Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Since negligence is defined in law but is often determined by a jury who sees a victim and deep pockets of the BSA [will not be deep pockets in the future], then the answer is zero and is unobtainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • 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

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

The point in which no abuse occurs due to BSA's negligence. That. That's the adequate level.

The legal  issue is "proximate cause" - a slippery concept [ much hated by spell-checking software] which is sometimes characterized as an issue of law for the court  and sometimes as an issue  of fact for the jury.  Does given conduct directly, naturally, in a continuous sequence of events, and foreseeably, lead to the injury of which the plaintiff complains,  without any intervening responsible cause ? 

 

The fact patterns at the extremes are easy.   The real world cases are more gray than back and white.   It you have a flat tire and leave the tire on the side of the road and, thirty years later, a cyclist hits the tire and is injured, was your action in leaving the damaged tire on the side of the road the direct, natural, and foreseeable cause - the  "proximate cause" - of the injuries of the cyclist?  If twenty contractors had been paid to remove the tire in the thirty years and failed to do so?  Often, the finding is the result of the contest of skill that a trial really is, despite the theory that a trail is a "search for the truth."

 

Jury instructions on the issue tend to leave jurors looking befuddled. .  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, skeptic said:

BSA is just the current easy target, and the "vultures" are already peering through their beady eyes at the other youth groups, once they finish with BSA.

I think I alluded to this above or in one of the other threads. Compare 

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/sexual-assault-abuse/boy-scouts-lawsuit/

to the following...

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/sexual-assault-abuse/royal-rangers-abuse-justice-for-those-affected/

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/sexual-assault-abuse/ymca-ywca-sexual-assault-class-action-lawsuit

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/sexual-assault-abuse/boys-girls-clubs-of-america-sexual-assault-class-action-lawsuit

And in the information that the TCC shared at the March town hall, there were 402 claims with the YMCA as CO and 167 with Boys and Girls Club as CO.

(But I'm skeptical; I wonder whether those claims actually represent that a YMCA or B&GC chapter was the CO in each of those cases, or whether a unit was chartered by some other organization but the abuse took place while it visited YMCA, or whether the claimant is remembering abuse that took place elsewhere but responded to the BSA lawsuit advertisements and reported it in this case.

Has anyone on this forum ever been affiliated with, or otherwise dealt with, a unit that was chartered by YMCA or by Boys and Girls Clubs?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Has anyone on this forum ever been affiliated with, or otherwise dealt with, a unit that was chartered by YMCA or by Boys and Girls Clubs?)

At one time long ago, my district had a Scoutreach program with a Boys and Girls Club. My understanding was that it did not work well, and I was not to try and restart it.

Edited by Eagle94-A1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to me to be an impossible standard for youth organizations, in that many victims and their parents did not report to the police these criminal actions, so many child molesters fell through the cracks of background checks. Even today, the BSA must report to the police all instances, but if a prosecutor refuses to prosecute due to the lack of evidence or the victim's unwillingness to cooperate, nothing will show up on a background check. 

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

That seems to me to be an impossible standard for youth organizations, in that many victims and their parents did not report to the police these criminal actions, so many child molesters fell through the cracks of background checks

Not really. The point as to why BSA is being sued (successfully in many state courts I might add) is that they were NEGLIGENT. They didn't even bother to try and supervise these adults, background check them, etc.

The modern BSA YP TRAINING is (likely) sufficient to demonstrate that if a scout is abused it was NOT due to the negligence of BSA, so long as it is enforced.

The fact that that training was only 66% in compliance as recently as 2019, however, certainly shows BSA remained negligent up until that point.

I guess it all depends on if you value keeping young people safe from sexual abuse. If all you do is throw your hands up and say "It's too hard to stop the abusers from coming in! That might take some effort our part!" then that's a shame.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

At 3:00PM EST yesterday all LCs had the opportunity to sit in on a two-hour presentation by the TCC professionals and its Financial consultants BRG discussing in great detail its analysis of all Council finances.  The TCC is providing Councils with their individual analyses.

Of note, this was NOT a part of the mediation schedule subject to confidentiality so this can be shared.  And, read into this what you want but the TCC stated that it asked that the Q&A feature be turned on by the BSA so the TCC could take questions and interact with the LCs .  The BSA was hosting the meeting and it refused. 

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

Not really. The point as to why BSA is being sued (successfully in many state courts I might add) is that they were NEGLIGENT. They didn't even bother to try and supervise these adults, background check them, etc.

The modern BSA YP TRAINING is (likely) sufficient to demonstrate that if a scout is abused it was NOT due to the negligence of BSA, so long as it is enforced.

The fact that that training was only 66% in compliance as recently as 2019, however, certainly shows BSA remained negligent up until that point.

I guess it all depends on if you value keeping young people safe from sexual abuse. If all you do is throw your hands up and say "It's too hard to stop the abusers from coming in! That might take some effort our part!" then that's a shame.

Always trying to seal the deal by throwing out the self-righteous card.  I guess if that is the only way you can get the last word, well, good for you. What value did that last sentence add to the rest of the post. There is no integrity in leaning on using shame to try and get your way.

You say you support the BSA, but you can't even present your opinion without dishonest bias against the BSA. Something doesn't fit here.

I struggle with all this because data it doesn't have the balance of real life to show an outsider how managing a scout unit really works. 20 years ago volunteers were required to take training every 3 years. So how does the 66% fit in that. Or are volunteers required to train every year now?

As I said before, how many times does one need training when they practice a skill everyday. OK, I guess to keep the lawyers and CynicalScouters at bay, blind repetitive actions to check off boxes will have will be the standard order of volunteer scouters, and even parents. But, here on this forum, we can still be honest and talk about real life in scouting unit without feeling threatened. Negligent? 

