ThenNow

Agreed, but if I don’t understand the details, view of the various advocates and detractors, up/downsides, potential machinations and application to all claimants (as well as my case) the lack of control and grasp is deeply destabilizing to me.

I think these and still open cases will be the majority taking the IR track. Of what nature is the evidence? The discovery was independent corroboration? Of what nature? It was said at least twice at the hearing. Perhaps they were trying to downplay the preferred class nature before the judge. She didn’t like it at the previous hearing. It’s a high risk endeavor. You can drop to zero. Also, as I understand it, time bar will be a complete defense to recovery. Black. White. No Shades of Gray. This is an open state path posing as “most horrific” and “most serious.” I want someone to be honest with me, if I’m correct.

You said you’re in an open state. Do you also have a window within which you filed or tried to file, prior to 2.18.2020? It’s not readily apparently, but there are classes within classes. I’m trying to figure out who will be opting for the IR and how many. That goes to the potential rollover of excess awards back into the Settlement Trust. (For reference, there are 27,000 claims in statute, which includes live claims in non-window states.) PS - Attorneys for the Debtors and TCC said the IR will be limited to those survivor claimants with “the most severe” and “most horrific” cases. This is puzzling to me for multiple reasons, among them the utter vagary of those statements. Who decides that? Are we talking the nature of the abuse incidents or the damages? Two very different things.

Anyone know if the Independent Reviewer is to be paid on top of the $10,000-$20,000 per claimant who selects Door #3 (where Carol Merrill is standing)? I assume so. If so, how much?

My bad! That’s what happens when I lazily read tiny print on my phone while trying to use chopsticks at my favorite hole in the wall Chinese restaurant! Ya miss stuff! 🤦🏼‍♂️ I vote for her. Oh, yeah. We don’t get to vote…

No child sexual abuse noted: Personal Injury: Successfully mediated cases involving complex catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death, workplace injuries, nursing home negligence, product liability (including multiple defective medical device claims), motor vehicle, toxic torts, municipal and governmental tort liability, Dram shop/liquor liability, and premises liability “Complex catastrophic” might do the trick.

https://www.jamsadr.com/reagan/ No child sexual abuse noted: Personal injury, including, but not limited to, automobile accidents, breast implants, premise liability, product liability, underinsured and uninsured motorists and wrongful death.

Was there mention that this amount was being used to fund something specifically? I don't recall offhand. Thanks.

FYI. CHILDUSA has good resources, generally. https://childusa.org/reducing-the-stigma-around-being-a-male-survivor-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://childusa.org/addressing-the-stigmas-of-sexual-abuse/

I may post these on the "To the Abuse Survivor" thread, as well. https://childusa.org/reducing-the-stigma-around-being-a-male-survivor-of-child-sexual-abuse/ https://childusa.org/addressing-the-stigmas-of-sexual-abuse/

Which specific individuals and/or departments do you include in this housecleaning and for each, why? Looking for specific acts, omissions, decisions, areas of complicity and the like that drive your desired sanitization.

1000%. Also, I'm not saying I'm right. Again, just rambling around in my wee noggin, bouncing off the bone with so much room to roam up yonder!

Might be looking at "bird in the hand," (too many) "miles to go before I sleep" and "make the (BSA Chapter 11) world go away, and get it off my shoulders..." situation.

I've been seriously pondering this and trying to cipher it out, especially the "some or most" part. Some? Fer sure, fer sure. Most? Hmm. Rounding (bc I just don't remember), there are something like 52,000 closed state claims. Among the 28,458 who didn't vote at all, don't you think a good majority are from closed states? Dunno. Regardless, it doesn't evince a ton of motivation and it takes just that to wade into the state court route. We have to factor in the big risk/little risk of state court and the tick-tick-boom of the clock. Trial prep and marching toward a jury or a late in the game settlement are grueling. I teeter on the edge of significant doubt that a majority of closed state claimants want to go headlong into the tort system after who knows how long. Just trying to reason this through, knowing something about being in a Gray zone and human nature. What about the 28,000 who didn't vote? Who are they and do they want to do anything but get the heck outta Dodge with whatever they can get, be it the 3500 off-ramp bucks or a run at the TDP process, come what may. I think a lot of people are tired and may fade to black if left to wait for their state to open. People on this forum are more informed and energized than most. I just don't know. Do I think that's best for them? Hard to say, but I 100% respect any and all inclinations and disinclinations. Perhaps you're correct and it is imbalanced. But, as to the desire of closed state claimants to forego either the off-ramp or the TDP, hoping for their shot as state court, I just don't know if I believe it. Big risk/little risk and "time keeps flowing like a river to the sea, 'til it's gone forever..." What do I know? Precious little.

