ThenNow

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."

News Update: The attorney who seemed very keen to take my case last Wednesday just shot me an email. He and his firm are a hard pass on the incredible opportunity to fight for me. I have requested a detail set of reasons. Lay odds I get a good response? I rank them SoL/don't want to try to prove fraudulent concealment, staleness of testimony and evidence, and variability and undetermined status of the Chapter 11. Okay. Maybe that should be #1. If all that remains is a little Catholic Church and the responsible Diocese, meh. They don't have big assets. YeeHaw!

I am not at all surprised, based on my limited knowledge. Anyone have salary figures for the big Local Councils? I randomly know a couple top execs are near $500,000. I guess they would be considered to be running significantly large companies.

I know. Just give the guy a Monday morning chuckle. I am not saying these shouldn't wander and I've stated a number of times how little I envy the job of moderating this forum (or any forum). What I'm trying to point out is that on/off-topic is kind of subjective, regardless how important the thread. There seems to be a hairtigger when it comes to a few of us. Not understanding someone's humor as it is woven around a substantive post should not be grounds for deletion. Personal annoyance for lack of appreciation of the brand of comedy is one thing, but I'm not sure if deletion on that grounds is an appropriate act of moderation. But, then again, moderation is also subjective and relative. I'm just amused as I see what stays, in the full light of what of mine goes. My question always ends up being the same. "Should I stay or should I go now?" (Nod to The Clash.)

I'm just pointing this out for my own amusement and that of some of my fellows. I have been Wack-A-Moled many times for being "off topic" on a thread. Here we are at Christmas trees, wood chippers, chainsaws and churches. What's the name of this thread again? That would be a great name for one. Just sayin. Ha. (Let's see if this gets deleted for being off topic.)

Or, there may be survivors who themselves are split in two, like moi. Assuming the TCC and other objectors have extracted extra cash and concessions from BSA and the Coalition folk, and the SWG and TCC have made significant gains on YP, I think I can let this move forward in my heart and mind. However, I am close to signing with state court counsel to hedge my bet in the event either LCs or COs don't make it across the finish line. I'm too deep into this with too much knowledge about BSA's history (not to mention a 140+/- page POC file) to walk away and let a possible case die. How will it play out? Let's send an envelope to Carnac the Magnificent. (Nod to Johnny C.)

Agreed. Eagle1993 pretty much said all of this, but the general comments and tone suggest a deal: 1) Everyone is being respectful. 2) They are listening to us. 3) We are substantively involved at every turn every. Addressing the 3 Pillars: 1) Money - We may not get the numbers we want so we will be chipping away at expenses. I read that to mean, we are close to getting as much as we can on additional contributions. 2) Settlement Trust. To reduce those expenses, and put more money into the hands of survivors, we will not let go of ensuring independent governance of the Settlement Trust. 3) YP. We are engaged in active conversations and making progress. (Remember, there is a Survivor Working Group that’s been at this for a while.) Sound like a deal is afoot. Moving the status conference seems to indicate the same.

He made restitution, was quickly back into the same industry and remains there (to the best of my knowledge).

Incidentally, I am told he was later busted for embezzlement. I think the drug habit caught up to him.

This was an interesting "numerator vs. denominator" comment made by John H. I took it to mean, "Though the dollars in the trust are not going to be what you know we want, be assured we will find more coin in the form of tighter governance and reduced fees." He is obviously a wise b'ness man who's been around this negotiation block a time or three.

Sorry. I’m being unclear. He was DE of our small council and became SE of the entity resulting from the merger of several. He got “bigger” as the council did. Thus, “SE in transition.” The council office location even remained the same.

So, is having a younger SE a complete fluke in 1973? Has it always been a long path, as you describe? There was a Council merger and expansion at the time and I know nothing of that or the politics. My main concerns revolved around being in a “newly named” LC, having an extra digit in front of our Troop number and having to change my OA Lodge (and pocket flap patch). We were a bit of a Wild Wild West show, but I knew nothing else. There was an older Scouter who showed up at some point, from where I don’t know, that was fantastic and fatherly. He was not around our Troop, per se, quite unfortunately. He is the one with whom I went to the OA National Conference (“A Thing of the Spirit”) held at UT Knoxville in August of 1977. I digress.

