snapped the BSA out of a YPT compliance malaise, which hopefully leads to greater safety in the BSA and other organizations.

Right. I would simply point out that, even according to BSA's own data as many as 33% of registered adult leaders did NOT have current YPT training as recently as 2018.

I mean, come on. You can say "We take YPT seriously" and "We have the greatest YPT program ever." but you wait until 2019 to get to 99% compliance? I'm not looking for 100% because there will always be some lag time in reporting/someone missing their YPT renewal date, etc. But, like, high 90s?

It wasn't until states started reopening the abuse lookback windows that snapped BSA into shape on this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Can you help me understand your “However” qualifier? Personally, I’m not seeking “revenge,” don’t know of many guys that would characterize their involvement in the case as such, and the SoL law in the state of my primary abuse has not undergone substantial change or reform. From my understanding, 50,000+/- victim/survivor claimants are in that last category.

Revenge is probably too tough of a word.  I think it is more of .. at a certain point, regardless of how bad the organization was, there should be some time limits in laws for civil charges.  I think the prior laws were too tight ... you need to give more time than just a few years after someone turns 18.   Going forward, I think there should be a limit that at around 40, you lose the ability to sue institutions in civil court, but can sue criminally indefinitely.  I also have no issue suing individuals civil indefinitely (those directly involved in the abuse or coverup).  

 

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I mean, come on. You can say "We take YPT seriously" and "We have the greatest YPT program ever." but you wait until 2019 to get to 99% compliance? I'm not looking for 100% because there will always be some lag time in reporting/someone missing their YPT renewal date, etc. But, like, high 90s?

I can't argue with this and they should have mandated training.  That said, GSUSA doesn't require training.  None of the youth sports I volunteered for required training.  So its tough to say BSA is an outlier, in fact, the 80% is better than most other organizations I have seen.  Hopefully others also take heed.

 

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So like I said, this is not just nonpartisan, this is just about the most BIpartisan thing you can imagine.

I was looking at state level revival laws.  Of the top 10 Republican states (from last election), only 2 had civil revival laws (WV & Ark).  Only 2 of the top 10 Democratic states don't have civil revival laws (Maryland & Washington).  Maryland's effort failed primarily due to Republicans in 2019...  I see a partisan divide, but perhaps that is simply correlation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...