Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On 5/3/2021 at 4:48 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Sufficient payment in an amount more than an insult (e.g. $6,000).

Yet again you are implying that the $6000 average per person is the sum total of what a victim would receive when you must know this isn't true.  The vast majority of the funds for claims against the BSA were/are always going to be coming from the insurance companies.  That is of course the whole reason organizations buy insurance.  Disagree with the proposed amount all you wish, but let's not be disingenuous about the whole thing. 

 

On 5/4/2021 at 10:33 AM, CynicalScouter said:

Conversely, the plaintiff/claimant have little manner in which to prove their case. Memories of all who might be still alive will all be suspect.

It cuts both ways.

Yes, but since since the accused in today's world is effectively presumed guilty, the impact is much more significant on the accused than on the accuser.
 

14 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

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

Yes, that's a nice idea.  The problem is that many people's belief seems to be that any abuse that occurs must be due to negligence.  Disregarding accusations would be negligent, allowing someone to be a scouter with an existing record (or even accusations) of abuse would be negligence, but failing to weed out a predator who has taken deliberate steps to disguise himself and appear harmless?  Regardless of what a sympathetic jury thinks, that simply isn't negligence.

  • Upvote 2
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

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I see. So, we should just shut down the entire civil justice system. No one should seek a civil remember for a wrong that has been done to them because, in the end, God will take care of it?

What?

I believe what he is saying is that God is the ultimate arbiter of justice and recompense. "I lift up mine eyes to the hills, from whence cometh my help." Man can (and should) pay for wrongs committed, but often this does not happen. He's encouraging me/us to look to those hills and hope, and not trust in man. Man resoundingly disappoints, cannot bind up the brokenhearted nor grant peace or contentment, whether through riches or words. Still, doing what's right within society and the bounds of the law should not be avoided, waiting for eternal justice or saving grace in this life. JMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

"The Lake Erie Council has not filed for bankruptcy. Our Council is legally separate, distinct and financially independent from the national organization. 

Yes, this was the line pushed in February 2020. And in some councils as late as summer 2020.

Since then, I will note that LCs are not singing that tune anymore because they know:

BSA lied to them.

I watched at NAM as the BSA leadership and their lawyers said, unequivocally, this would not impact LCs.

My LC, to their infinite credit,  knew better. They quickly indicated to our folks here that the LC would have to pay SOMETHING, they didn't know what specifically, but that we would have to pay SOMETHING.

And now the LCs are getting 3 hour sessions with the TCC telling them the truth that BSA won't.

No wonder BSA (who hosted the event) wouldn't allow for Q&A between the TCC and LCs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I see. So, we should just shut down the entire civil justice system. No one should seek a civil remedy for a wrong that has been done to them

Not what I said.

This is what I said.

20 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

If man’s restitution is meant to happen then it will.

 

 

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

because, in the end, God will take care of it?

Here is a newsflash for you.

God is in control of everything.  If you don't think so I'm sure He will be happy to discuss this with you when you meet Him.

Not a conversation I would like to have.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

God is in control of everything.  If you don't think so I'm sure He will be happy to discuss this with you when you meet Him.

I just happen to think that while divine retribution in the hereafter is nice, it does not preclude people from seeking the redress of harms done to them in this world via the secular civil justice system.

Call me goofy I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, elitts said:

Yet again you are implying that the $6000 average per person is the sum total of what a victim would receive when you must know this isn't true. 

I can't speak for CS, but I have said the same and can speak to that. I, for one, have neither said nor implied it would be the sum total, only the BSA contribution. Even at that, $6100 is insulting, especially given the weak "we'll commit to asking the LCs for a contribution of $X and you men can go fight for the insurance money." In that context and knowing they may well be protecting/hiding large assets without sufficient legal grounds, it is offensive. My personal take and feeling. 

 

25 minutes ago, elitts said:

Yes, but since since the accused in today's world is effectively presumed guilty, the impact is much more significant on the accused than on the accuser.

In this case, claims will be vetted, but weighed by a preponderance of the evidence. It does shift the burden, but no more so than the law requires, which is appropriate. I don't think that amounts to a presumption of guilt, by any means.

If you're referring to trial and conviction in the press and court of public opinion, that's another matter. Frankly, I despise how fast and loose our system is with allowing information to "leak" to the media and general public. It creates a tremendous and almost insurmountable mountain for the accused. That is anathema and contrary to our intended system of justice.

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

I just happen to think that while divine retribution in the hereafter is nice, it does not preclude people from seeking the redress of harms done to them in this world via the secular civil justice system.

 

46 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

If man’s restitution is meant to happen then it will.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThenNow said:

Even at that, $6100 is insulting, especially given the weak "we'll commit to asking the LCs for a contribution of $X and you men can go fight for the insurance money."

Right, that's my point.

Yes, I understand MOST will come from insurance.

