Legal settlements and abuse

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

That sounds pretty solid. No idea if we can afford that but that sounds like a great general check of, well, everyone. And not that intrusive or time-consuming.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

"Sept 19 (Reuters) - The Boy Scouts of America’s $2.46 billion settlement trust has begun sending payments to men who were abused as children by troop leaders, under a bankruptcy settlement still facing appeals from a minority group of abuse survivors.

The initial payments are being sent to 7,000 claimants who chose a "quick pay" option under the Boy Scouts of America's bankruptcy plan, with the first 70 (second source stated 60 - RS) claimants paid on Tuesday. Those claimants will receive $3,500 without going through the lengthier evaluation process that awaits 75,000 others who filed claims."

More at sources:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-victims-begin-receiving-settlement-payouts-appeals-continue-2023-09-19/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scouting-settlement-trust-begins-payments-to-compensate-survivors-of-sexual-abuse-in-boy-scouts-of-america-301932494.html

Edited September 19, 2023 by RememberSchiff

[Bzzy 7]

Does anyone have a plain-English understanding of the "Releases" that Scouts are asked to sign as a prerequisite to getting the "Advance Payments" of $1,000 ?  (Note, this is not the "expedited reduced payment", this is instead an initial payment to Scouts who have been found to have "solid cases" under the "Claim Matrix".)  The explanation offered by the trust is complex enough to suggest the need for a new merit badge in "Forensic Linguistics".

And no mention is made of the impact that the Supreme Court's eventual decision on the Perdue Pharma settlement might have on these releases.  Would all BSA-bankruptcy-related releases become moot if the Court ruled such settlements invalid, or would the Scouts who sign releases be unable to participate in whatever process would take the place of the settlement?

This is a purely technical/practical question, and this is very likely the only post I will ever make to this forum, so I am not debating anything or making arguments, I just honestly do not understand the implications of the releases, and hoping that someone smarter than me understands any of this.

Quoting from the Trust's letter to Scouts:

"If you wish to receive payment of an award from the Trust’s assets AND you “wish to have the opportunity
to share in any settlement proceeds received from a Chartered Organization” (as defined in the Release
form) “that is or becomes a Protected Party” (also defined in the Release form), you will choose to sign
either Exhibit B or Exhibit C. The only Chartered Organizations that are currently Protected Parties are the
United Methodist Entities (as defined in the Boy Scouts plan of reorganization (the “Plan”)), and, upon the
entry of a final confirmation order with respect to the Plan, the Trust is entitled to receive up to $30
million dollars from the United Methodist Entities. The first installment of these funds is currently in an
escrow account awaiting the final conclusion of the appeals of confirmation of the Plan. So, to date, the
Trust has no funds from a Chartered Organization that is a Protected Party but expects to receive at least
$27.5 million, and up to $30 million, upon the confirmation order becoming a final order not subject to
further appeals. It is possible that more Chartered Organizations will seek to become a Protected Party
and will make a monetary settlement contribution to the Trust for the right to become a Protected Party,
but there are no other settlements at this time.

Please understand two things. First, a claimant who does not sign either Exhibit B or C will not have the
opportunity to share in any settlement funds provided to the Trust by a Chartered Organization. Second,
even if you choose to sign either Exhibit B or C you are not guaranteed that you will be eligible to share in
the proceeds of any settlement with a Chartered Organization, you will simply have the opportunity to
share in those settlement proceeds. These provisions of the Plan are complicated, and we urge you to
review Article IX.F of the Trust Distribution Procedures for more information regarding eligibility
requirements and allocation of Chartered Organization settlement proceeds.

The other significant difference between Exhibit B and Exhibit C is the breadth of the Release you are
required to provide. In addition to a number of other parties being released, Exhibit B provides that you
are also releasing “any Chartered Organization that is currently a Protected Party or becomes a Protected
Party after the execution of this Release (or that is an Insured Party Releasee…).” Exhibit B, paragraph H.
In contrast, Exhibit C provides that, in addition to those parties being released under Exhibit B, you are
also releasing “… all Chartered Organizations that are not Protected Parties or Limited Protected Parties.”
Exhibit C, paragraph G.

If you sign Exhibit D, you will be entitled to receive payment on your award from the Trust’s assets but
NOT from any settlement proceeds received by the Trust from a Chartered Organization."

 

[RememberSchiff 3683]

@Bzzy welcome to scouter.com

I cross-linked your post in a more active topic.

 

 

[Bzzy 7]

On 9/16/2023 at 10:26 PM, johnsch322 said:

Things don't always show up on background checks. Parental searches have turned up convictions, charges, and headlines that have resulted in people being removed from kid facing roles despite having passed recent checks.

While nothing is foolproof, a funny story to put this point of "fingerprinting" and "background checks" into perspective...

