Jump to content

Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, elitts said:

Not the age per se, rather the stage of physical development.  Pre-pubescent fixation (generally under age 10) = pedophile, Pubescent fixation (early adolescence, generally 11-14 or 15) = Hebophile.  Post-pubescent fixation (generally 15-19) = Ephebophile and that's not even automatically considered a "disordered preference".

I have posted the same information before but no one seems to heed the designations.  It is important because the recidivism rate for pedophiles is near 100% which means that in general they cannot be rehabilitated and are very likely to commit the crimes again if released.  Though such distinctions make little difference for the victims, it provides information as to which children are most vulnerable at the current time so that the appropriate modifications to youth protection can be made.  

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 870
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We're going to split the ch11.x thread in 2. The original will be kept as it was intended, for the legal aspects of the case and everything else will go here. In a nutshell, if the judge is dealing wi

@Gilwell_1919 I want to respond to this, but in the proper thread, which is this one. Let's be clear what Kosnoff has said. 1) He had stated that scouting should continue. He's repeated th

No one here, except members who are claimants, have any part of deciding anything in this bankruptcy. Let's drop the personal criticism of others who express in a scoutlike way their differing op

Posted Images

On 10/7/2021 at 9:59 PM, BadChannel70 said:

 I did go to the police and my case was turned over to a unit that specializes in the exploitation of children. And when law enforcement came knocking at BSA's and my LC's doors, they were told nothing to see here detectives. Guess what...24 years later I learned through this bankruptcy, BSA and my LC banned my abuser from scouting 11 years prior to me reporting him to law enforcement. So my path to justice as well as other victims was purposely obstructed and as a result "our" abuser never faced one day in court or served one day in jail for his crimes. Nor will he since he has departed this life as we know it.

It disgusts me to read posts on this forum complaining why aren't abusers being held directly accountable. You can personally shake the hands of BSA and my LC for their purposeful grievous omission which allowed a legitimate pedophile, whose path of destruction was spread far and wide, to escape justice. 

Thank you for sharing. It certainly is horrendous that multiple safeguards failed. An abuser was not removed. The council covered it up. The police gave up to quickly.

I keep saying this and I'll say it again. The 82k cases contain a lot of information. It should be analyzed and understood. It would benefit the abused, the BSA, future scouts and society as a whole.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MattR said:

I keep saying this and I'll say it again. The 82k cases contain a lot of information. It should be analyzed and understood. It would benefit the abused, the BSA, future scouts and society as a whole.

I’m not sure if this was mentioned here, but during the last TCC town hall Jim Stang noted they had, “put eyes on” each and every POC. If anyone has the most in-depth and thorough understanding of AND appreciation for what they reveal, it’s the TCC and their professional team. It is one more very important reason they and other survivors MUST be involved in YPT advancements going forward with a high measure of certainty (accountability) they are not relegated to an also ran footnote. Absent that, this will end up being nothing more than an sterile accounting exercise. I say that knowing true recompense is quite unlikely at this point. Trying to be realistic while remaining tenacious and hopeful. Well, at least tenacious…

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2021 at 5:31 PM, skeptic said:

How do we make it more likely to actually have that review?

My Webelos den did the “Protect Yourself” test adventure last year. So, they got to cover it as a group even if parents did t really cover it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The TCC's mission is have concern is for the victims and zero concern for current or future scouts

You are absolutely correct the BSA Tort Claimant Committee which is made up of abuse survivors mission is for their fellow victims.  The legal team they hired is representing all victims and their mandate is to maximize the amount that victims are able to receive.  The majority of the money that victims receive will not be from BSA National or the LC's but the CO's and mostly the insurance policies.  BSA survival is up to the BSA itself. 

 

47 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

so I don't care what TCC says in terms of utilization or the needs of our current/future scouts.

Since the LC's only want to give up approximately 14% overall and some LC's much less by claiming they need certain camps to carry on their mission why wouldn't you care for what they have to say.  It is hard to comprehend on one hand someone saying we care about the survivors but oh no we don't want to give up assets that may be unneeded for compensation. 

 

52 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I welcome their input on YP

This should be a given by everyone.  TCC members and all victims do not wish the hell they have endured to be repeated.

 

53 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

If a council needs to sell a camp to meet its financial obligations to the bankruptcy, then that is sad but necessary.

This is the BILLION DOLLAR question...what is the real obligation of the LC's?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Since the LC's only want to give up approximately 14% overall and some LC's much less by claiming they need certain camps to carry on their mission why wouldn't you care for what they have to say. 

Exactly. This is simply refusing to compensate victims and claiming that EVERY camp is absolutely necessary and EVERYTHING has to be off the table.

14% contributions (on average) from LCs and they want to claim that is "substantial" contributions? Note the word "substantial" is the word used in the bankruptcy code as to whether or not a debtor or others seeking to be relieved of claims that they have to reach.

