Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ThenNow

  1. In fairness to Mr. Green and BSA, any names and identifying features of people mentioned or thought of within a mediation context or by a mediation party or between mediation parties must surely privileged. They talked about Mr. Green as a potential mediator. Oops. He can’t be touched. They previously agreed he would be the Great and Powerful. Oops. He’s off limits. Can we find out why either of those decisions were made? Of course not. Mr. Green is cloaked in imperviousness. Mr. Greenjeans, you can depose. Mr. Green Grocer, the same. Jolly Green Giant, also fair game. Want to search Green Acr
  2. Well, that’s not entirely true. Monthly, we can say with certainty the amounts being expended for professional fees and costs. That’s something. May it bring you comfort and sweet dreams. Or not. PS - This is not a cast aspersion, rather a statement of fact to sooth my friend in these times of fear and uncertainty.
  3. Uh huh. It also doesn’t mean it isn’t, if they tried to retract, had the material facts (or absence thereof) filled in by an aggregator or attorney, etc. You sure about that? Are you just being dramatic? Not poking, just asking. Also, does Rule 9011 apply here as to attorney conduct, signatures on claims and documents...that may lead to sanctions?
  4. Yes. It is their suggestion. I say, “Balderdash!” Their actions, may not only have been fraudulent and unethical, but in direct contravention of the judge’s stern admonition. “I better not see attorneys signing 100’s of POCs!” Get a bloody pen and sit down for an extended period of writer’s cramp. And, who gave the aggregators those scripts and questionnaires? Are we to assume the law firms had zero input into how this was managed? Did they know about the bonus structure? Did Mr. AVA do this stuff for the majority of his career? Meh. Exactly my point. (Omitting references to my favorit
  5. I said “like.” Apt and applicable comparison. No aspersions or negative inference. I was, after all, likening them to nothing more than a dark cloud. Ever seen a kettle of raptors? Agreed. I love them. Aerial acrobatics, ta boot. Might be my favorite to work. (You may just be poking at me, eh?)
  6. As I said. I like when you affirm other people before refuting or saying why it ain’t so, Joe.
  7. Of course it is. That’s the major game we play on this entire VI Episode thread, save for the factual reporting and some of the analysis. And, my main point was skipped in your refutation. SoL is a defense, not a preemption to file. Correct? We’re glossing over terms and I think your response, though accurate and well-taken, shines the gloss a tad. I was answering a specific post. I’m not sure, but my brain was telling me he meant vested as opposed to invested. Happy to be wrong, again. I’m keeping a poop sheet and I need more hash marks to finish a row.
  8. Lovely. And so the dark cloud of suspicion and disdain circles the pool of claimants like a pack of Harris’s Hawks. (Look it up. They hunt in cooperative groups and can take down larger prey. They go so far as to stand on the back of another in a stack to maximize spotting range. Fascinating raptors. I’ve enjoyed being with them in Falconry. Parabuteo unicinctus.)
  9. From a non-litigator with only two such cases under his stretched belt, the issue is being raised incorrectly. The SoL is a defense to a lawsuit, not a bar from filing. Again, any one any time for any thing. This is what Muttsy was referring to more than once back when. As he explained better than I and maybe he’ll do it again, the immense cost and hassle for insurers and/or other BSA, LC and CO defendants, to potentially “defend” innumerable state lawsuits in which they may very well have a viable defense of time-bar, is no small matter. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I promise to ta
  10. I believe he has said it multiple times in different contexts, though never before impugning and excluding Uruguayans three and under.
  11. Standing is a matter for a court to decide. It requires a hearing to demonstrate standing. Regardless, anyone can sue anyone at any time for any thing. Will they win? Who knows. Will it be tossed out on summary judgement? Maybe. Do they have a right to be heard? Yes. Will some of us be twice “barred” without a chance to be heard, preemptively, if votes are not universally allowed? Yes. If I have a fraudulent concealment case that is not heard because I am preemptively kicked to the curb since the three states in which I was abused are “closed,” is that a denial of my rights? Yes. Immoral? Yes.