I was attacked in the early 1970s, ran from my attacker the moment he let go, and have not stopped running since.  Rather than hiking, camping, rock-climbing, and ice-climbing, I focused on drinking and trumpet playing. (I stopped drinking in 2005, simply because my age made it impossible for me to keep drinking.)

I spent quite a bit of those 30+ years camping.  While I lacked the proper back-country camping permits required by the authorities, the rangers and national park police were slow and noisy, and I was fast, quiet, and wary.  I was the self-awarded "national hide-and-seek champion" for many years running.  I'd work farmworker jobs, kitchen jobs, service industry jobs, as no questions were asked, and the pay was in cash.  Running a trap line of snares for small game and fishing were my main occupations between jobs.

I spent some time in shelters, including an extended period hobbling about while recovering from a torn meniscus at a St Vincent DePaul shelter.  There are lots of them.  As I was staying with them and enjoying their hospitality, I helped out in the commercial-grade kitchen at the church that hosted us (literally in their basement) to prepare the meals.  By then, I was a decent line-cook, having worked in many restaurants, and learned some technique.

One weekend, the volunteer who would come to unlock the kitchen and manage the meal prep came to open, but could not stay.  He wanted me to handle all the cooking and washing up, and I was happy to do so.  This became a habit, as there were only 24 to feed, not a big deal for me.  He'd unlock, I'd do my thing, and lock the kitchen on the way out after dinner when everything was shipshape.  No one was the wiser.

But we were eventually found out, and I was a classified as a "volunteer". St Vincent DePaul was a very early adopter of "background checks" for volunteers, which makes sense.  I could not qualify, not because I had an arrest record, but because there were NO records of my existence anywhere.  I never had a credit card, bank account, home address, phone number, driver's license, etc.   So, no keys for me.

That was a wake-up call that I had played hide-and-seek far too well for far too long, so, I got myself some ID, one of those non-driver's license IDs from the DMV. 

But Scouting taught me skills that actually kept me alive and comfortable for decades.  Sadly, there is no merit badge for camping for thousands of nights, and hiking thousands of miles.  Of course, had I not gone from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts, I would not have been prompted to run and keep running in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23 by Bzzy

[skeptic 997]

https://www.cbalawfirm.com/news/ymca-sexual-abuse/

Just to remind some; the issue is not just one for BSA.  Yet, even though this link certainly suggests the Y had just as many issues as BSA, I do not remember seeing any media stories that were tar and feathering them with the intensity of BSA.  None of it is okay, but when do we stop somehow making BSA more of a pyria than others?

[johnsch322 524]

51 minutes ago, skeptic said:

https://www.cbalawfirm.com/news/ymca-sexual-abuse/

Just to remind some; the issue is not just one for BSA.  Yet, even though this link certainly suggests the Y had just as many issues as BSA, I do not remember seeing any media stories that were tar and feathering them with the intensity of BSA.  None of it is okay, but when do we stop somehow making BSA more of a pyria than others?

82,000 claimants in BSA Bankruptcy. I guess when an organization has more claims against it.

[skeptic 997]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

82,000 claimants in BSA Bankruptcy. I guess when an organization has more claims against it.

We have no idea how many of those claims are real.  And this link suggests this is also just the point of the iceberg.  The tar and feathers is due most likely many schools, the Y as here noted, Boys and Girls clubs, uncounted sports groups, and any other youth group the creeps manage to get into.  That is the point.  The issue is not just BSA, and indications are that based on membership over many decades, the percentages of proven abuse are low in comparison to many.  But, the stats are vague, and more is likely unreported or acknowledged than is known.  IF the legal vultures decide to go after the Y, or others, we may see just as large, percentage wise, of an ugly reality of our whole society, and frankly most likely the larger world.  That is the only point.  There is no excuse for your trauma, but sadly, we can see you are one of too many, and not just with BSA.  

 

[johnsch322 524]

6 minutes ago, skeptic said:

We have no idea how many of those claims are real.  And this link suggests this is also just the point of the iceberg.  The tar and feathers is due most likely many schools, the Y as here noted, Boys and Girls clubs, uncounted sports groups, and any other youth group the creeps manage to get into.  That is the point.  The issue is not just BSA, and indications are that based on membership over many decades, the percentages of proven abuse are low in comparison to many.  But, the stats are vague, and more is likely unreported or acknowledged than is known.  IF the legal vultures decide to go after the Y, or others, we may see just as large, percentage wise, of an ugly reality of our whole society, and frankly most likely the larger world.  That is the only point.  There is no excuse for your trauma, but sadly, we can see you are one of too many, and not just with BSA.  

 

In 2019, the YMCA of the USA reached a settlement with several victims of sexual abuse who had filed lawsuits against the organization.

The lawsuits involved five victims who had been sexually abused by a former YMCA employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the 1970s and 1980s. The victims alleged that the YMCA had been aware of the abuse and failed to take appropriate action to prevent it. The lawsuits also alleged that the YMCA had a history of ignoring or covering up incidents of sexual abuse by staff members.

