Lawsuit against Boy Scouts, Mormon church

[JAHS]

"Boise • Five men who say they were sexually abused as kids while in the Boy Scouts of America are suing the organization and the Mormon church because they say both groups fraudulently presented the Boy Scouts as a safe, wholesome activity for boys.
The men filed the lawsuit in Boise's U.S. District Court on Monday. They contend that the BSA and the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knew that there were child molesters in the Boy Scouts, but covered up the danger instead of letting parents and kids know about the risk.
Neither the Boy Scouts of America nor the LDS Church immediately responded to requests for comment."

5 men file sex abuse lawsuit against Boy Scouts, Mormon church

From what I understand these are some more 1960s to 1970s occurrences of alleged abuses.  I don't see how they can know that "known" child molesters were allowed in the system. More money grabbing from deep pockets?  The BSA is designed to be a safe and wholesome activity for boys.  

[Calm]

That is 50 years ago if so...what is the statute of limitations on child abuse claims?

[Calm]

There is no information given in the article...kind of worthless, not impressed.  Hopefully details will follow.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is 50 years ago if so...what is the statute of limitations on child abuse claims?

If i understand it correctly, the law is that people have 30 years after they reach the age of 18 to press charges (until their 48th birthday) for a criminal case.  I don't think there is a statute of limitations for civil cases.

[Calm]

More detail:

http://www.startribune.com/men-file-sex-abuse-lawsuit-against-boy-scouts-mormon-church/420939003/

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

More detail:

http://www.startribune.com/men-file-sex-abuse-lawsuit-against-boy-scouts-mormon-church/420939003/

"As in the earlier lawsuit, the attorneys contend that the Boy Scouts of America, or BSA, kept files on Scoutmasters accused of sexual misconduct, but it didn't reveal that information to parents, volunteers or others. The attorneys also contend that church officials also knew that there was a problem with child molesters in Idaho troops, but intentionally kept that secret from families and law enforcement agencies."

I guess the question is did the church allow these abusers to continue in their BSA callings after it was made known to them they were doing this? I am quite certain such men would have been released from their calling the moment it was made known.  Also, it says "accused" sexual misconduct. Perhaps church leaders in charge were never sure that it actually happened because they had no proof, except maybe  only the word of the scout against the word of the accused adult. 

[Guest]

The Boy Scouts are supposed to be safe and wholesome, wicked men who do such things are not. Sadly the Scouts or the Church cannot see into the hearts of evil men. 

[Calm]

The issue is not predicting and preventing predatory behaviour,, but protecting the predator once they knew.

I am not sure how they will demonstrate this for the Church.  I understand there were files kept of accusations in the BSA that could be used to demonstrate negligence if predators were not removed once accusations were made and kicked out when confirmed.  Unless they had such files for the Church or could prove BSA shared files with the Church, it seems like it might amount to a he said, he said in that the men say they informed leaders and nothing was done or worse and the Church responds they weren't told because it wasn't in records?

Settlements are generally cheaper than any court time I believe, so this may get settled no matter what.

-----

I wonder if they have to have the files themselves or if by suing, they can ask the judge to compel BSA and/or the Church to turn documents/files over so they can find what they hope is in there.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

"Boise • Five men who say they were sexually abused as kids while in the Boy Scouts of America are suing the organization and the Mormon church because they say both groups fraudulently presented the Boy Scouts as a safe, wholesome activity for boys.
The men filed the lawsuit in Boise's U.S. District Court on Monday. They contend that the BSA and the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knew that there were child molesters in the Boy Scouts, but covered up the danger instead of letting parents and kids know about the risk.
Neither the Boy Scouts of America nor the LDS Church immediately responded to requests for comment."

5 men file sex abuse lawsuit against Boy Scouts, Mormon church

From what I understand these are some more 1960s to 1970s occurrences of alleged abuses.  I don't see how they can know that "known" child molesters were allowed in the system. More money grabbing from deep pockets?  The BSA is designed to be a safe and wholesome activity for boys.  

