Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 5 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

    I believe that no matter what the outcome will be many who are victims are being revictimized and the mental devastation that opening up these old wounds will cost many lives.

    On this point, I feel affirmed to be echoed, but hate that it seems few who can or will do anything are listening. I know for a fact that some of you reading this care and are fighting valiantly. We are grateful. The media need to take up this story now. I suppose, in the beginning, middle and end, there is no real leverage point into the turgid muck of the bankruptcy process. The self-interested will not be dissuaded from their march through the village nor persuaded by human misery along the way. “Alas. Earwax...”

    • Upvote 1
  2. 25 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

    Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy."  Wow.  That should really make victims feel comfortable.

    Yup. Lovely. And, there it is in living color and on the record. Is this the biggest on record? Where does it rank? Talk about getting into the bigs from the jump without so much as an practice swing. Meh, meh, meh. I would characterize this as an admission well after the fact (was obvious). My opinion of course. 

  3. 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    And by the way, that exact point (other abuse victims got these kinds of payouts, so should these victims) is exactly what TCC has said in its filings.

    Not a fair or apt comparison. The TCC is saying this before the court, all parties, BSA, God and the milk man (person). When you're talking about bringing in clients, it is not at ALL what the TCC is doing IN the case BEFORE the world. "Let's use these baselines for in-court valuations" is not equivalent to, "There are billions up for grabs and you can get in on it! Sign here. Oh, wait. I'll do that for you. We'll call you if we need you (to vote.)"

  4. 21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    They will always couch it with "up to" "as high as", "prior victims got as much as".

    They cannot guarantee specific amounts or levels, but they can couch it. That's why the comment from one of the aggregators "Our target is at least $100,000". Sure it is. My target's the moon. Doesn't mean I have any reasonable chance of making it if I jump real high.

    People of integrity, selling whatever it is they're selling, don't do things like that. Every time I deal with a vendor who undersells I make a huge deal out of pointing out what it means to me. Last week I had a guy bidding garage doors and openers. Mine are 21 years old, dated and the openers have put in for Social Security (eligible in garage door opener years.) When I asked him about this really expensive set up, wanting to never do this again, his answer said it all. "Well. I think that's overkill and you don't need it and probably won't ever use it." Sold. One of my friends is part of a firm with a significant number of clients. They never did anything like this. Just the opposite, in fact. They had a daunting questionnaire and interview process. He spent days vetting each client he brought in and was consistently overwhelmed and exhausted by the process and the experiences of the men he represents. Some fellas on here from CA had to sit for a long psyche eval. I don't know what to say about all this. This contravene the laws of decency and legal ethics, whether stated or implied. (I used the word "legal" so I could post it here and not get Ponged.)

    • Upvote 2
  5. 14 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    To you lawyer types..... Is it tantamount to legal malpractice to draw in clients with pitches of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars when there may only be like $5k?  It just seems so egregiously negligent. 

    Some have said there's not fraud in this case, other than a limited area identified by that poster. I think that remains to be seen. If true, smells like fraudulent inducement to me. I have zippo words for how I feel as a human, never mind attorney and BSA child sexual abuse survivor, about what is being alleged by the insurers. If true, it's reprehensible. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  6. This rather a cumulative question derived from several posts, so I'm not sure who to quote. We have many hints and no so subtle comments that the Coalition is ready to get out, collect the 40%+ and walk off with whatever that amounts to, likely in the range of $400Mish ish. Not sure how many claimant attorneys make up the Coalition, but that would be fun to know. Anywho, that's not my question. We keep talking about convincing clients to vote and bringing in ballots on behalf of or against a Plan. Many moons ago there was a fight about who gets to put their flyer in the coupon section of all the funny papers. BSA said only peeps who love them and want the Plan. TCC said, "Um. We are the only group appointed by the US Justice Dept. officially representing ALL claimants. We get our say regardless our recommendation." That brings me to the internal "vote solicitations" by the Coalition, AIS and/or other claimant attorneys. Here goes.

    Is there any ethical and statutory standard by which their communications can be measured? Yes, we must assume those stump speeches are protected under attorney-client privilege? What if, for instance, one of the seemingly plentiful clients who has no idea who represents them and/or someone who simply thinks their attorney(s) are doing a poor job leaks the sales pitch? And, what if that sales pitch reads waaay more like the Reciprocity script than a factual representation of the genuine benefits and pitfalls of the Plan. To boil it down to gravy, it's full of rank speculation and manipulation. What then? This is of course purely hypothetic, don't cha know.

    • Upvote 1
  7. 8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    I believe it was ThenNow who mentioned that he was famous.

