ThenNow

Thanks for all of the updates. I appreciate them. On the release you eventually signed, how did your attorney advise you, given the three options? I ask in part because I am at that stage, but also because I have heard some firms representing many survivor claimants do not present (or explain) the B, C, D options. One friend said nothing was said other than, "Sign this to receive your money." All is well if you don't feel comfortable addressing this.

I'm very sorry.

Hello, fellows, friends and frenemies. (That's humor and not nose punching.) Just want to give an update for what it's worth. Following the proposed award announcement and explanation thereof, I filed a Reconsideration Request. It was directed at the SoL tolling argument, based on fraudulent concealment. After I filed my brief, I realized I missed a huge issue that was ancillary to the tolling argument. It occurred to me that if the Trustee ruled favorably on the SoL issue, she would necessarily have to find that the Aggravating Factor under Total Abuser Profile was at the max, since BSA "knew or should have known" about the abuse. I scrambled to write and upload the new brief within an hour of the initial upload, but they disallowed it on the technicality that the Request was already submitted. After making a big fuss with the Trust folks, they uploaded the second document. Although Judge Houser agreed with and accepted my tolling argument, she did not fully move my case to the Open category. She stated that there still needed to be a measure of "trial risk" reduction, but granted the multiplier under the "knew or should have known." That's my news of the moment. PS - I only share this as an update and by no means to discourage or further dishearten my fellow survivor claimants. I'm just trying to faithfully and candidly report my experience as I have done since the outset. Peace and healing to all...

On what specific basis are you (and the other SS&S clients) seeking to void the contract? Also, you noted that you have an attorney "willing to help, as well as research this online." I'm not sure what that means. I ask this not to in any way challenge the mess they have created for you. I fear this will be a very difficult, time consuming and expensive process, even if you and the other aggrieved claimants seek to void the fee agreement as a group. The firm hired by SS&S seems capable in complex litigation, including this type of case.

Truly sorry. I hate this for you and all in this situation. Terrible. Unjust. Brutal. I will pray for you, if that is acceptable.

In fairness, I need to set aside my typical schtick and sarcastic banter for a second. I have a hard time grasping that there is no way I will ever know the folks who waded through and assessed my case and the massive sets of documents. At the core of me, I have must say to all that I am grateful. Grateful they spent the time. Grateful they were the ones assigned to my case. Grateful they believed me. When the words in the letter hit me, I realized I had been holding my breath since February 18, 2020. The racking sobbing I did on my wife's shoulder testified to that. And, I say again, whoever you are, however many of you there are, I am grateful for the 'verdict' you returned. Likewise, I am very sad for any who do not have the chance to exhale. Deeply sad. -The End

Nah. I hadn't sworn off just signed off while occasionally lurking off set. I was in and out reading updates but had nothing to say as the appeals processes and my claim review were grinding away.

I'm sorry for that reduction, my friend. I really am.

Thank you for the well wishes. Truly. Though I'm still barefooted on the floor attempting to navigate the final stanzas of this treacherous waltz with Kaa (through shards of my life and the lives of others), I'll take any encouragement offered. So, 1908 days after the Chapter 11 filing and 1755 days after submitting my Proof of Claim, I received my Allowed Abuse Claim letter. Who's counting, right? Living through many forms of abuse starting at the age of 3, spent many years drowning in self-medicating techniques through diverse (and sometimes creative) maladaptive behaviors. Along the path I've had my share of so-called, 'out of body experiences.' I have officially added reading that letter to the list. Whatever that means to you and however you envision it, that was surreal. I meandered around for hours then days, experiencing more manic, sleepless nights thinking, writing and, again, trying to avoid feeling it all yet again. The non-monetary narrative section placed me, appropriately, in the Tier One, penetration, category. Is that a "YAY!" moment? I suppose one celebrates such a thing, as twisted and morbid as that it surely is. The letter, signed by Randi Roth, the Claims Administrator, said in pertinent part: "Allowable" Claim. The Trust assesses seven basic eligibility criteria to determine whether your claim is "allowable." They include: (1) your submission was timely; (2) there was no previous resolution of your claim in litigation or another process; (3) you stated the acts of abuse that were suffered; (4) you established your connection to Scouting and showed that BSA, a local council, or certain Chartered Organizations may have been legally responsible for your abuse; (5) you sufficiently identified your abuser(s) and your abuser's connection to Scouting; (6) you provided the approximate date of your abuse (or your age at the time of abuse): and (7) you provided the location of the abuse. Once the Trust determined that your claim was "allowable," the Trust turned to calculating the "Proposed Allowed Claim Amount.. There are many aggravating factors listed in the TDP. In your case, ten of them applied: extended duration of the abuse; extended frequency of the abuse; you were exploited for child pornography; multiple abusers involved in sexual misconduct; adverse impacts to your mental health; adverse impacts to your physical health; adverse impacts to your interpersonal relationships; adverse impacts to your vocational capacity; adverse impacts to your academic capacity; and impacts resulting in your legal difficulties." Wee. I have been validated. More balloons, streamers, cupcakes, pink punch and party favors? The single Mitigating Factor applied was the dreaded Statute of Limitations, though they used the most favorable option since I was abused in three states. Still, per a very helpful and knowledgeable Claim Administrations Advisor, it's doubtful an attorney actual read and researched the substance of my argument for tolling of the appropriately abbreviated, SoL based on fraudulent concealment. That means I stay in the game and prepare my Request for Reconsideration of the tolling argument. For me, it's worth another at bat on this key factor in the final award determination. Thus concludes this grunt's update from the war zone. I have not yet found a DMZ. Please hold hope and carry on all of you survivor claimants, my friends and fellows, still out here with me. Per usual, forgive my speed typos.

