Jump to content

BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Let's see if anyone joins me. I am genuinely interested in all views and any history that can be added. I admit, I am keenly interested in this topic because my case to defeat the potential SOL defense is based on fraudulent concealment. As I've said and again just a few hours ago, the situation with my SM abuser and SE is the linchpin. Anywho, let's see who shows up, or not. I wish we had been allowed to give notice of a new thread before the holiday hiatus ruling came down. Oh, wells...

 

Has any of this been debunked, in whole or in part? If not, the word used in the other thread from which I migrated, which starts with a 'c' has an 'eal' in the middle and concludes with 't. is simply the only accurate term I can think to use. Okay, I didn't use it by I will claim it for these purposes. Seems to moi it doesn't fit the definition of an oversight, an inaccessible database , an oopsie, an innocent mistake or simple conformance to the "standards of the day." Well, I might be missing something. Slight might. I have emphasized a few important pieces of the concealment puzzle. 

A Boy Scout publication put out in 1981 did discuss males infiltrating troops for sex—but focused on children as the perpetrators. The Scoutmaster Handbook, after discussing the problem of sexual experimentation among boys, said, "It is important to distinguish between youthful acts of innocence, and the practices of a homosexual who may be using his Scouting association to make contacts." The Boy Scouts of America saw a need to warn about 12-year-olds joining troops to have sex with 12-year olds but saw no need to issue the same warning about men. 

In part, BSA's paralysis on this issue reflected society's ignorance of what to do about abuse. However, few Americans had the collection of reports on pedophiles that the BSA had in its file cabinets. Although Anglim says that "almost all we knew about this problem was what we read in the papers, he could have learned much more if he'd read the files he was stamping. Anglim's stamp is on the cover sheet of virtually every Confidential File from 1975 through the 1980s, including several hundred files on child molesters.

By dealing with these cases as a series of unrelated events rather than as a pattern, the Boy Scouts of America was behaving just like Carl: minimizing, rationalizing, assuring itself it had no problem. "The Scouts believed their own image. They believed their own publicity," says Mike Rothschild, a California attorney who represented an abused Scout. No one, therefore, reported the cases to the BSA's health and safety committee, which routinely got reports on injuries and deaths at Scout functions. When Scouts got hurt or killed while boating, the committee developed rules to make boating safer. 

During America's Bicentennial celebrations, the committee studied whether the gunpowder used by troops in some ceremonial muskets was dangerous. But Dr. Walter Menninger, a psychiatrist who headed the Menninger Foundation in Kansas and who chaired the committee, says he did not believe sex abuse was a problem in Scouting because no one had informed him of any cases. Thus uninformed, Menninger sat in a 1987 deposition for lawsuit filed by an abused Scout and declared, "There is a greater threat to Scouts of drowning and loss of life from accidents than there is from sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster."

In fact, BSA reports show that sex abuse is more common in Scouting than deaths or serious injuries. From 1971 through 1990, an average of 13 Scouts died during Scout activities each year, and 30 suffered serious injuries, defined by the Scouts as life-threatening or requiring hospitalization of at least 24 hours. For each of those years, however, the BSA banned an average of 67 adults suspected of abusing Scouts. The number of their victims is higher although there is no exact figure. Even without knowing this, Menninger's committee tried to grapple with sex abuse [and that's commendable, but done in a relative vacuum]. Committee members wanted to educate Scouts about abuse or teach leaders how to respond when a boy said he'd been abused. Here they ran into a roadblock: religion. Religion is a cornerstone of Scouting…

Scout's Honor, Patrick Boyle

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Shame on  you.   Eventually every discussion ends with bringing Hitler in.  I'd argue against devaluing other people by associating them with trump or evil or racism or genocide.  It's just not scout

I am going to try to keep this response as scout like as possible...but I just might cross that line so my apologies to moderators if I do. @skeptic you are wrong on so many levels. The trauma of

Now please do not destroy the negative bubbles mrjohns2.  So, as this thread continues, some resourceful or more determined are finding indicators from the awful files that support the idea that at th

Posted Images

I am reposting what I wrote earlier on the other thread:

So in my profession of medicine, documentation is very important with time as the medical record has become much less about communicating the condition of the patient to other physicians and is mainly for medical legal and accounting purposes.  When I have reviewed one of my charts or been an expert witness, I am often struck about obvious omissions.   The mantra is if it is not documented, it was not done.  It is far too common to find a situation where I am certain that things were done but there is no supporting information.   Lawsuits can turn on such evidence.