    I think Warhol was mistaken. We won't have 15 minutes of fame, but 15 minutes of incarceration-and for scouters, most likely on account of EIN violations. 

    Hey, now. Don’t be dragging me down into your mud wrestling EIN racketeering scheme! (I’ve had way more than 15 minutes of incarceration on top of my fame and misfortune, by the by.)

    • Upvote 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    That is a high hurdle.  That means every non vote is essentially a no vote.  So, with 84,000 voters, they need 55,440 yes votes.  I think if the judge forces this through it will be very risky.   The TCC and many law firms are on the other side plus 12,000+ of that 55,000 are questionable (many may listen to Kosnoff).  What a mess.

    I agree. Highly doubt this Plan 5.0 makes it over without plotzing. I’ve seen some awful injuries observing high hurdles. I wanted nothing to do with them and wish that on no one. In this case, well...

  9. 34 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Did the coalition already get letters from 100% of these claimants that their lawyers can vote for them, or is there risk that some of the claimants won't vote or will vote no even through their lawyers would recommend voting the other way?

    My recollection is they very much do not have letters from all of them. I believe the number is much lower than represented as the "ballots they can deliver." Memory ain't what it used to be, dough. 

  10. 56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    In this role, Claro developed individual claim values for
    each claimant and assisted in the settlement of the Nassar claims and hundreds of sexual abuse
    claims against other defendants.

    We had the valuation/estimation discussion back when so I won't loop back to that. This is huge. They "developed claim values for each claimant and assisted in the settlement..." One, that's no small task and two, that could get quite complicated for those of us in closed states and with the variability of the prospect of SoL reform and/or viable rebuttals to the time-bar defense. 

  11. 6 hours ago, RandomScouter said:

    nevermind being made to think about how this is making you feel or that is making you react.

    For me, this whole bankruptcy process has felt like it's been dragging on and on and on - and I am not a claimant...


    So, @ThenNow - to you and all the other survivors out there - Keep surviving.

    There are a good number of us on the forum that have talked via DM and elsewhere about the longing we have for people, including the judge and BSA, to have a better appreciation for what this is “doing” to us. I really fault the media for not picking up the story and telling it deeply and thoroughly. I have given them innumerable opportunities and stories to tell, not just mine. The TCC members were interviewed for hours and mere blurbs were printed. Disheartening. It’s not too late to run a story. A post mortem would be in part great, in another part disrespectful lacking the timely purpose. This also goes to my feeling that the judge needs to hear from some of us in open court, sooner rather than later.

    Thank you. When thriving is not in reach, surviving is the baseline. When surviving is the long-term baseline option, the body and mind have a difficult time surviving. It is the proverbial endless loop waiting for Ctrl+C. A conundrum in a sour pickle. A sticky wicket in a confounding dilemma. Elevated allostatic load. Das ist nicht so gut. 

  12. 12 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    BSA is stretching mediation privilege to the limit.  Now it is Green, who again was NEVER a mediator or a mediation party, claiming mediation privilege as to why he won’t turn anything over

    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 Acres via warrant? Have at it, and so on.

    PS - BSA has just contacted me with a court order. All the secondary aforementioned “Greens” are now on the untouchables list. They are verboten as potentially related to Mr. Green, pending DNA testing. He who was the almost, so close, pretty nearly Great and Powerful casts a long shadow of privilege. 

    • Haha 1
  13. 12 hours ago, Muttsy said:

    But hard evidence has been in scant supply in this case about anything and I don’t see that changing.

    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.

  14. 1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

    A claim may not have been adequately vetted by the lawyers but that doesn’t mean the client’s claim is bogus.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

    That’s the only fraud going on in this case. 

    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? 

  15. 39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    It suggests
    that attorneys made a proper decision under the circumstances to protect their clients’ rights

    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.

    54 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    How dark and wide does the cloud need to be before the judge issues an order asking for ALL claims to be vetted now? This is the conundrum.

    Exactly my point. (Omitting references to my favorite falconry bird.) If they bring the storm down on all of us...shame upon shame. Disgust upon disgust. If it’s all true, they must face serious discipline, censure and fines. Maybe suspension and/or disbarment, depending on their level of knowledge and involvement. I find this horrifying without considering the impact on my cohort and me. Meh to infinity and beyond. 

    • Thanks 1
  16. 18 minutes ago, yknot said:

    Let's not drag the innocent Harris Hawk into this sordid tale. They are lovely creatures, which is why they are so suitable for falconry. They are less likely to talon your face. 

    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?)

  • Create New...