 

[BetterWithCheddar 125]

I'm surprised we don't hear about more issues with the YMCA.

Perhaps my BSA training has made me hypersensitive to compromising situations. When taking my son to swim lessons, I skip the family changing area and opt for the men's room where they still have a dedicated wing for parents of young children. The locker room is partitioned for privacy (seriously, it's like a maze), but that also would make it difficult for a staff member or well-meaning bystander to intervene if they saw inappropriate activities. We always try to get in and out as fast as possible (you can shower at home, kid).

The Y has been great for our family - youth sports, swim lessons, summer childcare, etc. (all at a reasonable cost), but when you have that many people changing clothes every day in close proximity to one another, you would think the potential for impropriety would be massive.

[Bzzy 7]

On 4/15/2024 at 9:24 PM, skeptic said:

We have no idea how many of those claims are real. 

But we do know that one basic prerequisite here is proving one's "connection to scouting" via one's name being on a troop roster at the time of being assaulted, or by other documentation, such as the Troop Scribe's report in the local newspaper for those who were scouts in towns small enough to print the scribe reports in the paper.

As non-scouts are easily excluded, the statement above calls fellow scouts liars.

I find this behavior that requires an apology.  In this context, there are some lines that one cannot cross.

 

 

[skeptic 997]

26 minutes ago, Bzzy said:

But we do know that one basic prerequisite here is proving one's "connection to scouting" via one's name being on a troop roster at the time of being assaulted, or by other documentation, such as the Troop Scribe's report in the local newspaper for those who were scouts in towns small enough to print the scribe reports in the paper.

As non-scouts are easily excluded, the statement above calls fellow scouts liars.

I find this behavior that requires an apology.  In this context, there are some lines that one cannot cross.

 

 

"But we do know that one basic prerequisite here is proving one's "connection to scouting".  Yes, and many cannot, yet they're still count as "someone" that filed a claim.  The lawyers certainly have done little real vetting, that has been noted already.  And, if that "real" connection and an actual abuse incident is whown, they are due recompense.  Are you expecting apologies from the name collectors and legal manipulators for all the verified false claims?  

 

[johnsch322 524]

40 minutes ago, skeptic said:

"But we do know that one basic prerequisite here is proving one's "connection to scouting".  Yes, and many cannot, yet they're still count as "someone" that filed a claim.  The lawyers certainly have done little real vetting, that has been noted already.  And, if that "real" connection and an actual abuse incident is whown, they are due recompense.  Are you expecting apologies from the name collectors and legal manipulators for all the verified false claims?  

 

Where do you get your information? Are you part of the settlement trust? When you say "many cannot", how many are you saying, what is the percentage? Have you read the claims? Except for what you have read do you know the lawyers? Do you actually even know a claimant? Have you walked in any of our shoes?

As a survivor who was well vetted by a law firm who has filed 1600 claims I am disturbed by your constant attitude of trying to make the BSA look like the victim in all of this. It was the BSA who filed the Bankruptcy and ran their own ads for survivors to come forward. I know this because it was a BSA ad that made me come forward. 

What is sad is that there are people who post who have no real clue.

Edited April 21 by johnsch322

[Bzzy 7]

45 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Are you expecting apologies from the name collectors and legal manipulators for all the verified false claims?  

No, I do not expect apologies from parasites, I expect an apology from a scout who called a large number of other scouts liars based upon unfounded accusations.  (That would be YOU.)

[skeptic 997]

So, while I have stated numerous times that I have no issue with the proven or even likely cases that occurred.  But, the context of this discussion continues to rely on mostly unsubstantiated numbers and the theory that the worst proven or validated occurrences are the norm.  Yet, as far as we know, most have never gotten beyond the finger pointing.  Just as McMartin was surely not the norm for such things, it also ruined a lot of lives with little or no verification.  And that has been verified.  The real problem I see is that emotion, empathy, and broad brush accusations tend to take the front, and IF someone is one of the proven victims it becomes for them the only reality.  Here is a fairly details discussion of this subject.  https://psychlaw.net/what-you-need-to-know-about-child-sexual-abuse-claims/     Like anything, it will not necessarily have meaning to the reader, but it does seem to be good reason for caution in all of these cases.  Victims or survivors are due their recompense.  I agree.  But, the exaggerations and vague claims do not.   And certainly the lawyers do not deserve the inflated fees.   Those on here making scurrilous comments towards me need to take a step back and note I have NEVER said there is not, or was not a problem, nor that it should have attention.  We have real victims posting on here, and they are deserving of the full weight of a balancedMin legal settlement.  Balance is a factor if the system is really to work.  There is no way to ever give enough money to "fix" these atrocities.   But the theater of exaggeration should not be allowed to seem the norm.  Just an old guy that wants to get beyond this and rebuild.  No matter what is done, it will NEVER be foolproof.  And that goes for ALL youth serving groups.  

Edited April 21 by skeptic
basic edit