And, thank you again.

Even the IVF had his signature noting District Executive/Scout Executive in transition. So you didn’t misunderstand, he was clearly aware of the alcohol and porn handed out by our SM. I said he was at least tacitly implicit, based on his knowledge of those facts concurrent with his involvement with abuse cases in our town. The specific case I mentioned was a Troop sponsored by the sister Catholic Church across town. I vaguely remember the ASM who was involved and thereafter bounced. I knew others in the Troop very, very well.

I may not be tying the threads together effectively: 1) The DE promoted to SE (in 1973) knew my SM was giving us booze and porn. 2) He drank with us and sang filthy songs around the camp fire. 3) I don't know what all he knew or did, frankly. 4) I was first sexualized with alcohol and porn in May of 1972. 5) I was physically abused for the first time in July of 1972. 6) In 1973, he was the managing BSA executive on an abuse case across town from me, which is now in the IV Files. He was around for several others in our LC, though his name doesn't appear on the other IV Files. 7) From the case he managed, and possibly the others, he knew booze and porn were often precursors and grooming techniques leading to physical sexual abuse. * When I was 17, the same SE offered me cocaine, hash and weed for sex. He was still the active SE and I was a minor Eagle Scout. Does that help? * Asterisk due to the 8 and parenthesis causing a smirking emoji to appear. Help?? 😎

My situation may be an anomaly, but my SM/abuser is 11 years my senior. The DE turned SE, 13 years. One committed the abuse, the other at least tacitly complicit, if not actively an accessory. One is enjoying his retirement. The other the senior biz development officer for a very successful escrow and title company in one of the US's largest cities. They're very much alive and well.

All great points. I would add one. There are exceptions to this general rule. I know both litigators and transactional attorneys that cap the number of cases spinning at one time. This is particularly true of some highly specialized litigators and business guys with large clients. I just encountered a firm that will not allow one lead attorney to concurrently have more than six highly specialized PI cases. (Happy to explain they specialty if anyone cares to know. I am experiencing this situation in real time.) When I was doing land use and development, with attendant environmental, I had only three clients for about the same number of years. We turned down and referred out many prospects.

I’m going to find a “tongue in cheek” emoji. Be right back. You guys are soooo serious. 🧐 (Purdue is trying not to get Purdued. That’s funny. Ya feel me??)

How to avoid getting Purdued? Increase the “accept” vote tally and get more money from third-party non-debtors. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/sacklers-states-near-bigger-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement

It was stated in such a way as to include all parties to the mediation. I stand ready to be corrected. From what I understand, the TCC is heavily engaged in mediation. If they didn’t agree with that statement, Dr. Kennedy and their counsel likely would have been waving the hot little 🖐 like it was on 🔥. My thinking, for what it’s worth.

It was a joint statement approved by the mediator, all parties and read into the record without commentary from other parties or questions from JLSS.

Yes. Thank you. I am aware of all that, but have some interaction with LCs that contradicts the conclusions. I would be interested to learn how these numbers were "put" to each and every Council, as far as a, "take it or be left in the line of fire" conversation. I know some Councils don't especially feel the Ad Hoc Committee is genuinely representing their best interest. Completely anecdotal evidence, I admit. I was trying to point out that not many companies let some non-governmental, non-judicial entry tell them what to do and how to do it. This is particularly so when it comes to money. My experience is not enormous, but quite diverse across both not for profit and for profit companies. This may be my sarcastic and cynical self being heard from again. When I consider it, the scenario seems to confirm many contentions that Local Councils are not really, really, really independent. I get the legal paperwork and general day to day governance argument, but I think the proverbial slip is showing. My teeny weenie addled brain's opinion.

Thus my interest in SoL status in the subject state. Are people filing because of a new law, indication of one coming down the pike, hedging against a failed plan or exclusion of third-party non-debtors, or just bored and need a distraction?

Ok. Thanks. I understand. I was curious if the state is one that is actually or might soon be "opening" its statute of limitations for look-back lawsuits. As a survivor watching the drama of the case, I have certainly considered filing against both entities you noted, regardless the current status of my state's SoL.