ThenNow

Received from the Trust Admin a bit ago:

"On October 13, a further one-day extension was granted moving the deadline to October 14, 2025. On October 14, 2025, a small group of sexual abuse survivors filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Through the filing of this petition, this small group of survivors is requesting that the Supreme Court review the decision of the Third Circuit in connection with their appeal from confirmation of the BSA plan of reorganization. BSA and other parties intend to oppose the petition, arguing that there is no legitimate basis for further review by the Supreme Court.  

While it is not possible to predict with certainty when the Supreme Court will decide whether it will grant the petition and agree to review the decision of the Third Circuit, it is highly unlikely that we will know if the Supreme Court will agree to review the decision of the Third Circuit until sometime in the first quarter of 2026. If the Supreme Court decides to review the decision of the Third Circuit, there will be even further delays so that the parties can submit briefs on the merits of the appeal and the Supreme Court can hear oral argument.   

These further delays mean that the funds necessary for a second distribution from the Trust to Survivors with allowed claims will remain in escrow until all appeals are exhausted and the plan confirmation order becomes a final order.  

In the meantime, the Trust’s essential work of determining claims and providing an initial distribution to Survivors of sexual abuse in Scouting with allowed claims will continue without interruption. Please check our website regularly for updates. The most current news is always on the home page.

 
Regards, 
Scouting Settlement Trust Team"

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

I also know that I agonized over whether to sign the release for a few months. Once I did sign it, my lawyer indicated 4-6 weeks but that the Trust had only become slower recently.

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.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I made the exact argument on my appeal.  She disallowed it in its entirety.  I also argued fraudulent concealment and showed case law from Missouri allowing settlements and trials to proceed far outside the SoL.  My abuse was at the hands of a boy scout employee.  I'm sure she would say that the appeal is final, at this point.  But this is exactly what I thought would happen.  Some cases would receive favorable treatment and others not, even with the same argument.

I'm very sorry.

On 5/19/2025 at 6:55 PM, ThenNow said:

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

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 9/27/2025 at 12:18 PM, Patt_00 said:

An attorney who fails to properly vet proofs of claims in a bankruptcy case can face severe consequences, including court sanctions, professional discipline, and civil liability for legal malpractice. A client may also have grounds to void their fee agreement and recover any damages suffered. 

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.

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

And congrats to you, as well.  In the end, absolutely nothing mattered other than the Statute of Limitations.  I am Tier 1 with almost all the aggravating factors.  But the administrator was adamant, no matter how much caselaw and settlements I showed, that Missouri was a 10% SoL state.  So, in the end, each of those factors that would have been very important in the calculation hardly mattered, as every one was reduced by 90%.  I am happy for you and others who can move on.  I will remain bitter towards this process as long as I live.  There is no peace and there is no justice for those who were abused in a state where the insurance companies and Chamber of Commerce can come in to the process and block a window from opening.  I no longer live in Missouri and as I watched this process and other local politics play out, moving away was a good step.  Ironically, I moved to a state which is 100% open.

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

On 5/18/2025 at 2:22 PM, ThenNow said:

Wee. I have been validated. More balloons, streamers, cupcakes, pink punch and party favors? 

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

12 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

@ThenNow Thank you for sharing the darkest moments anyone can imagine, but in the post, and in past ones. It provides perspective that many don't have. I kept wondering what you were thinking and if you had sworn off this site for good. Keep on, keeping on.

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. 

On 8/15/2024 at 10:39 AM, Eagle1970 said:

I listened to the town hall, last night.  Or at least the first half.  That was about all I could take.  There is no money for release to victims beyond the 1.5% of the allowed amount, which is already paid.  The Purdue case has thrown a wrench into the Appeal to the 3rd Circuit of the Bankruptcy Plan.  The next step is briefs from both sides of the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on Purdue to the BSA plan.  That has clearly slowed down the 3rd circuit.  No estimate of when the 3rd circuit will decide on the SC ruling applicability and further no indication on when the 3rd circuit will resolve the BSA case.  Then there is no indication on whether THAT will be appealed to the SC.  The trustee congratulated the trust on getting so much done in under 1.5 years.  However, WE have been waiting nearly 5 years.  Just wondering how many will not outlive distribution or if the plan will even be permitted a path forward.

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?