Barry

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that that training was only 66% in compliance as recently as 2019, however, certainly shows BSA remained negligent up until that point.

There were issues on my.scouting.org in 2019 where many scouters took the YPT training, but it was not recorded. I had to send a screen capture of proof that I completed YPT to my council, so they can manually update the official status with the BSA. I had to do the same with 5 others in my unit, until the issue was fixed late in 2019. 

This year I could not recharter anyone that did not have YPT up to date, so for my council over 99% of the scouters are in compliance. There are a few scouters whose YPT lapsed after recharter, but they ceased involvement in scouting after recharter. (Thus the not 100% compliance.) 

Now the BSA is taking adults off a unit's roster if they do not have YPT up to date. 

From the day I became a den leader about 6 years ago, YP has been drilled into me from the pack, district, and council, so your case for BSA negligence  today is utter BS and full of ignorance. I'd ask you of names of current District or Council executives that oppose YP or do not take it seriously, but I will not hold my breath. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

What would be the topic? Theories of vicarious liability and the morality of supervisorial accountability? 

 

Whatever all that means, no. I was thinking of the ethics of the situation. Whats the best solution for everyone and not just "my" side. This problem has been thought about for millennia, how to write a wrong, and I see very little of it in this case. To be honest, the legal system would struggle with it, but people keep bringing up the idea of fairness and the only person that has anything to do with that is the judge. For all other parties in this case, fairness isn't a primary concern. So a separate discussion about what's fair might shed some light.

Big caveat: Nobody cares a wit about anything written on these pages, we have zero impact on this case. If anyone is worried about the result then they are just giving themselves stress. It's best to only worry about what one can control, and that ain't much. That, too, is an idea that has been thought about for millennia.

 

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

You have suggested that somehow BSA did not do enough to stop this from happening.  Reality is that no matter what BSA did  or does, it will never be able to stop abuse entirely, other than simply not have a program or interaction with youth of any kind. 

Did they do enough? They seem to think not or they wouldn't have both implemented and improved YPT, then escalated compliance requirements. Saying no one can do enough to prevent a problem entirely doesn't negate or exonerate responsibility, accountability or liability. No one will ever eliminate auto deaths, seatbelt or no, so let's ditch the seatbelt requirement and auto safety standards.

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

Society, in the past, and still, looks the other way much of the time.  Why, because it is part of the seamier side of the human animal and the cultures in which we live. 

Looks the other way? Yes, we will always have evil, but do you look the other way when (if) you see abuse? Do most people here? Do most people you know? Who is society? Aren't we society? The negligence or apathy of some doesn't create a norm by which I want to live or one I would support, advocate, use as a crutch or rely on as an excuse.

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

BSA is just the current easy target

Take red and white paint. Remove jacket. Lay jacket on work bench, front side down. Paint alternating co-centric circles on center of jacket. Let dry. Begin wearing jacket with the target you painted on your back.

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

you cannot change what happened in the past, nor can you legitimately hold the country, or the corporation, or the church accountable for things today in which they had no say or little or no influence.

Hm. "You cannot change what happened in the past." True. But then what?? No restitution, damages, repayment for losses caused are ever necessary, just, moral or due. Nothing can be "changed" so move on? I keep hearing "money is not going to fix what happened to me." Agreed. Still, let's give it a whirl, shall we? I'm not asking the BSA or anyone else to "fix" me. Only God can do that and He's working on it. I want some balancing of the real world, life impact and damage scales.

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

The larger issue is rally this idea that somehow, by ruining someone or some corporation, or some church, or some group of mostly civic minded people for the black sheep that slipped in we make someone or society whole.  Not reality, nor is it ever going to fix it all. 

Ok. "Ruining"? Again, Chapter 11. Not Chapter 7. Voluntarily filed. Seeking a Plan to continue and equitably compensate sexual abuse victims. Court won't allow destruction or force liquidation. If by "ruining" you mean causing reduction in programs and increased dues, again, please see above (in multiples).

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

We simply do not feel that making current youth victims in a different manner is fixing the problem.  And, T & N, nor any of the other victims will ever be whole, no matter how much they may end up, after the vultures take theirs.

PLEASE stop using the same word(s) that apply to people who were raped and molested in all imaginable ways to describe the "pain" to be felt by Scouts who will have less Scouting. It's like peopling saying, "I'm starving," or "I'm totally depressed" or "I haven't eaten all day. I think I'm anorexic!" or "Look at how I lined up my flatware. I'm, like, totally OCD or something!" That stuff not only strains the meaning of these words,  but dilutes their import and substance for those who truly SUFFER. I'm sorry, but neither you nor kids who will have a reduction in programs or increased dues are being "abused" or will be "victims" of payments to actual abuse victims. It is both laughable and patently offensive. I'm begging you guys. Please stop abusing the English language and, thereby, the victims of BSA sexual abuse. Please stop...

PS - I am my own "vulture." I'll take it all, thank you very much.

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

So a separate discussion about what's fair might shed some light.

Roger that.

 

6 minutes ago, MattR said:

Big caveat: Nobody cares a wit about anything written on these pages, we have zero impact on this case.

I respect you and hear you, but I think you're wrong. These pages are followed and duly noted by many involved in the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a recording or transcript of the presentation or a log of who participated?  I would be interested to determine what my local Council's value is listed as  and if they participated.   Our Council has not provided any information beyond the company line quite some time ago that everyone else got... Counicls are separate, money stays local, etc....  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...