In reading some of the IVF that have been released, it is clear that little was documented.  We can infer that more was done than was documented but cannot prove it.   So in some cases, proper steps were taken and there wo7ld have been little ways to have detected the perpetrator before the incident.  In those cases, the BSA could have done as well as could be expected in that time but lacks documentation to prove it.

Then there are cases like some have shared with us in these forums when the BSA had warning signs and even knew of potentially abusive situations and failed to act.   There is no way to paint a happy face on these situations - the BSA failed the Scouts.  In the former cases, the BSA could not prove that it did the right thing.

I have no idea how many cases would fall into either category and in some ways, it does not matter.  All of us failed those Scouts.

From what I have seen, the BSA has tried to prevent abuse and seems to have done far better than other youth serving organizations.   While that is comforting that we as the volunteers have done better than other groups, it does not exonerate us on our failures.  So the survivors deserve our concern and care.  We must say that what happened was not acceptable and that we are all dedicated to making Scouting as safe as we can possibly make it.

A survivor who feels that the BSA is not redeemable needs to be understood.  Had I been abused as a boy, that could well be my attitude and if we are all honest with ourselves, could apply to many of us.

Doing better than others just says that we did not fail as badly as others.

I believe that Scouting has been beneficial to far more Scouts than it has harmed so I hope that it survives.  It should survive only if we as volunteers can make it far safer than it has been.

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

...  Scout's Honor, Patrick Boyle

I really want to reply point by point.  I really do.  The article is inflammatory and one-sided.  I'll select a few...  

* "few Americans had the collection of reports on pedophiles that the BSA had in its file cabinets." ... Every major school district.   Every major police force.  Major teaching organizations and medical professions.  Aggregate these into national federations and associations.  ... Simply google "2022 school teacher sexual abuse"   ....  If those organizations did not have the files, it's because they choose to not take it seriously or that it was dangerous to track.  ... The trained, credentialed professionals whose professional job is to help and protect youth.  ... Then, consider the numbers.  ... LA Times said 5000 IVF files from 1947 to 2005.  That averages less than 2 per year per state.  BSA membership was steady for decades at 5 million youth members and 1 million adult members per year.  .... A single case is unacceptable, but the IVF numbers don't paint a picture of BSA having unique numbers.   ... Even the 80,000+ numbers in BSA's bankruptcy seem drastically under-reported compared to the statistical expectation we'd expect to see in society.  

* "No one, therefore, reported the cases to the BSA's health and safety committee" ... Until recently, criminal activity of individuals was not viewed as a health and safety matter.  Drowning.  Gun safety.  That was health and safety.  Crime was crime.

* "Thus uninformed, Menninger sat in a 1987 deposition" ... 1987?  ...  Uninformed? ... The same Patrick Boyle Scout's Honor book also pointed out that in 1986 BSA quoted Menninger in BSA's Scouting Magazine ... BSA communicating to it's volunteer scout leaders ... that "Child Abuse: A Critical Issue in Our Society," ... BSA quoted Menninger to it's volunteers saying all types of abuse is "much more prevalent than anybody would like to admit." ... The following month in 1986 BSA again had more in Scouting Magazine asking parents to address sexual abuse by those in authority.  ... page 273. 

I'm not trying to say BSA was perfect.  ... But it's just ugly re-writing of history to say BSA was doing nothing.  It's ridiculous to say BSA had uniquely special knowledge about CSA.   

 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks. I’ve posted that before and never received anything but emotional responses. No factual rebuttal.