No judge is going to look a 4-14% contributions as "substantial". Those camps are getting sold one way or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

You are absolutely correct the BSA Tort Claimant Committee which is made up of abuse survivors mission is for their fellow victims.  The legal team they hired is representing all victims and their mandate is to maximize the amount that victims are able to receive.  The majority of the money that victims receive will not be from BSA National or the LC's but the CO's and mostly the insurance policies.  BSA survival is up to the BSA itself. 

Not sure why you decided to break this sentence into two part reply, as the second part reference the first. 

In short, we agree. As I said, what's in the interest of the current scouts is not the TCC's job. 

9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Since the LC's only want to give up approximately 14% overall and some LC's much less by claiming they need certain camps to carry on their mission why wouldn't you care for what they have to say. 

And since what is in the currents scouts best interest is NOT the TCC's job, then I don't care what operational, personnel, program etc. changes they wish to see. The TCC determining what camps are needed in order to best serve the current scouts is NOT their job, any more than determining what personnel are needed or who stays employed or not. 

If the TCC believes a council is not putting in all they can, then I have no problem with them challenging the amount and letting a judge decide. But I do care once they begin trying to make decisions on how that money is found, because that is a change the effects the current scouts. 

9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

It is hard to comprehend on one hand someone saying we care about the survivors but oh no we don't want to give up assets that may be unneeded for compensation. 

Maybe it is hard to comprehend because you are conflating two things. It is entirely possible to care about survivors, while disagreeing that the TCC should be determining what IS and IS NOT needed for the current scouts. 

Or is it that you believe one cannot care for the survivors and advocate for what is best for the Scouts at the same time?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

It is entirely possible to care about survivors, while disagreeing that the TCC should be determining what IS and IS NOT needed for the current scouts. 

Then the judge will decide if the LCs really need these. And remember: the victims get the vote. If the LCs keep holding out, they'll never, ever get this plan approved.

The victims have the power here to vote yes or no. So you don't need to convince me or the judge. You need to convince the 82,500 victims that the LCs are being honest about "what IS and IS NOT needed for the current scouts."

Good luck with that.

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

BSA is not refusing to compensate victims - there is a compensation plan on the table

I would argue it isn't a compensation plan. It's an insult.

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

I would argue it isn't a compensation plan. It's an insult.

Speaking of which, let's be courteous. It is a compensation plan. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it's just.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Your typical hyperbole. 

BSA is not refusing to compensate victims - there is a compensation plan on the table
They are not claiming EVERY camp is necessary - some have already been sold
EVERYTHING has to be off the table - EVERYTHING Is not off the table, and BSA/Councils are not claiming it should be - though you are claiming EVERYTHING should be. 

The biggest problem as I see it with the current plan is not what BSA National is putting up it is what makes up the rest of the plan.  Not enough from the LC's and the fact that the insurance company's and CO's are included.  Everyone should remember that the TCC endorsed the first plan (which had less from LC's but the endorsement could be removed if the Hartford settlement was included.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The compensation plan is woefully inadequate.  Not even close to equitable and fair that BSA touted.  If you sold me a piece of land for $100,000 and I only paid you $1,000 and you took me to court and the judge allowed me to keep the land and you were out $99,000 what would you say?

Yep. The average is 14% or less. So to use the example: $100,000 and only gave $14,000. Judge then allows you to keep the land. Fair? Just? Equitable? Nope. Nope. Nope.

The LCs are going to have to convince the victims. The current offer ($500 million + $100 million note) is not even close.

TCC has said it is looking at $1.5 billion or more.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I side with the opinion that BSA LCs should provide more funding, to be fair, claimant attorneys that represent 80% of claimants have signed onto this deal.  BSA is looking to negotiate an exit and their lawyers are now working with a group of attorneys who believe the current plan is fair.  It is now up to claimants to determine if they agree.  If they don't, or don't in a large enough number, then it is back to the bargaining table.  However, at this time, I don't think we can blame BSA for the offer if the bulk of claimants attorneys agree to it ... if there is any anger against the current plan, the coalition attorneys should bare the brunt of the outrage. 

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

If the TCC believe that a council can put more into the bankruptcy, then I support then challenging the offer and letting a judge decide. If the judge determines they should put in more, the at that point it is up to the council how to deliver those funds. If the council can find other ways to deliver those funds, because they feel the camp is needed then that is their right. If they cannot do so then they need to decide if they sell the camp or withdraw and try to fight another way. 

That is exactly what the TCC wants to do.  They will show how much more is needed and a path to get there.  I am sure if XYZ council can find a way to get to the figure no one will care which path they take.  One important point to remember this is a BSA National bankruptcy and all other entities LC's CO's etc. are just trying to piggyback so they won't possibly suffer greater losses in the future.  

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

Yep. The average is 14% or less. So to use the example: $100,000 and only gave $14,000. Judge then allows you to keep the land. Fair? Just? Equitable? Nope. Nope. Nope.

The LCs are going to have to convince the victims. The current offer ($500 million + $100 million note) is not even close.

TCC has said it is looking at $1.5 billion or more.

 

And the LC's contribution is only one element of the compensation plan.  

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...