  12. It’s easy to be glib and rest on “it’s just the law” when it’s not your life; not your pain; not your tens of tens of tens thousand of dollars lost and expended in often futile efforts to staunch the “bleeding;” not your marriage, career, child’s life destroyed or mangled by a dark force inside you; and not your gut and heart and soul and experience that was poured out on the unqualified invitation by BSA to, “Come forth all ye lowly and beleaguered and aggrieved so we can equitably compensate you, ye who were abused in Scouting!” Way too easy. Way, way, way. We get the point. It’s been fired
  13. This NY Post piece is a dilly. https://nypost.com/2021/09/14/boy-scout-sex-abuse-victim-settlements-near-2-billion/
  14. May I know what state, please? It must be an open state if they’re valuing each claim at nearly $1M. I saw one closed state LC with 5-6 live claims is paying $2.9. They are flush with cash, investments and property.
  15. From me, you mean? My forum sabbatical has mellowed me. See? We could share a tinfoil dinner and swap patches after all.
  16. I know this as a “true fact,” as a dopey friend of mine loved to say. Heard it with my own two hears and read the lips uttering the words ta boot.
  17. Anyone have any clue what the BRG appraisals would reveal? I assume/hope they nail the book v. market value, and other disparities, to the door of BSA “Church.” I know there are 250 theses not 95, and it’s not in Wittenberg, but I really like the visual. I’m sticking to it.
  18. I would like to know, too. This a good point and has to factored into the equation, to be fair. I’ve appreciated the ‘correction’ about the IVF not being singularly based on sexual abuse or impropriety. Though it may seem otherwise, I don’t want to be blathering without foundation or credibility. These data points helped me balance my perspective, though in no way takes the wind out of my sails.
  19. I waited to long to edit this, but had a note to add. The Monster to which I refer, of course, is the BRG Dashboard data. If we are to get full leverage out of the TCCs informed position on the true inadequacy of the LC contributions, we claimants (and all parties) need to see those numbers. It’s bad enough based on the numbers you’ve posted above. At some point, doesn’t honor come into play? If they’re refutable, refute away AFTER they are released. If they’re sound, go back to the drawing board and get trustworthy, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. (Nod to Yul Brynnar.)
  20. I hope this will be the open door to see the mysterious BRG Dashboards. That’s all I want for Christmas. Strike that. Halloween. It would be the best sweet treat and it’s closer. “The Tort Claimants’ Committee investigated the assets and liabilities of all 251 local councils. That analysis shows the local councils have the ability to fairly compensate survivors without jeopardizing the Scouting mission,” said John Humphrey, Chairman of the TCC. “As Chairman of the TCC, I cannot in good conscience support the release of 251 local councils who were on the front lines of decades of childhood
  21. This an important point, often ignored. My right to potentially pursue the three LCs implicated in my claim, all currently closed states, is being preempted. The proactive and peremptory nature of this case is one of the immoralities of it. Way back when, we argued here about whether this case would even register in the outside world, including broader implications with law enforcement and legislatures. I said it would. Many said not. We have seen what the MI AG is doing, which I think will be replicated. I have been contacted by three different people about working on SoL reform. I am i
  22. To quote Cheech & Chong, “my head is like a sieve,” but I believe it was that percentage limited to a specific timeframe, not all claims.
  23. https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/committee-wants-to-file-own-plan-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy/article_2ef9d8a1-3a73-5f43-a61c-1196cf37382d.html I may have missed this. If already posted, chastise or delete. You pick.
  24. Yes, but/and the esteemed Mr. B said it was not only out of place and time, but out of proven proportion to the actual, realized “substantial contribution.” As in, come back to us when we KNOW what you achieved not what you speculate and can convince BSA you’re worth. “Show me the money and the goods before we show you the money, honey.”
  • Create New...