But still, even given the amount of resources that BSA has access to AND the fact that the same reorg plan LITERALLY HAD BLANK PAGES for the sections related to LC contributions, that plan was not even worthy of being called a "first draft" by a first year associate to a partner at a law firm.

The $6100 was simply indicative of the fact that BSA reorg plan version 1.0 was insulting every which way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

In this case, claims will be vetted, but weighed by a preponderance of the evidence. It does shift the burden, but no more so than the law requires, which is appropriate.

Yep. Again, I feel like a broken record here.

This is NOT going to go before a jury. These claims will be going before a settlement trustee who will be asking for proof. Not just "sure, just take that big bag of money over there with the dollar sign! No questions asked!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I can't speak for CS, but I have said the same and can speak to that. I, for one, have neither said nor implied it would be the sum total, only the BSA contribution. Even at that, $6100 is insulting, especially given the weak "we'll commit to asking the LCs for a contribution of $X and you men can go fight for the insurance money." In that context and knowing they may well be protecting/hiding large assets without sufficient legal grounds, it is offensive. My personal take and feeling. 

 

In this case, claims will be vetted, but weighed by a preponderance of the evidence. It does shift the burden, but no more so than the law requires, which is appropriate. I don't think that amounts to a presumption of guilt, by any means.

If you're referring to trial and conviction in the press and court of public opinion, that's another matter. Frankly, I despise how fast and loose our system is with allowing information to "leak" to the media and general public. It creates a tremendous and almost insurmountable mountain for the accused. That is anathema and contrary to our intended system of justice.

That first comment was entirely directed at CynicalScouter.  Though I'll agree that their washing their hands of the insurance companies (saying "you can pursue them") was just wrong.  But I don't personally think BSA owes anyone their own funds out of any kind of moral responsibility; if they owe money it's a financial responsibility only.  In other words, if they had sufficient insurance funds to entirely pay for their liabilities, I wouldn't view that as them "Getting off scott free" just because they didn't have to pay anything out of pocket.

As far as the second point, I was speaking generally about the problems with extended Statutes of Limitations.  I don't have any particular problem with the way claims are likely to be handled in the instant case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'll agree that their washing their hands of the insurance companies (saying "you can pursue them") was just wrong.  But I don't personally think BSA owes anyone their own funds out of any kind of moral responsibility; if they owe money it's a financial responsibility only.  In other words, if they had sufficient insurance funds to entirely pay for their liabilities, I wouldn't view that as them "Getting off scott free" just because they didn't have to pay anything out of pocket.

As far as the second point, I was speaking generally about the problems with extended Statutes of Limitations.  I don't have any particular problem with the way claims are likely to be handled in the instant case.

Roger that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Say Allstate tells you they will pay nothing to settle a caase where you rear-ended someone.  (Actual case).

You are at fault for not ______________ ?  What?

 

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

You are at fault for not ______________ ?  What?

Choosing the right insurance carrier? Tell me if I'm getting warm...

Little humor in the mix can't be all bad, right?

Edited by ThenNow
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would like to say thank you for these informative threads on the bankruptcy!

Other than some info I found at reddit, there is not much out there to read. I enjoy the different opinions and the lessons about our legal system.

BSA has a big mess on its hands. Some of the local councils have pulled their heads out of the sand, but I would guess that the average volunteer and parent are just clueless that Philmont Trek 2022 may be gone and they may need to drive a bit further for summer camp.

I do have some opinions of my own that I will share. First, here is my $.02 on national BSA high adventure bases. Probably less than 5% of all Scouts or volunteers attend one. These assets just sit idle throughout much of the year.

Summitt - a money pit from day one, just get rid of it. I’ve heard nothing but horror stories or meh from those who have hiked all over it.

Sea Base - the dream job for a BSA program employee before retirement, cool programs, BSA owns a small deserted island and the base which consists of some docks, food area, and overnight accommodations. They own the kayaks and the small boats. They mostly contract with the sailboat owners. Sell it. Entrepreneurs will offer scouts the same program. Perhaps an aquatics minded tycoon will buy it, lease back to Scouts, then gift it back to BSA down the road.

Northern Tier- sell it, there are plenty of outfitters there that will provide an equal opportunity.

Philmont - the crown jewell, only about 22,000 Scouts use it annually when it is not closed for forest fire or pandemic. Is it a core asset? I say no. Great base camp programs, but Scouts can plan their own hikes in the Rockies or Appalachia’s. Sell it! I am willing to bet that a group of scouting philanthropists will come together, buy it, and return it to Scouts at some point.

Yes, I was a victim. I have been a survivor now for over 30 years. The BSA has basically dragged me into this mess....file a claim by 5pm on Nov. 16 or be forgotten. So, here we are.

Edited by RobertCalifornia
Grammar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, welcome. WRT to Philmont, I believe the deed of gift from the Phillips family has covenants upon it.   Also, much of the space used in the back country is National Park/National Forest land. It won’t add much to the final Kitty. 
 

 

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