ThenNow

Random note. Mrs. Lauria nearly blinded me with her second diamond, but working around in my deft and catlike way, I heard her reference some heinous Twitter activity of late. She said they would deal with it, to which her honor replied, “Call me only if absolutely necessary. Otherwise, keep me outta that quagmire!” I have no knowledge of said Twitter fireworks. The judge didn’t say that exactly, but that’s what I heard, more or less.

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I also think it’s interesting she wants to see the vote.  My guess… if it is not near 95% approval she kills this version of the plan.  Every case I am seeing with large claimant classes seem to get to at least 95% and even then sometimes the plan is rejected/changed.  

Same, especially given the vote in Purdue

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Judge indicated she read Purdue ruling and corrected the Hartford lawyer who quoted the judge incorrectly (about a prior ruling).  Sounds like she didn’t tip her hand based on what I am reading.  

BSA says the plan is completely dependent on non debtor releases … no surprise and they are correct. 

Patterson a lawyer for Zalkin who sounds like specialized in bankruptcy said this is now becoming or is the most complex bankruptcy ever and the channeling releases go farther than Purdue. 

Insurance companies indicated they won’t release payments unless they have releases for LCs and COs.

Add those four paragraphs together and I see a collage of Thunderdome on the horizon. (Nod to Mel as MMax.)

Once again, Mr. Buchbinder is my hero. I wish I could post the video of his comments. He even choked up at the end. Wow. 

43 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I believe a higher power will make that judgement

You’re not referring to my family members here, correct? Just checkin’.  

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

The degree of injury to some survivors leaves me nearly in tears.  

As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum, I’m in this for my family. Well, that was motivated by the notion there would be a noteworthy award coming to me/them. Now, I feel like I’m putting them through more pain as they watch me fight this daily. My most gut wrenching, ugly crying is for my wife and kids. Honestly, I can’t think about it for more than a few seconds without crying. (John said much the same thing about his relationships and, especially, his daughter.)

16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I try to think about how I can help others.  How can my voice, my pen and my words be used to help other survivors? I cannot answer myself at this point of time but hopefully an answer will come to me. 

Some thoughts:

1) If BSA emerges, there will be a search for survivors to work with the organization to consult on Youth Protection. Can all of us bear or care to do that work? Definitely not. Just one prospect;

2) Commit time and charitable contributions to one of a number of excellent organizations caring for sexual abuse survivors and/or engaging in serious research and advocacy. (Remember this is a global crisis); 

3) Find organizations in your area that provide care and support to survivors. Perhaps there is a “hands on” way to be an old warrior coming along side another;

4) Speak with a behavioral health clinic to see if they have a support group. I’ve found just being a part, especially someone as insightful and passionate as you, can be a great blessing and benefit to a group. If you can’t find one at the local clinic/hospital, see if they will start at least a pilot program;

5) Watch and see what BSA does or doesn’t do on YP, and communicate your displeasure if it is not adequate or up to the standard we know it needs to attain; and

6) Monitor SoL/Child Victims Act efforts and see if you can lend a hand. CHILDUSA and CHILDUSA Advocacy are at the forefront of these efforts.

A few idears to percolate in your thinker.

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

UMC just offered $30M.  Details pending

Their congregations comprise, what, 17+% of the COs? I’m not asking for a comparison of net assets, but how does that percentage compare with the previous mark held by the LDS? 

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

But remember some victims are against using their POCs  to go after abusers. There was a discussion on this topic a few months back.

Not this one. It was my singular motive when all of this surfaced for me 20 years ago. He escaped by a whisker when younger men were unable to step forward and testify, not yet to the point of full recognition of what he did. As I’ve said, I bet there are at least 5 of us among the survivor claimants. 10+ wouldn’t surprise me one itty bitty bit. I spent years dreaming of other means to hold him to account. If several of my family members where unleashed, it wouldn’t be pretty. I won’t risk identifying their professions, but let’s say it would be precise and untraceable. Ok. Sorry. I guess it’s not too deeply buried. It came up with them again when I was completing my POC. A, “Just say the word,” scenario. “No,” was the word that day.