I’m not saying BSA did “nothing,” just to be clear. Also, the standards of the day are still irrelevant here. The issue is, was it “concealment,” as defined? We have to look at all of these facts today, on July 2, 2022. That’s where we are and all we have. This is one state’s definition:

To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant took affirmative action to conceal the cause of action or remained silent and failed to disclose material facts despite a duty to do so and, (2) the plaintiff could not have discovered the cause of action despite exercising reasonable care and diligence.

The third essential element of fraudulent concealment is knowledge on the part of the defendant of facts giving rise to the cause of action. In other words, the defendant must be aware of the wrong.

The fourth and final essential element of fraudulent concealment is a concealment of material information from the plaintiff.

§42.9 Fraudulent Concealment Exception to Statute of Limitations, TN

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Thanks. I’ve posted that before and never received anything but emotional responses. No factual rebuttal.

I’m not saying BSA did “nothing,” just to be clear. Also, the standards of the day are still irrelevant here. The issue is, was it “concealment,” as defined? We have to look at all of these facts today, on July 2, 2022. That’s where we are and all we have. This is one state’s definition:

To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant took affirmative action to conceal the cause of action or remained silent and failed to disclose material facts despite a duty to do so and, (2) the plaintiff could not have discovered the cause of action despite exercising reasonable care and diligence.

The third essential element of fraudulent concealment is knowledge on the part of the defendant of facts giving rise to the cause of action. In other words, the defendant must be aware of the wrong.

The fourth and final essential element of fraudulent concealment is a concealment of material information from the plaintiff.

§42.9 Fraudulent Concealment Exception to Statute of Limitations, TN

I am not an attorney so please forgive me, but wouldn't the standards of the day be VERY relevant as to establishing (or not) fraudulent concealment at that time?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, why are we in this mess now?  The less than straight forward lawyers did exactly what they do when given a chance.  The files were not witheld, just not open to the public.  Of course, we also still need to consider the eras as well, espcicially the libel laws of the past.  You will never find a perfect answer, and there is not doubt many mistakes and a great deal of poor judgement when seen in the light of the current society.  You cannot separate the realities of trying to remake history.  History should help avoid mistakes if viewed with logic and balance, but it cannot fix the past.

 

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

Well, why are we in this mess now? 

The BSA is in the mess that they are because of rampant Child Sex Abuse that they kept away from the public i.e. withheld/concealed. 

Only two things could have kept BSA from this issue, 1. no CSA (not probable) 2 not concealing the records. It is not the lawyers fault, the parents fault nor the survivors fault. Nor was it was poor judgement in the society of the day it happened (concealment) and no one is trying to revision history except those who constantly float the blame to others or to a society at whole.

 

Edited by johnsch322
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Thanks. I’ve posted that before and never received anything but emotional responses. No factual rebuttal.

I’m not saying BSA did “nothing,” just to be clear. Also, the standards of the day are still irrelevant here. The issue is, was it “concealment,” as defined? We have to look at all of these facts today, on July 2, 2022. That’s where we are and all we have. This is one state’s definition:

To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant took affirmative action to conceal the cause of action or remained silent and failed to disclose material facts despite a duty to do so and, (2) the plaintiff could not have discovered the cause of action despite exercising reasonable care and diligence.

The third essential element of fraudulent concealment is knowledge on the part of the defendant of facts giving rise to the cause of action. In other words, the defendant must be aware of the wrong.

The fourth and final essential element of fraudulent concealment is a concealment of material information from the plaintiff.

§42.9 Fraudulent Concealment Exception to Statute of Limitations, TN

@ThenNow ...  I really appreciate your thoughtful response.  I'm one who likes a good debate and learning the details.  I always appreciate your responses. ...  

IMHO ... not a lawyer ... just someone who has slept at Holiday Inns ...

I can see companies (BSA and insurance) able to make vigorous real defense to the above four point concealment requirements.  The question is whether it's in their best interest to strongly argue.  In this case, BSA knew they would be sued into bankruptcy.   The legal cases themselves were too costly.  ...  My real surprise is that most insurance companies are not digging deep to defend these cases tooth and nail.

