ThenNow

I've thought a lot about this too. I've gone over the terms several times. The YPE and YPC appear to be tied at the hip. With my attorney's eye - only one and not two so I can hedge if I'm wrong - I think there's something perhaps not visible to the naked eye. It's imbedded and inherent. One would hope there will be a batch of motivated, vigilant, intelligent and very engaged survivors on the YPC. I see nothing that says they will be bound by confidentiality, unable to scream bloody murder in the town square if things go afoul of their expectations and directives toward a fully-integrated YP f

I'm going to whine out loud. This creates a terrible dilemma for someone like me. Maybe I'm an island with a very low population, as in one. This is simply a pay to play state court bench review interjecting the will of an imaginary jury. I have a binder of information I already submitted under oath. I need to prove fraudulent concealment or I spend big coin just for the privilege of sitting at the high rollers table. I was ready to make my case, but not play craps or black jack. If the Neutral doesn't bite, I'm turned out as an emotional and financial pauper, as far as this process is concern

Shared this with my wife. She's busy, but the initial reaction was swift and simple. Either or both entities - BSA or an association of YSO's - better insure up and lawyer up. After she said that, my reflex is that one serious misstep with clear compensable damages for tortious interference and/or defamation with emotional and reputational impacts could be a plaintiff's lawyer's playground. The proof in defamation is difficult. In an employment recommendation process, which this could be construed to be even if a volunteer, the former employer's statement would need to be reckless, known to be

Independent Review Option begins at pdf page 23. The reviewer is called the "Neutral." (Sounds like a creepy and ominous SciFi character.) If the Trustee won't accept the award determined by the Neutral, assuming such, the claimant can sue in state court and bring back the settlement or award for payment, with various conditions. This is part of the dealio, as it concerns the Neutral and his/her neutral review. (Did I use the correct pronouns?) It sounds like loads of fun. How many of the 5000 pro se claimants will be doing this? Odds? Requirements for Obtaining a Neutral Settlement Reco

Your path to a good recovery just got better. Now you have to take me on that fishing cruise.

Elucidate?

This reads like a dumbed down litigation process. "Survivor must provide evidence" is a frequently used phrase. Evidence of liability, damages, the tie of the abuser to Scouting and, etc. Discovery is available. Evidence of damages must be shown and that evidence must be supported by an expert report, the cost of which is paid by the survivor claimant. To me, it seems most who are unrepresented will be hard pressed to pony up and wade into this. That's just my first impression. This entire process is far more rigorous than the filing of the POC, as is appropriate in some respects. Many will li

So, currently it's a one size fits all set up. Has this sort of tiering been proposed?

Yes. The hand that was strengthened is the one that was already strongest. That's not intended as a judgment, simply the truth as I see it represented in this document.

Correction: $10,000 x2.

When the "numerator/denominator" comment issued during the last TCC town hall, I was pretty sure more was not forthcoming. However, with your abuse and open state you will likely fair much better with the independent review process that's described. I think it would be worth a conversation with your attorney to better understand how it and the comparative negligence provisions apply to your case.

On the monetary side or all of the above? I'm looking at the process of winding our claims through the Trustee process and feeling a bit queasy. $10,000 for an independent review. I'm not far into digesting any of it quite yet. Hang in there, Brother John.

What would that look like? I know nothing about these processes and fees.

In P13(a), note the word "confirmed." That has to be fleshed out and defined, and the process is TBD. I'm sure there will be much discussion and lawyering involved for backside protection, as well as protection of the accused. Accused vs confirmed is a key difference. 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.

For all - Be aware that there are substantive footnotes on the filed Term Sheet that don't appear here. You can go to the master doc to see them, if interested.

As a survivor and someone who was about to become involved in Scouting after a 42 year hiatus, I am very interested to hear from survivors and Scouters on these YP commitments. See you over there. Try not to get your feet tangled in the threads.

Added YP commitments start at pdf page 30 of 46.

How can an attorney pledge an asset that is jointly held or otherwise encumbered without written consent? Um. Did BSA not have that document on file somewhere? Did the firm that did the asset appraisal not know? Due diligence? What about the professionals on the survivor side who rummaged through the assets? Something's hinky. Pah-lease. Maybe this is bogus. Meh. More trauma, er, drama.

Ja. (Refer to my post on the other thread. Context and juxtaposition are important.)

GAH!! I forgot to write the most important part! I am SO SORRY and I hear you, brother!! NOTE: I'm moving way too fast. Apologies. I'm jumping back and forth between here and a critical effort of the day. I meant this to be responsive to the issue of recovery and the statement, "I am damaged for life no matter how much therapy I go through" I've shared this sort of thing before, but for gee whiz and for those who didn't read it, "Play it, Sam." I've been in therapy for 22 years. Let's say my average weekly session is $110. For context, that's what I paid in 2000-2001. Today my

It would be scathing, eviscerating and leave the hearer with singed ear hairs.

See? This is the sort of dark, sarcastic humor we so desperately need! It shouldn't be funny, but it is. I am grateful for the smile.

Reading this last series of posts about objections, I was nudged to dig to the bottom of the satchel where I store all my posts. There, in the dregs, I found some of my early comments and fears about how this could go. I was troubled then, grew less so, and now return again. Admittedly, I knew and still know little about bankruptcy law. (Honestly, it seems even those who know it all don't know it well, since it boils down to advocating for their position in a morphing landscape. Anyway.) One of my deepest concerns revolved around pitting survivors against survivors. I know, I know. The states

Thanks. I was referring to "clarity" in the sense of overall wellbeing of the head, heart and soul. THAT is what I need and for which "I will gladly pay you Tuesday..."

Um, if you would be so kind, please package some of that neatly and send a double portion my way. Throw in some cookies and toffee, while you're at it. My crystal ball looks a lot like Kane's snow globe and I am trying not to mutter, "Rosebud."