51 minutes ago, grizzly702 said:

Just saw this- how does this change the landscape?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/key-part-of-law-helping-child-sex-abuse-victims-sue-is-unconstitutional-nc-court-rules/ar-AAS01Id?ocid=hplocalnews

Clear as mud just got muddier? The panel’s ruling is not yet available. I look forward to reading it. As the attorneys said in the article, this is headed to the NC Supremes. Once they rule, we’ll have a much better idea.

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Unless they charge Scout Executives I doubt it.    In the past, with respect to the Catholic Church, and the Mich AG has targeted the actual individuals not leadership.  In addition, this is a small number vs the claims.  

This raises a curiosity I’ve had. How many POCs implicate professional Scouters as either primary abusers or abettors. I’m sure that data could be pulled, but to my knowledge it’s not one of the data fields currently identified. I am glad someone is doing this by way of a clean up. Fred, Qwazse, Skeptic and others have been hammering home the need to pursue perpetrators and there is little else being done by way of a look back. I wonder how many people subject to prosecution are buried within those Proofs of Claim.

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I thought I heard in the past that BSA had been paying for counseling for some past victims.  I remember reading it.  The poster commented that when bankruptcy started those payments stopped.

You did. From me. They have not stopped, though. I have also been hounding the program coordinators to give me a sense of whether BSA plans to continue the program post-emergence. No one will say and it is not in the Plan to my knowledge. I didn’t see it in the Cliff Notes version, anyway. 

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Merry Christmas

100% Merry Christmas! (None of that other seasonal dilution for me.) I truly mean it. 

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It cannot fully compensate, or cure, or fix.  We reach the point of punishing the innocent at the expense of an impossible goal.  They could give you all a billion dollars, and you still would still not be made whole; and the hate and enmity would still be there.  That lies in the realm of powers that supercede this whole mess.  

We’ve done this hoedown a number of times, so I best make it quick. “Fully compensated” was addressed above in my being healed of delusional thinking. Also, I ain’t angling for a “fix.” Been clean and sober for 17 years in January. And, no “cure” for what ails me. A billion dollars? Hm. Well now. As to “hate and enmity,” which stinky language has had cast my way before, from whence cometh that accusation? I’ll repeat myself again, since it’s been so long. I reckon it’s worth repeating. Few if any here know what I’ve done or continue to do for Scouting. So there. Tag your it. Miley Cyrus is calling your name.  

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I have noted that paying for real pain and whatever counseling may be needed should be part of it

How does that work for some of us who have already lost/invested/said bye-bye to 100’s of thousands in real spendable dollars, as per my post up yonder?  

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I know that we are in a bankruptcy but with an average award under the current plan to be about $39,000 or less (depends on who does the math)

I too realize assets are limited, though the insurers (at least) have mucho more that is not being tapped. (I know this ain’t the gov’ment who gets to print money, but “C’mon, man!”) My not quite weekly therapy for the twenty years since the ground opened up and swallowed me put about $120,000 on the red side of the ledger. That’s just for a reference point. I know I’ve posted all manner of numbers in the past, but it seemed relevant to the current tea party chatter. If I added meds, residential and outpatient treatment, various depression treatments (including ECT), hospitalizations, surgeries and procedures for deteriorated joints, heart and gut issues (thank you, hyper allostatic load), U of Chicago efforts to address peri-anal fistulae and...that number is pushing or exceeding brother John’s. And really don’t get me started on lost wages and the like.

PS - I no longer have any delusional thinking about this award feeling like or being equitable compensation or just recompense or reasonable reimbursement or anything of the sort. I am not saying that to make any of you angry, I’ve just resolved it in my head and heart. If I happen to hit the LC or CO state court lottery, bully for me. Someone remind me of the well-established lottery odds, if you would please. I recall a yarn about a shark getting struck by lightning while it’s trying to bite me as I ride down Main Street USA on a moped eating a hot fudge Sunday wearing MCVA’s stinky red beret that he traded for my OA lodge pocket flap patch. Is that about right? 

