Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I will challenge the notion that the mild discomfort of some is the same or equivalent "hell" (word used) as a child sexually assaulted.

I will dare anyone with even a modicum of humanity to challenge that premise.

Of course, your reputation for self-righteous posts proceeds this post. Condescending implications are immature at the very least and rarely ever produce positive outcomes. In fact, it usually produces the opposite results. 

There  is no doubt you would be jumping into anyone treating your kids what you claim you are justified doing on this list.

Scouting is exactly about teaching scouts how to use the scout law for giving a personal perspective without being  demeaning or insulting. Intellectual discussions requires to first respect the other persons and presenting oneself without unwelcoming words or tone.

Neutral or welcome discourse requires practice, but the person must want to practice first. 

Barry

  • 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

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Scouting is exactly about teaching scouts how to use the scout law for giving a personal perspective without being  demeaning or insulting.

I find it demeaning and insulting to suggest that the mild discomfort for some scouters is a  "hell" in any way equivalent to the sexual abuse of minors. But you know, that's just me and my personal perspective I guess.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people feel that way,  I may not agree with that, but I at least acknowledge their right to their opinion.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care about the victims.

 

Quote

 

 

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

Nor is showing how this will be a net benefit to youth going forward ...

That's not the purpose of the bankruptcy or the settlement. The purpose of a bankruptcy is for the debtor (BSA) to pay off its debts (in this case, money owed to the victims of child sex abuse).

Period.

And BSA is going to pay.

As always in a bankruptcy we are only talking about two questions: How much and when.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2021 at 3:43 PM, MattR said:

But, what can we do? Does anyone honestly think they can change the outcome?

This for me is one of the jarring parts. As if somehow when BSA entered bankruptcy that some magic wand was going to make all the sexual abuse claims go away.

There are some facts about this bankruptcy, any bankruptcy, that people are still not grasping.

1) The debtor is going to pay. That's a given. The debtor [BSA] admits it has to pay SOMETHING. The only questions (and I cannot stress this enough) are how much and when.

2) *deleted by moderator as disallowed content* I am sick and tired here and elsewhere (at Roundtables, etc.) of hearing about how all 84,000 people are liars and how the lawyers all put the 84,000 liars up to this and there's no way this could be true because BSA is just so perfect and "I've been in scouting 20 years and I PERSONALLY never saw it, so well." Etc.

3) "They are punishing today's kids." You know what? Today's kids may in fact miss out on somethings. But you know what? The victim's are not to blame, nor are their attorneys. Want to lay the blame for sexual abuse claims of DECADES ago being paid for TODAY? Blame (in this order) a) the absuers, b) the leaders of the time who tried to cover up and/or failed to exercise ANY oversight over these leaders (BSA, LC, and COs own this, each to a differing degree) and c) state legislators who reopened the windows.

I do NOT blame and do NOT see the abuse victims (or their lawyers for that matter) "punishing" today's kids. The victims and lawyers are operating within the legal framework that the state legislatures (UNANIMOUSLY or nearly so in each state) gave them in a bi-partisan fashion.

4) Go back to item 1). BSA is going to pay. This is a function of pure math at this point. Yes, victims have emotions, yes scouters who are losing their beloved camps have emotion. It doesn't matter if the day YPT went into effect in 1989 (?) not a single scout was ever abused again. The question is what does BSA owe the sexual abuse victims. In the end, this is a bankruptcy and bankruptcy is all about math.

Now, you can look at that math and say "There is no way we survive with only 1 camp, or no camp." Or you can look at the math and say "My Council cannot afford to give away 50%-75% of its cash assets." Or you can wrap you head around the idea that BSA (and your LC and possibly your CO) is going to pay. The question is how much and how do you live on what happens next.

5) If you feel like venting, start asking. The TCC has, or will, be handing out the plans they have for LCs. If feel like venting, want to know what is going on, CALL YOUR SCOUT EXEC. The problem is this forum is all we have. We are NOT going to get public information from BSA, LCs, or COs because their lawyers are going to tell them "shut up and let the lawyers do the talking." But you might get more information out of some of these upcoming town halls or even just picking up a phone and asking: how many camps will we have to sell? Etc.

Edited by elitts
disallowed commentary for this thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the valuable things about this thread, in addition to the excellent legal information and analysis, has been the perspectives from people who have actually been abused. I can go to any scouting venue, forum or friend, and hear hundreds of opinions from people who know a lot about scouting but a lot less about child abuse, which is the single biggest crisis ever to face scouting. This is the only place that I know of where a handful of people have been willing to give firsthand accounts of some of the incidents that have all but destroyed something that we love. They've given their opinions. They've asked and answered questions. I can't imagine the kind of courage it took ThenNow, for example, to make his first post here in what he had to know was hostile territory. I thank him for being forthcoming at the cost of what seems at times to be great personal pain. I've learned a lot from his voice.

And while this isn't really our role in this forum, one thought keeps coming to mind for me as I peruse the letters that were posted -- and I could only read a few, they were so gut churning: So many of these abused children, because that's what they were, will probably never get their day in court to tell their story. And so many of them want and need that to help them heal. This forum has at least given a handful of people, who represent thousands, to tell their story to a group of, hopefully, sympathetic scouting peers.  BSA will never do that, but we can.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So you are darn right, I'll DARE someone to stand there and claim their discomfort is a "hell" comparable to that suffered by these CHILDREN (at the time).