A few points ...   Really edited down words as I think this is a massive debatable argument

  • Duty
    • We're talking moral duty of an involved, knowledgeable party, as the legislated legal duty did not exist until fairly recently.
    • How do you prove/defend against generalizations of inaction from decades ago.  The adults involved are mostly dead. 
      • "Sir, you received the report of this abuse.  What was your first action?" 
      • Silence.  The tombstone is quiet. 
      • Thus, concealment liability is proven.
    • Worse, it's hard to prove/defend failure to disclose (concealment liability) of a middle-man (BSA) based on the lack of action of the police or parents or schools or charter orgs.   ... For example, police might not have had a law to charge or the parents direct to not pursue or ...  We have been through the debate many times ...
  • Standards of the day are irrelevant ? 
    • Nuances ... I believe you are saying this because BSA had a moral duty as an involved, knowledgeable party that made standards of the day irrelevant ...   But to do what?  We expect them to act based on today's standards, but society would have reacted then based on common patterns that happened then.   ... Society was not prepared or actually pushing against.  What do you do?  ... This was happening broadly in society  ... That was BSA's documented publicly published in 1986.  ... BSA communicated in multiple articles that year in Scouting Magazine for the volunteers to know CSA is a concern and to be aware and alert.  ... I'm saying this as irrelevancy is not fully mitigated because you don't know they did not pursue or that actions of others were strongly contributing to the failure to escalate.  ...   I'll never forget when I read in several of the early cases (1970s/1980s???) were charged as contributing to the delinquency of a minor ... inferring the minor was delinquent (in the wrong).
    • I'm saying ... "irrelevant" is not clean cut for standards of the day ... strong arguments can be made  ... "judge ... look at the following 500 IVF files ... we documented the police actions" ... "judge ... look at these files ... parents were involved and everyone who has knowledge of the discussions is not dead and gone" ... "judge ... we can show those phone calls happened in these cases ... where is there evidence we did not do it" ...  "judge ... you do we defend duty to disclose based on the non-action of a 3rd party"

I'm saying concealment / failure to disclose / standard of day / etc can be strongly argued.  

Edited by fred8033
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

If it was not concealment than why did it take an order from the Oregon State Supreme Court to make the IV files available to those outside of the BSA?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if BSA made those records public, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER (emphasis), they would be held for libel.

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

I am not an attorney so please forgive me, but wouldn't the standards of the day be VERY relevant as to establishing (or not) fraudulent concealment at that time?

Sorry. I have out of state family in town.

Standards of knowledge and responsiveness to actual or reported CSA or legal standards? The cases arguing fraudulent conceal by BSA range from highly fact specific to general, pleading only the special relationship between BSA and Scouts, documented knowledge of CSA over a long period of time, failure to vet and supervise volunteers and employees, and failure in the duty to warn and protect. To this point, the case specific actions, like John's and mine, have been successful. To date, I am unaware of those using the general knowledge, but the are mounting. As more evidence becomes available, whether via this case, investigations by States AGs or FBI, and documentaries, more case will be brought alleging FC. This is my anticipation. I have not read all the cases, but many. Reading them will help understand which and how the standards are applied. I will see if I can get links to more. Again, I am investigating this and still in the process of fully forming my "legal" opinion. Regardless, the trend is building and won't abate any time soon.

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/7d8c2ebb-a90c-42d4-ad81-39392719f1aa/1152406.pdf

PS - Please forgive any and all speed typing oopsies. 

PPS - I am only able to scan the above and will be back. In my case, the one I know best, all of those involved are very much alive and well. I doubt they are much improved as to being morally well, but situationally. They are free and livin' life. My SM abuser is retired and enjoying fishing, hunting, traveling and spending time with his grands. For those who don't know this (from past posts) he still has photos of me and other Scouts on his Fb page. I’m 13 in one of them. Marinate in that for a few hours. 

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I'm saying concealment / failure to disclose / standard of day / etc can be strongly argued.  