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm assuming your 55,000 is SOL based. 

Yes. SoL and SOL. Precisely.

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm betting it's much higher if you factor in (as you alluded to), ...

• a familiar church (family, friends, etc)
• a insufficient pot of money to justify firms floating cost of contingent legal cases
• COs that just don't exist anymore
• victims that just are not that committed (headaches, insufficient incentive, rehashing the past)

Prob’ly, as some of my northern kin say. 

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The issue is the Slackers who didn't declare bankruptcy. 

Not unlike LCs and COs, no? I mean as to the declaring Chapter 11 part, not the being “Slackers” part, for the record.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This was a list in terms of BSA priorities, not a claimant view.

Yessir. Was just sayin...

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think their priorities should be:

1. Risk of overturn in appeals process (no reason to have a plan approved that is rejected later)
2. Youth protection changes
3. Protection of local council camps (a bit different than #2 above)
4. Maximizing claimant % approval (I understand claimants will place this higher on the list)
5. Protect high adventure bases
6. Speed to confirmation
7. Provide protection for charter organizations (I just don't see how they protect COs in bankruptcy without risking appeal court losses)

I don’t necessarily disagree with this list. I will speak totally out of turn and lay odds that I’m right in this speculation.

I don’t think most survivor claimants in this case, based on how I read many of the factors, have YP at number two and know little to nothing about non-debtor third party releases or a Purdue-like negation on appeal. Just being honest. (Someone do a poll on how many claimants even care if BSA survives. How many upvotes? Wanna poll attorneys, too? Ha.) I wish the third party release issue had featured more prominently in media scrutiny many months ago. Survivors should have been afforded the courtesy to be aware of the looming threat. I think for most guys there are two issues: (1) maximum financial recompense; and (2) getting this over and done with once and for all. YP “changes” are a fairly esoteric concept when you have no idea what’s being done now or not.

As SoLs are currently configured throughout the states, some 55,000+/- claimants will get nothing from COs in the so-called tort system. Looking back over the last 21 months, BSA should never have tried to include them. I hate to say that, because I had some hope of a global settlement, aka, “get me the he## off this brutal carnival ride!” If COs fall out, as may be necessary, I’m stuck suing my mom’s lifelong church. That is an awful prospect I may be unable to countenance. And, no. I do not feel at all well about all of this today. I’m close to barfing all over the people next to me on this ride.  

Q: Since Purdue had a passel of Attorneys General banging for the deal to be overturned, along with some 2600+/- claimants, what if the deal had been a unanimous vote? Is that the only vaccine, er immunization, against such a challenge being successful?

With that I say, “Ralph!! Alas, I’ve got the BSA Chapter 11 carnival flu. 

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

it changes definition of abuse and a few other topics

I would love to hear the explanation for this and see a line by line comparison of the elements that now constitute abuse. From the jump, the word “pornography” is missing, while it is specifically in the the POC definition of abuse. I didn’t look in the previous iteration of the Plan to see if it’s there. Anyone?

11 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Given all the discovery that has occurred, I'm surprised there is so little solid information about what their actual liability may be.  I suspect that the answer is no one knows.  Decades old policies, subject to all sorts of interpretations

There are a lot of things jumbled up in these sentences. I am completely unqualified to unpack them, but that never stopped me before. There are at least three different things going on here:

1) Coverage Exposure. Yes, the polices are myriad, but they have been reviewed and the coverage exposure assessed, or so I’m told. That number is in the hundred + $B range. That is about the amount of “cover” purchased through all the policies over all the years. (My recollection is there is a 40 or so page list of the policies involved here.) Coverage “exposure” is not “liability.” Exposure is the max number you could be hit with in the worst case scenario of determined liability. (See, #3.);