On 7/24/2024 at 8:44 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I was asked to pass the message below on to Survivors.  It doesn't constitute an endorsement on my part.  It's for information.  That said, I do find it intriguing that an attorney, with no shortage of experience in the US Bankruptcy system, is calling BS on the way attorneys take 40% for essentially filling out a form.  I Know, in a lot of cases they do more than that but how great would it be to see a change where those who need more pay more and those who need less pay less.  You know....like any other service we purchase!  It doesn't apply to my personal situation but given that a number of Survivors on this forum have expressed concerns about "the system" I'm passing it on.  I hope anyone reaching out to this attorney will share their opinion of the discussion.  Again, I'm not an attorney, I have no financial interest in this, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.  I'm just passing it on.

July 22, 2024

 

To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case:

 

My name is Lawrence Friedman.  I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program.  Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.  I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system.  My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system.  Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia.  I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases.  Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. 

 

Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems.  My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers.  I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors.  The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling.  I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic.  That said, real change comes from action.

 

I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys.  Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form.  The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out.  The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it.  Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form.  The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form.  Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00.  There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. 

 

Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness.  My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve.  Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!"

 

I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel.  They can contact me with no obligation at:mailto:lfriedman@friedmanpartners.net

 

 

 

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...

35 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

You were called out because you have consistently tried to downplay BSA's role and responsibility by referencing such as: the social norms of the times that the abuse occurred, BSA is better at CSA prevention than other organizations etc etc. Once again, your words are like that of a child, I hit Johnny because Joe hit Johnny so I can't be that bad.

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.

48 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

You can fake ID and Social Security number but I have not heard of anyone faking fingerprints. If you are going to do a thorough background check I would think that fingerprinting and running them thru the FBI database would be mandatory. 

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.

53 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I watched Scouts Honour a couple of days ago. Took me a little while to get up the courage since I wasn't sure about any triggers.

In my opinion it was well done and very factual.

Michael Johnson presented his opinion very eloquently and was quite believable and Steve McGowan the ex-counsel of the BSA was able to give what has become the old guard BSA talking points. 

I recommend everyone to watch it.

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

17 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Let us all work together to develop and implement much better policies to protect children.  Perhaps as the BSA has requested, a national database done by the CDC to have a file for all Youth Serving Organizations (YSO) to access so that CSAs cannot move from one YSO to another.  

Paragraph 13  of the Youth Protection Non-Monetary Commitments in the Plan, which the Trustee now oversees:

Volunteer Screening Database 

a)     The BSA will work with the YPC to assess how the names of adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Scouting and other information can be made public or used in connection with a database accessible to other youth serving organizations. Specifically, the BSA agrees to work with the YPC on a protocol that makes confirmed past child abusers in Scouting, and future confirmed child abusers in Scouting, publicly known.

b)    The protocol will take into account factors including: (i) the desire to make public adult perpetrators of child sexual abuse in Scouting; (ii) adequate protections for survivor identities; (iii) consideration regarding the protection of third parties, including survivor family members and volunteers; (iv) a notification process regarding any publication; (v) issues related to privacy and liability related to publication; and (vi) the potential appointment or retention of an appropriate neutral party to supervise the evaluation and review of the VSD. 

c)     The BSA will take a leadership role and re-engage with other YSOs and agencies including but not limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to explore the feasibility of and advocate for a shared national database of adults who have been excluded from working with youths for youth protection related offenses. 

d)    The Trust Agreement shall be modified to provide the Settlement Trustee with the authority to request an order of the Bankruptcy Court relating to the publication of materials included in the VSD, no earlier than one year after the Effective Date. The Plan shall be amended to specifically provide that the Bankruptcy Court retain jurisdiction to adjudicate such request. All parties in interest, including the Reorganized Debtors, shall have the right to object to and contest any request made by the Settlement Trustee.   

Footnote to Paragraph 15(a):

The BSA and YPC shall consider the best way to utilize the redacted Proofs of Claim filed in the BSA chapter 11 cases, as well as information from the VSD.  

12 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve posted excerpts on other threads, but a can drag them out again.

Here is a taste. Please forgive any wonky formatting on the cut and paste.

BSA has issued various publications available to scouts, parents, and the general public. The Boy Scout Handbook typically contains the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. It also contains a description of troop leaders. The Seventh Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1965 and reprinted in 1967. It states: 

"First, there’s your Scoutmaster. What a wonderful man he is! He spends hours figuring out how to give you fun and adventure in your troop. He takes special training to learn exciting new things for you to do. He is present at every troop meeting and goes hiking and camping with the troop. He is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice. He coaches the patrol leaders. Why does he do all this? Because he believes in Scouting, because he likes boys and wants to help them become real men." 