Gonna have to piecemeal this.

Not sure on the standard of the day point. The other two are legal issues, applied according to present day law. I will likely miss something bc I'm not going back to my notes, but it boils down establishing a "special relationship" with the victim (and clear nexus between BSA and the child victim); knowledge of facts that, if known, would have given rise to victim/plaintiff's knowledge of a cause of action (which has to be proven and further sussed out, as cases have shown); negligent supervision; and duty to warn and protect, based on the special relationship. See below for more on this.  I'm sprinting...

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

but my understanding is that if BSA made those records public, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER (emphasis), they would be held for libel.

Focusing only on the IVF as a whole and not John's or my specific cases. Again, I'm no expert on any of this, but if I'm expert at all it's on what happened to me and the facts surrounding the abuse. From my research of the IVF, just in my area of the state (which includes the District and LC, though now reconfigured) 9 abusers are reported and were booted from 1972 (when I joined Scouts and was first abused) to 1977. I left in 1979 and my abuse and the abuse of other boys was still going on at that time. I have yet to find any from 1978 or 1979. There is one from 1963 and one 1989. So, all around me volunteers and Scouters were being reported to have sexually abused Scouts in the care of BSA. Literally, all around me and at the same time as my abuse. Another thought in which to bathe. Can we really say no one had at least a moral obligation to tell someone this was going on, especially given the clear patterns of grooming, similar locations, and characteristics of vulnerable boys? I understand the standards of the day argument that, "No one else was doing more than BSA [not sure about that, but anyway], why should you expect BSA to have done more than was the norm? Inf fact, they did more. See?" BUT BUT BUT which other entity, other than the RCC, elevated men to the degree BSA did? Yes, RCC did, but they were not specifically and exclusively recruiting boys, taking them into the woods, telling them and their parents (paraphrasing) "your SM is the best mentor a boy could have. He likes boys and is there for you. He will develop you/your sone into fine, upstanding, moral, America-loving, God-fearing, society-serving citizens. There is no other place better for your boy to learn, grow and become a leader." More to soak in for a while. Lastly, I don't know about you, but if I ever told my parents, especially my dad, "But dad! Everyone else is doing/not doing it? Why can't/do I? Answer? "I don't care what ANYONE else is doing or not doing. It's not right and you not/are doing it. Period. The end." Standard of the day? He didn't give two flips. Not even one.

So, whose standards are we talking about here? Society's or BSA's own carefully crafted recruiting documents, parent's handbook, Oath, Law, pledges and various other written, highly publicized and touted commitments to boys and their parents, not to mentioned the much protected reputation? I don't get they "we did the best we could" dealio.    

Edited by ThenNow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if BSA made those records public, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER (emphasis), they would be held for libel.

There was a court order and they fought it all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer either. 

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

There was a court order and they fought it all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer either. 

@johnsch322  is correct.   The BSA fought the release.  When the records were released, most names were redacted if my memory is correct.

It is my belief that the BSA did not wish to have the records for precisely the reason that happened after the Oregon case.  Attorneys used the records to find potential clients from what has been intimated to me.   As they found one victim, they could often find more.  It was not an easy task because the records centered on the perpetrator but there might be enough information to link to a chartered organization or unit along with a time frame.

I know that a major reason that the BSA had never released the information was this fear.

One can see that such a fear of a potential to cause more lawsuits would overwhelm the desire to use the files to inform in order to prevent future occurrences.   The problem is that such fears cannot be logically evaluated or reliable magnitude of effect calculations constructed.  So whether it was a reasonable stance or not will be in the eye of the beholder.  For someone such as @ThenNow , who would likely argue that some sort of scrubbed information could have been released and that someone in the regional office should have found out about the local Scout Executive’s corruption.   For ardent BSA supporters, the more people who would have had some access to the files would have created leaks.

It is my belief that some where along the timeline that the BSA should have tried to mine the IVF to try to ferret out bad actors still in the organization and learn who to better protect our youth.

  • Thanks 3
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...