2) Estimation of Value. The TCC sought an “estimation” of the value of claims many months ago. That was a midstream effort to peg only that element - value of the claims - but it would have put a stake in the ground around which to negotiate settlements. Insurers fought that and won. In their minds, an estimation would smell too much like a determination of liability. (See, #3.). The TCC was looking to get all the data on past BSA child sexual abuse settlements to factor into that estimation, along with all the other independently available data on how much the cases are “worth.” However, neither “worth” nor “value” are liability either; and

3) Financial Liability. Actual “liability” - in this context, what someone owes - is determined by a process that produces a dollar figure, be it settlement, judgement or award. (There could be non-monetary elements, but forget about that for the purpose of this ramble.) That said, in almost all settlements the “liable” party denies liability, but coughs up money to get away from the liability which they just denied.

There. All clear on the murky horizon, yes? 

Nixed.

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

It is not clear to me what happened that cause Ponil to file the lawsuit ... unless they just want to ensure their easement through Philmont is maintained during/post bankruptcy.

I’m horribly rusty, but I played a land use attorney on TV in a former life and that would be my bet. With all the talk of asset sales, reversionary interests, and etc., I would've advised putting a stake in the ground and sounding out the situation before it happened to land on a client’s head. I wonder when it was granted, if for consideration (one time or ongoing) and if the grant of easement itself contains certain terms of termination.

Posted this elsewhere, but for gee whiz, here it is again. The topic was circling around ridiculous lawsuits that damage defendants, though there is no reasonable basis to bring suit, and plaintiff’s attorneys have no reason not to bring them. I first thought of sanctions and demanding plaintiffs of such suits pay all costs and fees of the defendant. As I say below, I know not even a thimble full about this. As my dad would tell me, “You don’t know enough about that to blow your nose.” I always thought that odd. 

I have only begun to study this in the last couple days, though I am somewhat familiar with the craziness in Cook County, IL. I know how I think/feel going into it, but we shall see. Per a Reuters article, I will read Prof. Chamblee Burch’s book, Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation. If inclined, you can check out the site link below, which has a link to a study, and there’s a link to a dated essay. I often like to read older stuff then track it forward. I’m interested in the other attorney’s thoughts, as well as anyone else. As for me, all I know is I’m not entirely comfortable with what we have on our hands courtesy of the mass tort bar. I won’t judge until I know more. Than I will rule promptly, because that’s what judges do. They rule. 

https://www.atra.org/2021/12/07/nations-worst-judicial-hellholes-expand-liability-allow-frivolous-lawsuits/

Haven’t started this yet and there are many others. I know nothing about sanctions and/or reform efforts to curb frivolous lawsuits, but I’ll be interest to check it all out.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=dlj

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Our legal system is in need of major tort reform. When it is cheaper to pay a fine than fight for your innocence, you need legal reform. When anyone can sue anyone without any penalty, you need legal reform.

I have only begun to study this in the last couple days, though I have familiarity with the craziness in Cook County, IL. I know how I think/feel going into it, but we shall see. Per a Reuters article, I will read Prof. Chamblee Burch’s Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation. If inclined, you can check out the site link below, which has a link to a study, and one dated essay. I often like to read older stuff then track it forward. I’m interested in the other attorney’s thoughts, as well as anyone else. I know what we have on out hands doesn’t seem so dandy...

https://www.atra.org/2021/12/07/nations-worst-judicial-hellholes-expand-liability-allow-frivolous-lawsuits/

Haven’t started this yet and there are many others. The link doesn’t seem to work, but you can see the title.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6a26d2ed-e290-408d-a893-57cc7e1a0d44_7680.pdf

By far my favorite excerpt from any pleading in a very long time. It can be found at page 3, paragraph 4 and footnote 3. I can’t make this stuff up, but man I love my job as a beat writer. (Not beat poet, for the record, though I can do that, as well. Soul patch is long gone, but I chase rabbits.) Check this out and be prepared to laugh: 

“If clients request an e-ballot, AVA refers them to Einseberg Rothschild.”

(If only I could vote a laugh on my own post. Would someone see to that, please?)