I wish she was trauma-informed enough to realize how offensive her repeated self-aggrandizement is to us. How much is she (not) earning per month, again?

Hm. I am grateful to hear this, given what I've learned from friends who are represented by some of the callcenter "aggregating" firms. And, as another pro se claimant, I am sympathetic and agree with Eagle70. I have third perspective on top of those two. Ghosts. First, the Century insurance attorneys did a great job briefing how the callcenters solicited and collected claims, including: 1) awarding individual and team bonuses for claims "signed up" daily and weekly; 2) falsely validating claims even when a caller decided not to go forward based on the questions asked, and 3) a fair number of such claims were found to facially deficient but the agent decided they could "fill in the blanks" later. Critically, some of the pay for play attorneys who were not even tort litigators simply signed the POC and submitted them, then ghosted clients while waiting for their 40%. As an attorney, claimant, former lead plaintiff in a (successful) class action suit, their behavior was moral malpractice IMNSHO. Legal malpractice? Probably not. Unconscionable in either case. However, some of the firms that paid for assistance to identify potential claimants in this case, spent 100 hours interviewing and vetting their clients before completing and having their clients sign the POF. One of my friends is with such a firm and I asked him how it was going during that phase of the case. "It's brutal," he said, "Interviewing and learning the experience of these men is the worst thing I've ever had to do..." Do It Yourself. Second, as a pro se claimant in a not altogether closed state under the Shades of Gray chart, thinking of giving someone 40% was unbearable. If my award turned out to be significant and I served up to them my collected records of impacts and the narrative I prepared was not something I was willing to do. My POC was 130 ish pages long and the Trust Claim added a huge pile because I included research and a brief on fraudulent concealment. That defense was based on the fact my LC Executive was at least complicit in the abuse of many boys by my SM while managing another IVF process for CSA 2 miles from the location of my Troop. I knew the ASM who was booted for abuse at our sister Troop. One of my best friends and his brothers, as well as their dad, were in that Troop. That SE was also aware of 13 other BSA abuse cases in my area of the state over the time period I was in Scouting. I attached all of the IVF and newspaper reports where there were criminal prosecutions and civil awards. Anywho, my documentation was significant. I am due whatever comes of this. I recognize I am not the typical pro se claimant. Class Action. Third and finally, I was lead plaintiff in a class action case where the attorneys received a large percentage of a multi-million dollar claim, spread across 1200 plaintiffs in the certified class. The case was for wrongful denial of a valid depression treatment Aetna claimed was "investigative and experiment," even though every major hospital in the US offered it. Almost all of the other plaintiffs were contacted by the firm based on the records of the insurance company and there was simple validation of their attempt to get treatment. It wasn't needed. Did my attorneys deserve a percentage of their award even though they did very, very little for 1199 plaintiffs in the class? I believe they did and earned it. The case we prepared to prove my claim and to certify the class was a massive amount of work, expensive and Aetna had an army of attorneys fighting us. Conclusion. This is complicated overall, much less so here. As I've said in this and other threads on the forum, the do-nothing, ghosting attorneys and firms do not deserve 40%. I have several friends that came through their 1-800 lines who have gotten horrible representation. My view is the scenario is exacerbated when firms have 100's of sparsely vetted clients and then signed the POC against the admonition of Judge. I say, go after them and ferret out the unethical lot. -The End PS - Forgive speed typos. I'm supposed to be on vacation...