The Seventh Edition also directs scouts to obey their Scoutmasters. “A Scout is Obedient. He obeys his parents, Scoutmaster, patrol leader, and all other duly constituted authorities.” 

The Eighth Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1972 and reprinted in 1973. The Eighth Edition states: 

“Over there watching things is your Scoutmaster. He’s a great guy. He gives hours of his  time to you and the troop. And do you know why? Mostly because he knows Scouting is important to his city and nation. Besides, he is interested in boys.” 

The Ninth Edition of the Handbook, copyrighted and printed in 1979, again states that the Scoutmaster “is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice” and directs scouts to follow the rules of their troop. The Ninth Edition is dedicated to “the American Scoutmaster who makes scouting possible,” and directs scouts to be “loyal” and “true” to their Scout leaders. 

In 1970, BSA published the “Parent’s Book.” It states that “Scouts benefit immensely from companionship with [their Scoutmaster],” who is a “man of good character.”

The Parent’s Book also states that the Scoutmaster is “the kind of guy [scouts] would like to be,” and that the Scoutmaster has “the unique ability to get inside a boy and gain his confidence.” It states that the Scoutmaster has a “profound influence” on boys.

Finally, the Parents Book states that the Scoutmaster is a “mature adult of sound character,” and lists the “desirable qualities” for which a Scoutmaster is selected. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I do though wonder how you did not see that similar respect and as you call it, bowing almost to the SM etc. in other youth leaders.  We were expected to do what those adults said, often with little expectation other than jump and follow. 

“Bowing almost to the Scoutmaster” is not what I said or implied. It is passive aggressively very patronizing and demeaning. 

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

That's really not true.  Teachers.  Football coaches and coaches from pretty much every sport.  Police.  etc, etc, etc.  The list goes on and on.  

May I see the written materials that support your assertion, comparable to the published BSA manuals and papers distributed in the 60’s and 70’s which I referenced? I’ve posted excerpts on other threads, but a can drag them out again. I’m not speaking theoretically, in broad brush societal “bad ol’ days” terms, as I see you doing. I’m talking quite specifically and factually. When you can do this, I’ll take your comments as evidence vs personal opinion and generalizations to fit a narrative.

On 9/1/2023 at 7:50 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Especially with that kind of harm, it can really mess you up. Rape can be a form of torture. Even as an adult, I read the news sometimes and wonder if I'd rather commit suicide than endure the sexual abuse some other human being endured, and it's not because I think my worth is tied up in some kind of sexual purity. It's just imagining the pain inflicted in an area that's supposed to be about the exact opposite. Mental pain on top of physical pain, physical pain that could incapacitate you (if it doesn't kill you) permanently. I can't help but doubt that my samadhi is strong enough for that kind of thing. I am no Yeshe Tsogyal (who enlightened her gang rapists even before attaining rainbow body). The friends I have who have been raped as adults really struggled. Trying to imagine what it's like to endure CSA makes me cry every time.

Bless you for your compassion and empathy, but as a CSA survivor this is a little much and wading into troubling. If you would consider dialing down the imagery and potentially triggering language, I would appreciate it. Yes, I know. Some of us speak of our abuse and the impacts, but I think we have earned the right to do that; it is not musing or speculation. Thanks a bunch.

Months away and it seems like only yesterday. The more things change, the more they stay the same. "It's like deja vu all over again." I have some thoughts but want to shamble around in this dream state for a bit.

Q: I recognize the Council merger wrangle is largely precipitated by the financial crunch due to the case, but this conversation seems to have taken us well off the bankruptcy discussion path. No? The wander has gone so far as to find  an "I quit if they do that" bench for Vol Scouter. That sounds depressing for Scouting. Let's talk happy talk like how will Judge Houser direct the sussing out of potentially fraudulent claims or how onerous might the questionnaire be or place bets on how much the trust process will cost or if the Coalition gets their money or not or if the STAC can function collegially. There are so many joyful things to talk about, people. 😉

On 3/29/2023 at 10:23 AM, fred8033 said:

Complete wrap-up feels like it is years and years out. 

Yes. I’ve heard from insiders 3-4 years, always with an “ish” or +/- in the footnote. I doubt that’s tracking with the closing date for the Independent Review. Who knows. Not moi.