Every time.

Ditto. I'm there. Shoulder to shoulder on this one.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yknot said:

BSA will never do that, but we can.

Your words are well written ...  until I see "BSA will never do that..." ... this is where we disagree.   Statements like that are explicitly factually wrong.  BSA has acknowledged and agreed that a debt is owed for wrongs.   They have said that for years now.    

Absolutely acknowledge that the sharing of abuse statements from the past is helpful.  That's good to hear. 

Just don't compound a useful statement with yet another accusation that damages the information exchange in this forum.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Your words are well written ...  until I see "BSA will never do that..." ... this is where we disagree.   Statements like that are explicitly factually wrong.  BSA has acknowledged and agreed that a debt is owed for wrongs.   They have said that for years now.    

Absolutely acknowledge that the sharing of abuse statements from the past is helpful.  That's good to hear. 

Just don't compound a useful statement with yet another accusation that damages the information exchange in this forum.

Let's just agree to disagree on BSA. I think individual scouters' views of BSA have much to do with personal experience. If you had my experiences and saw things from my perspective, you might agree with why I wrote that. And perhaps if I'd had yours, I'd think differently than I do. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c4beb8e1-80a4-4bb4-9ef5-19b94c488fcb_3816.pdf

Another objection from the TCC & team front.  This one is also very interesting.

I found this very interesting.  This details out the history & current status of the HA base fight.  Would be interesting to see if BSA submits an answer tomorrow.  Plus, if JP Morgan can get involved and perhaps a negotiated settlement.

Quote

B. The Restricted Property Action 14. On January 8, 2021, the TCC commenced an adversary proceeding (Adv. Pro. Case No. 21-50032) (the “Restricted Property Action”) seeking a declaratory judgment that Boy Scouts assets having an asserted value of $667,075,374 that allegedly are subject to donor Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 3816 Filed 05/12/21 Page 7 of 32 DOCS_LA:337783.10 85353/002 8 restrictions (“Restricted Assets”) are, in fact, not subject to enforceable donor restrictions, and, instead, are available to satisfy creditor claims.  The Boy Scouts filed its answer in the Restricted Property Action on April 23, 2020. The TCC and the Boy Scouts had their Bankruptcy Rule 7026(f) conference on April 29, 2021. Initial disclosures pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7026(a)(1) are due on May 13, 2021. The initial scheduling conference is set for May 19, 2021. JP Morgan Chase Bank has filed an unopposed motion to intervene and the parties are negotiating a stipulation to permit the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to intervene as a party. The TCC served its initial document requests and interrogatories on the Boy Scouts on April 30, 2021. No responses have been served to date.

Also a bit surprised about this.  BSA plans to disclosure their abuse settlements 2016 and later ... but is refusing to release data prior to 2016.  I wonder their motivation and this one doesn't sit well with me, especially if it is data (not individual names that were not charged/convicted).  

Quote

After over a year in bankruptcy, the Boy Scouts intends to disclose sexual abuse settlement data only for settlements arising from and after 2016, despite its awareness and possession of data regarding abuse claims stretching back to 1940: On May 7, 2021, the Boy Scouts advised the survivors groups of its refusal to provide any information relating to the decades of scouting child molestation claims arising before 2016.

 

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

If anyone has constructive ideas on how to keep things civil and moving forward feel free to post. I don't know what the other moderators think about all of this, and I clearly haven't considered it too long. Maybe we can discuss this elsewhere.

If mine is a worthy voice, I would be happy to contribute my thoughts and suggestions on a separate thread. From the jump, and a couple of these are things I've previously posted and few have proven successful as I've begged for a "back off," I would start with:

1) Request a reduction or elimination of all caps and/or repeated bold font statements when the post is emotionally charged (or maybe always?). I have fallen into part of that and could've adequately made my point(s) with underline or italics. This is a visual medium and what we see, not only read, has a HUGE impact. (Did that on purpose. See what I mean?)

2) Continue to stay the hand of lawyer bashing, other than to note particular communications or report what's going on with attorneys involved in the case. (Well done us, so far. I'm grateful. Thanks, Moderators.);

3) Continue to stay the hand of using "abuse/abused" and "victim/victimized" to describe the impact of program reductions and increased fees on Scouts and Scouters. (Again, thanks for the respect shown since my plea);

4) Stay the hand of direct juxtaposition of the emotional impacts of the bankruptcy on Scouts and Scouters with the emotional and psychological damage of sexual abuse survivors. I do not want to minimize. Please trust me. I had a breakdown when my son's wanted to join Scouts and lost my company in a bankruptcy sale two years later (as I bounced around in treatment and hospitals). I get it. I really do and I hate to see anyone lose what they love and built; and

5) If a poster has already made a specific point, instead of reposting or further extrapolating and going off about having to repeat oneself, just link to the post. Not sure how to do that, but it would allow me/us/one to go back, find the conversation where the points were being discussed, educate myself on what I missed and then fast forward back to the current stream of post.

Just my thoughts.

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