Greetings, all, and Happy Christmas/Blessed Holidays. My wife calls this approach to life and morality, "relative godliness." While many here would not like to associate themselves with the cultural shift toward a subjective application of "truth" and "what is right," the willingness to practice subjective and relative responsibility and accountability shows itself rather often (in some). In Scouting, I learned to account for myself, standing apart and ready to "be counted," distinct from what others have done around me. I did what I did. That is what I must be held to. "Wait, say you!" Might there be mitigating circumstances or justifiable self-defense in response to someone else's behavior toward me? Yes. However, that is completely irrelevant here. BSA had no assailant. Blameless or not blameless. They came up short or hit it out of the park. Which is it? Hold me to what I did or failed to do. Don't look at my friend or brother or the family down the block. "Joe" is completely and totally irrelevant in the above equation. His actions cannot and do not exonerate or absolve the "I" for his battery. Young foolish me: "Mom, everyone is doing it, really! Why can't I? Don't you understand? Doesn't that make sense?" Mom: "No. Go mow the grass before your dad gets home. Cross hatch it while you're at it and make it snappy." So there.

Better to catch the 3%, but will the fingerprints catch what the background check won’t/didn’t? I hate this statistic. “The fingerprint scans will only show if there is a criminal history record. For an offender to have a criminal record they must first be convicted of a crime. Only 3% of all predators are ever convicted. Background checks will not catch roughly 97% of predators. Why? Because there are many steps that must happen for a conviction to occur. Each step only reduces the chances the predator will be charged with a crime.” http://www.o.com/blog/2019/8/22/quit-relying-on-background-checks-and-sex-offender-registries-to-protect-children#:~:text=Background checks will not catch,be charged with a crime.

I watched it too, also after consideration and preparation. For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John. As always, the survivors were excellent and their retellings, vulnerability and powerful force of presence unassailable. Patrick Boyle was very good and it was great to see him on camera presenting the process he went through in researching and writing his critical book. Kosnoff was a throwaway for controversy sake. Added little. The MJ v Big Mac face-off? Meh. It was so obviously a predetermined narrative and story arc that I lost respect for the filmmakers and any veiled attempt to present the full picture. Michael Johnson was portrayed gloriously with dramatic settings, outdoor scenes and swooning music. The questions put to him were collegial and designed to carry the arc. I found his all too frequent jocularity not only damaging to the credibility of his "testimony," but also less than attractive. I rolled my eyes through several of the heroic warrior sequences. I am trying to be objective. And as for Mr. McGowan, I understand he was the executive to whom Mr. Johnson reported. Fair enough to have them across from each other to slug it out. But look at the setting he was in compared to Johnson. It looked like an interrogation room. I don't know Steve McGowan, but he was a terrible spokesperson, in my opinion. He looks like a bully, responds defensively and is not the most eloquent. Have on on-camera conversation with a BSA spokesperson and Michael Johnson. McGowan was terrible and deserves to be skewered. That doesn't mean it was good filmmaking. Again, my opinion. Last point. One of the two of them is clearly lying. Michael Johnson said flat out it's McGowan. McGowan would not say that, but repeated what I have heard others say who know what went down between MJ, McGowan and the BSA brass juxtaposed and with Johnson's statements and actions since leaving. The word they all use is "shocked." I've heard that said by three different people, one of them I know well and trust. Did I praise and thank Mr. Johnson when he cried and asked forgiveness during the press conference given by Jeff Anderson? Yes, I did. It was healing. Have I since begun to question Johnson's telling, motive and transparent full disclosure? Yes, I have. Someone needs to do a better job with this overall "story." Doing it in a feature length documentary will never allow that to happen. -The End (fade to black and cue the dramatic music)

You may find this of interest. It is BSA's response to the non-settling insurers and certain claimants' requesting to pause the Trust process, per the looming spectre of Purdue. Dist.D.Del._1-22-cv-01237_240 (1).pdf