I'm the boss of no one, often not even my own little self, but I hope we can leave this gently. As this process has meandered on, so too have our emotions, minds, bodies, souls and spirits. I've said it before, but I feel like I've been drugged and dragged through the tumbleweed town tethered behind a wild stallion. We're all weary, but I do think we can understand one another's perspective. We have to stay the course, stick together and give grace. Eagle1970, I hope you hear John's heart. He is for we Shades of Gray folk and his decision to hold steady with his plan rejection vote shows it. Deep breath and brothers and sisters we are. May nothing tear us apart. Please?

In case I was vague, the LCs/SEs I mentioned reviewed all the redacted claims that implicate the LC.

Deleted. Per the document when issued by the TCC. I don't recall hearing about or seeing an update with corrections and/or fields completed that were misplaced or blank. The information summarized in the attached charts was exported by the Boy Scouts’ professionals from the filed sexual abuse claims. It has come to the attention of the Tort Claimants’ Committee’s professionals that not all the information was exported error free. The Tort Claimants’ Committee intends to address with the Boy Scouts’ professionals any information discrepancies in the claims data to help in ensure the information is collected uniformly and accurately. As we know from the TCC town halls, The Stang repeatedly implored survivor claimants to file amendments to more fully complete their POC. I have no idea how many did. I wonder if Omni would give the number. I may ask. I would think a lot of attorneys would have either scrambled to review and attempt to complete the claims or they were among those satisfied with having a batch of timely claims in the que, waiting for a payday. As I've mentioned before, the firms such as Zuckerman, Mones, Zalkin, Pfau, Anderson and others did their vetting on the front end. I bet their clients didn't need to do much if anything to have a robust POC. Side note as to vetting, and this goes back to the roster requests. LCs had the chance to review the claims implicating them and I am aware of SEs who read all of them for to see if the information lined up to their records and anything they could use to verify. I have wondered how much those reviews played a part in the Ad Hoc Committee's formula for contributions. I have too many blind spots in my understanding of all of this.

I think we would have to define vetting, including what method(s), by which entity and when.

I couldn't figure out the logic on two fronts. One, the lack of such identifiers in the POC, if that was the case. And two, the failure to note it in the summary of claims wherever it was listed by the claimant. The information is requested within the same question. The POC at Part 4H, page 7 of 12, it asks: What was the name and location (city, state, territory and/or country) of the organization that chartered or sponsored your Scouting unit, including the organization that hosted meetings of your Scouting unit, during the time of your sexual abuse (e.g., church, school, religious institution, or civic group)? I figured naming the CO would've been harder than the city, but I lived across the street from our church for 18 years. Kinda easy for me.

Same. St. Mary (or Mary's) and we met in the school, so it could also be the identified CO. I inquired about an assessment of correlation and was told none was done. Was hoping for city at least. I made the request when the document was first made available. Perhaps they did some more digging. Who knows. In my case, I clearly identified the CO with city, address, pastor, current name after mergers and every related person I could think of at the moment.

Exhibit 4, page 27. Don't know if there's been an update. https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims.pdf

I understand. I would never suggest you or anyone of us has. Just trying to help, not pour salt. I trust you know my heart. I could've left it alone, but was trying to explain what I thought was meant, though not said. Perhaps my mistake.

By “highest value” I don’t mean to suggest lifting time-bars. Sorry if I gave that impression.

"Winning the lottery" is a common idiom to mean getting something unexpected and perhaps somewhat randomly. The random part - state of abuse and legislative action to open a SoL window - I think is operative here. Please, let's not turn on each other as survivors. Words matter, but I think this was truly intended as idiomatic and not literal. It hurts being in a closed state and it's hard not to feel slighted. It's not the fault of our fellows, however, and let's keep that in mind. Also, I don't think JLSS likes the 20k pay to play at all and will open up the entire TDP process to a highest value calculus. I don't know how that gets funded, but may I suggest by contribution of the debtors' council? 5% should do nicely.

Right. Agreed. I hope you didn't take my opinion to disparage anyone who chooses to wear the pin. I try to be clear, but may have missed the mark. As above. That was my point and would be how I would do it. Have, hold, but not routinely display. I might do the latter if asked to speak or present as a BSA CSA survivor, which may well happen.