The four attorneys are apparently claiming that the BSA and LDS Church "fraudulently presented the Boy Scouts as a safe, wholesome activity for boys," and these attorneys have already conducted other such lawsuits against both organizations.  It may not be that "fraudulently" is the correct word in every case.  More like "naively," because the BSA and LDS Church now know very well what the problem is and how to deal with it effectively.  Boys are no longer allowed to be alone with a leader, and there is a real vetting process in effect now.  Big monetary payouts have gotten the attention of both organizations.  Why?

Because, as with the Roman Catholic molestation crisis, both the BSA and the LDS Church often knew of molesters, but allowed them to continue access to kids after "repentance," or treatment, perhaps not realizing that the rate of recidivism among sexual predators does not really allow for any temporizing.

 

ETA:  http://dumaslawgroup.com/about-gilion-dumas/ (gives some idea of the large sums involved)

Edited May 2, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Anijen]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

If i understand it correctly, the law is that people have 30 years after they reach the age of 18 to press charges (until their 48th birthday) for a criminal case.  I don't think there is a statute of limitations for civil cases.

Bluebell, IIRC that is the criminal statute of limitation, civil is is even less, 5 years after victim reaches the age of majority (18), so typically around the age of 23.

Source here

 

edited to add; from Robert F. Smith's post I see that the law suit is for fraud and not child abuse. My 2 cents of opinion here is; the BSA and the LDS Church are in a tough spot, if they settle it could just open up the flood gates for more similar type litigation, if it goes to trial they will no doubt get terrible publicity. Either way it will be costly. I can give an argument for both sides, but I'd rather not. As a new lawyer myself, I find this to be sad for the BSA, LDS church, and for any of the victims. After such a long period of time it does seem to be money oriented, but I do not know either sides of the story.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Anijen

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Bluebell, IIRC that is the criminal statute of limitation, civil is is even less, 5 years after victim reaches the age of majority (18), so typically around the age of 23.

Source here

Thanks for setting me straight!

So how can these men sue so long after the statute of limitations is past?

[Anijen]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for setting me straight!

So how can these men sue so long after the statute of limitations is past?

It looks as if the money grubbing lawyers have filed a fraud suit, not child abuse. My guess is, they will claim that they have recently come into evidence that supports a suit for the fraud claim.

[Calm]

It is possible they are mining the BSA files mentioned in this article:

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-boyscouts-20120805-m-story.html

[rpn]

Yes, bishops and stake presidents have been told of sexual abuse at BSA activities, but refused to believe it and did nothing (in one case In a small town near SLC, the bishop never told the mother, and the father wanted to sweep it under the rug, leading to a young man's years of struggles without any support, but yes there was a stake in Idaho that acted particularly egregiously over twenty years even with threatening the membership of adults who wouldn't shut up about it.  Often they have left leaders in place and haven't enforced two deep leadership --- most of us know that our own kids don't have two deep leadership every time.)   

I, of course do not have a clue about this case.  In other sex abuse cases against the Church, they appear to have been brought to try to force financial disclosures from the Church.   The civil statute of limitations has been extended some in sexual abuse cases in some states, which can make defense very difficult.  But the Church does morally owe to survivors who were abused after leaders were once told of inappropriate behaviors significant compensation.  Our leaders have to STOP refusing to believe those who come forward, and more frequently, they must insist on the following the protective requirements that BSA now teaches in its mandatory (but often not required before someone appears at the very first BSA meeting) youth protection training.  It would also be a good thing if all youth were explicitly told that they should scream and make noise and tell someone when any adult, including church leaders, does something that makes them feel uncomfortable, including but not limited to being asked instrusive questions beyond those listed in the TR manual.

[JAHS]

From another article:
"The lawsuit claims the abuse happened between 1971 to about 1983 in Idaho. It says in 1982, James Schmidt - a volunteer and scoutmaster -  began sexually abusing Riley Gilroy along with other Boy Scouts, even though Schmidt had a history of sexual abuse documented in the "ineligible volunteer file" created by the Boy Scouts of America."

