Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing


Recommended Posts

 

44 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

What I found interesting in terms of the expert witness summary of what impacts membership.  He talked about controversies and COs.  He didn't talk about volunteers at all.    

That sounds correct.  Controversies have been the biggest hit.  After that, I would say program perception by youth.  ... excluding losing the Mormon church.  But I include that under the controversies and not under COs.

Controversies have plagued BSA for 30+ years.  BSA v Dale started in 1992 and concluded in 2000 by US Supreme Court.  It's a good example of how society has changed and how it impacted BSA.  In 1980, BSA vs Dale debate would have been an obvious not in scouting.  Now, it's an absolutely accepted normal in society and in BSA.  BSA took a huge hit.  Whether you think BSA was right or wrong, when the case started BSA was aligned with the vast majority of Americans.  By the end of the case, BSA was in the news weekly / monthly ... as out of step ... as morally wrong ... as forcing their personal beliefs on society ... probably for a decade plus of news articles.  All for something that was not directly relevant for day-to-day scouting or taught one way or another in the program.  The case got us kicked out of school recruiting and alienated lots of people.  Lots of other related results.  Such as losing LDS as a CO.  

Next biggest was further membership issue was youth perceptions of the program.  Geekly.  Not fun.  etc.  Same old debate.

I really don't see COs or volunteering as big impacts plus or minus on membership numbers.  Absolutely needed for membership and to drive the program, but the ebbs and wanes of COs and volunteers don't massively affect the youth recruitment. ...  well ... except losing the Mormon church. 

Edited by fred8033
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dr. Doug Kennedy made an impassioned speech to the court and asked the Judge to keep her focus on the survivors as she makes her decision(s).  Jessica Lauria thanks the court for the time devoted.   A

Annnnd....Judge has now said that she will give this another 45 minutes and pick things up in the morning.  Thus far the only clear winner in all of this is "Billable Hours."  

Missed this morning so far. Yesterday ... my takeaways. Bankruptcy US Trustee's path is clear .... go after the fact that some releases are being given with no contribution.  One o

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Bishop Schol up now.

Many details of the structure of the UMC, the priority of taking emotional and spiritual care of survivors, the processes for decision making, the directive to back away from CO status, the difficulty of the mediation sessions, the eventual settlement and scramble to get sign-on across the congregations, the retraction of the directive, their goal to pay their portion within the first year, their effort to see all COs gain releases and etc. Critical to me, he wept as he expressed true sorry over what happened to us. And, not just once, but several times. Me too. He ended direct questioning with a statement to the effect, "And to the survivors, you are the heroes. Thank you for brining this to our attention."

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched just a bit, but I agree you can see the pain in his heart.  I thought he had a great answer to "Is this a fair plan."  He paused a long while ... and said no amount could ever compensate so it isn't fair to the victims.  He went on to say while legally the Methodist Church had 3 years to pay, when the greater group of Methodist's learned that it would delay payments to survivors they decided to work hard and take out loans to pay early.  The vast majority of their payment will come within the first year.

It is hard to judge an individual over a hearing, but he seems to be a kind and thoughtful man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council ad hoc leader is on and is getting butchered by one Gilion Dumas.  This looks bad.  Basically, she is brining up the calculation of BSA council payouts and going hard after the West Coast & Northwest.  California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana.  This is probably the worst cross I have see in terms of witness answers.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge is watching this closely.  Sometimes you can see her not watching as intentionally.  Now asking if the concern that if councils were not included they would go bankrupt.  I have to drop but .... interesting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

This practice just does not sit right with me...

Purchasing a third-party release from liability through our judicial system at pennies (or less) on the dollar?

Does this not remove a victim's right to due process?

I've turned this over in my head and heart for many months.  I can find no other way to see this.  Our justice system should not operate this way.  It stinks.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not fast, but I am slow! How does the article about a settlement with the RCCAHC that states they will negotiate a settlement and a previous statement that the RCC would be paid 1.5 mil for their legal fees and not have to pay in dovetail here? I need some explaining!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Disclosure ... I'm Catholic and love my church.  The organization is far from perfect, but it's my family.  

Is this weird?  ... Catholic groups getting protection seems like a questionable action.  So then from a victim side, will I lose the right to sue if abuse was not via scouts but I once attended a scout meeting?  Or will the "CO" be protected against abuse suits even if I was not a scout?  ... Flip side ... will Catholic organizations be still liable as abuse can be shown mostly not from scouting, but only slightly from scouting?  

From what I've seen, many cases are not a clean light switch of in-scouting or out-of-scouting abuse.  Many COs were schools and churches and other that had other connections to the youth.  

I'm wondering if some victims will be blocked that should not be or if Catholic organizations will not receive protection as intended because protection can be gone around. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Disclosure ... I'm Catholic and love my church.  The organization is far from perfect, but it's my family.  

Is this weird?  ... Catholic groups getting protection seems like a questionable action.  So then from a victim side, will I lose the right to sue if abuse was not via scouts but I once attended a scout meeting?  Or will the "CO" be protected against abuse suits even if I was not a scout?  ... Flip side ... will Catholic organizations be still liable as abuse can be shown mostly not from scouting, but only slightly from scouting?  

From what I've seen, many cases are not a clean light switch of in-scouting or out-of-scouting abuse.  Many COs were schools and churches and other that had other connections to the youth.  

I'm wondering if some victims will be blocked that should not be or if Catholic organizations will not receive protection as intended because protection can be gone around. 

I have studied this from almost day 1 because it is my story. My abuser was not only my troop leader but a lay teacher at my catholic elementary school as well as my coach for after school sports. BSA wasn't paying his salary when I was in his class nor was it paying him to umpire local youth baseball games. For me, there is a guide post so to speak, when I was getting abused at school activity vs a BSA scouting activity. 

In fact, the TDP itself reflects this situation known as a mitigating factor (value of your claim is reduced) because the survivor had a relationship with the abuser outside of BSA scouting. As a survivor I find this mechanism patently offensive, particularly as both my archdiocese and BSA/LC concealed my abuser's prior bad acts, even before I myself was abused. That's really great, turn a blind eye to criminal acts and get rewarded for it. This also explains why my abuser was allowed to sexually abuse several of us young boys before finally getting perma- banned from the BSA .

So, to answer your question, I don't believe a survivor will lose the ability to pursue a civil case against the archdiocese, if the abuser had access to you outside of BSA activities and abuse occurred there as well. I  have a separate legal action against the archdiocese. I don't believe they would be wasting their resources on my case and other cases  similar to mine.  

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

So, to answer your question, I don't believe a survivor will lose the ability to pursue a civil case against the archdiocese, if the abuser had access to you outside of BSA activities and abuse occurred there as well. I  have a separate legal action against the archdiocese. I don't believe they would be wasting their resources on my case and other cases  similar to mine.  

Understood.  I'm curious to see how this flushes out over time.  These situations are legally extremely complex.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To be clear, I do not believe the Catholic Church or any of their entities are protected.  What happened is that the Ad Hoc Catholic Committee settled. They removed their objections and I believe they are protected like all COs for abuse post 1976.  However, they are not protected prior to 1976.   

 

Edited by Eagle1993
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...