I wonder if his Bishop knew about him being on this "ineligible volunteer file"? How did he get the assignment if he was on this file? 

[Calm]

The latimes article I posted explains why the file didn't always work.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

The issue is not predicting and preventing predatory behaviour,, but protecting the predator once they knew.

It is clear that if there is truly the idea that this could happen, no one in the Church would appoint someone Scoumaster. In addition, one does not have to be a member to be a scoutmaster even if it is a Ward troup. We once had a member who moved from one State to our's because his wife felt Iike he was spending to much time with his calling in Young Men's than with his wife or his own children. When a few fathers, one our former Bishop felt like he was losing his son, as this brother was trying to tell boys how their father's should act it got really out of hand. I was in the Bishopic at the time, and in a meeting I pointed out how this kind of thing is why he moved here...the Bishop asked; how do you know that? I told him, because he told people. My son would have nothing to do with him, so one night he brought some boys over to tolet paper our yard. So, instead of going to the Bishop, I went strght to him and read him the riot act. Then he was released and taken out of Young Men's completly. He then moves out west, where he finally did so things with a young man, lost his wife, family and went to prison. The Church was not protecting him, they just thought he was over doing it with his callings. But in hindsight, he was looking for boys who were having troubles at home for a much darker plan. This was long ago, the Church and the Boy Scouts are doing a better job now than in the past. In fact most organizations are doing better jobs at such things. But still, it is hard to know what is in the heart of both men and women. Thankfully after his arrest out West, none of the boys in our Ward were abused, but looking back many felt they had dodged a bullet, and now see much of his behavior was moving in a dangerous direction. 

[Calm]

I have heard from a very reliable source that these particular lawyers have  attempted this tactic (approximately) 15 times of which  (approximately) 13 were dismissed and 2 were settled for essentially nuisance fees.

So it would appear that either the tactic isn't 'good law' or they lack any significant evidence or both.  Since evidence isn't evaluated until a trial, if I understand correctly, it sounds like judges find this tactic unsatisfying, not supported by the law.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

On 5/2/2017 at 8:01 AM, rpn said:

Yes, bishops and stake presidents have been told of sexual abuse at BSA activities, but refused to believe it and did nothing (in one case In a small town near SLC, the bishop never told the mother, and the father wanted to sweep it under the rug, leading to a young man's years of struggles without any support, but yes there was a stake in Idaho that acted particularly egregiously over twenty years even with threatening the membership of adults who wouldn't shut up about it.  Often they have left leaders in place and haven't enforced two deep leadership --- most of us know that our own kids don't have two deep leadership every time.)   

I, of course do not have a clue about this case.  In other sex abuse cases against the Church, they appear to have been brought to try to force financial disclosures from the Church.   The civil statute of limitations has been extended some in sexual abuse cases in some states, which can make defense very difficult.  But the Church does morally owe to survivors who were abused after leaders were once told of inappropriate behaviors significant compensation.  Our leaders have to STOP refusing to believe those who come forward, and more frequently, they must insist on the following the protective requirements that BSA now teaches in its mandatory (but often not required before someone appears at the very first BSA meeting) youth protection training.  It would also be a good thing if all youth were explicitly told that they should scream and make noise and tell someone when any adult, including church leaders, does something that makes them feel uncomfortable, including but not limited to being asked instrusive questions beyond those listed in the TR manual.

Great advice about warning the boys!

[carbon dioxide]

Nothing heals the wounded soul like some cash.

[The Nehor]

On 5/3/2017 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

I have heard from a very reliable source that these particular lawyers have  attempted this tactic (approximately) 15 times of which  (approximately) 13 were dismissed and 2 were settled for essentially nuisance fees.

Well, the Telestial Kingdom isn't going to fill itself.

[LittleNipper]

One can get more money suing an organization rather than individuals. After 50 years I chalk it up as just another "Jenner" moment (too much, too little, too late)... 

Edited May 6, 2017 by LittleNipper