ThenNow

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Negotiate a new plan.  TCC believes this is the most likely path.

Yes. I think critical to this point is the examples given by The Stang (who was on fire, btw). One, the MN Diocese where competing plans didn’t get approved and they immediately proceeded to make a deal more favorable to the survivors. Did they go 7? No. Better deal for survivors. Point made and taken. And, two, BSA struck a desperate turd of a deal with The Hartford, later discovered it was an albatross, tried to bail, the judge said no, and in the cross-fire The Hartford saw just how despised the deal was. Result? They miraculously came up with more money. And quickly. Did they go to court and draw out the process further? No. Better deal for survivors. Well, “better” is relative since “you can’t polish a turd.” Point made and taken. Amazing how this works, ain’t it? The better deal for survivors part, I mean, not the turd polishing. Don’t think to much about that because it’s pretty disturbing, as is appropriate for The Hartford’s sickeningly “sweet” deal.

Follow up from the AR press conference. Just skimmed through this. Oh, the irony. The Coalition is shielding itself behind an anon Eagle Scout who makes his case for the future of Scouting. BSA is shielding itself behind the Coalition. “See, they represent all these survivors and they like it!” Do “they”? I don’t think so. Not even the Coalition really knows who their “they” is, do they? 
 

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2021/10/21/as-sex-abuse-victims-consider-a-settlement-boy-scouts-of-america-weighs-in

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2021/10/20/some-arkansas-victims-of-boy-scouts-sex-abuse-scoff-at-what-they-see-as-an-insufficient-settlement-offer

9 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

59 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

speedy

Hasn't that train left the station??? 😜 

Yes, and it left in a hurry. 

49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Right now, there isn’t much incentive to maximize their offer as the Coalition and BSA are looking for a speedy deal. 

And that’s, “the rest of the story.” Maybe that is the story.

Also, my wife, with all her years and experience in insurance and risk management, often tells me she wants a number and she wants certainty. How much cover, how much reserve, how likely and strong is the claim and the batch (if applicable), and when do we expect this to be determined. That has great value to the insurers. I’m a no-nothin, so I can’t say what it’s worth to them here, but a lot more than Peter Anker is letting on.

43 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Actually, it’s not even a question. Go here and check out the award estimation calculator https://boyscoutssexualabuse.com/estimated-recovery-calculator/

We’ve looked at that. I believe he was asking for the quick and dirty math (the only brand I do) after breaking out the 58,000 odd “time-barred”, tossing each $3500 and having the balance of fellas divide the kitty evenly. I believe...

I’m not even sure of the number of closed state claims, but I use that number in my little brain. Why? Because it stuck there after being slung from a now unknown source. (I tink the number he seeks is baked into the iconic, pop cultural question referenced above.)

7 hours ago, elitts said:

What was the estimate of time-barred vs non-barred claims and what does the averaged $/victim look like if all the time barred claims are figured at the "quick-pay" amount?

That’s the $65,000 question, I believe.

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

the statement of the Anonymous Survivor has no value.

As a legal mind, I think what you are saying is it has no probative value. It has value, just as a Doe child sexual abuse complaint must be given the benefit of the doubt (though a much higher bar to file a case...I know. We don’t need to run that rabbit.) As to whether it sways or influences you on the truth and veracity of the statement, that’s a different matter. 

My point in highlighting it was to point out the ridiculously transparent (and strategically foolish) move to forward someone who is anon, banging the BSA drum SO LOUDLY and then slot him as lead-off in your survivor testimonies. Their slip is showing, if you will. That one “oops!” by the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff laid bare the desperation in their plea and their enmeshment with BSA for their own financial gain. IMNSHO, of course.

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

That might seem like a mess

Uh huh. Mess-R-Us. Bring a bib and a splat mat. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Boy Scouts' settlement plan unjust, Arkansas victims say

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/20/boy-scouts-settlement-plan-unjust-victims-say/

Anyone have info on how to watch this presser?

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

No need for words such as "If you don't get it, you probably won't."  Those words are ugly and mean.  

No. Apologies. “You” was meant to be a generic reference. If “you” please and prefer: “If one doesn’t get it, one never will.” One size fits all…”if the shoe fits.” As a preacher once said, if you throw a stone (convicting message) into a pack of dogs, the one who whelps got hit. NOT saying that’s you. Further, my statement is 100% accurate. Emotional understanding and empathy are either learned through exposure and/or personal experience with deep pain or challenges, or innate. Some are, some ain’t. Some can, some cain’t. That’s all I’m saying. So, does one get it? That is the question asked purely rhetorically, of course.

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

She did make it clear that she would be ruling quickly and as the discovery proceeds she would be available to make VERY quick decisions when the parties can't agree on what's privileged.

Does that mean she will act with alacrity? David Molton called and asked me. 

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

What additional acknowledgement / apology is expected ? 

I think I answered this with flourish during and after Michael Johnson’s statement at the press conference, but I’ll run it back. What Mr. Johnson DID, as a critical and even more valuable addition to what he said, demonstrated what a heartfelt apology is. It’s human. It has skin on it. It sheds tears. It shows remorse and grief and sorrow and empathy. It is not a press release or published interview or newsletter. That’s what did not happen and we doubt ever will. If you don’t get it, you probably won’t. The next time you very deeply hurt someone for whom you profess deep love, commitment and dedication write a note in the daily Gazette for them to find. Don’t ever say anything that exhibits vulnerability or contrition live and in person. Ouch. 

7 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

We need to be very very careful about questioning the veracity of someone putting themselves forward as a survivor.  We wouldn't tolerate anyone questioning the credibility of the posters who have come forward on these forums as survivors.  We shouldn't --- and won't --- accept it about others.  

There are tens of thousands of survivors, that certainly means there are just as many divergent and honestly held opinions on what the best course of action should be.

Thanks. Yes. I hope my post did not read as insinuating that I questioned his existence, experience of veracity. I tried to make that clear when I apologized, should he be on this forum. My only point was to highlight (what I see) as the glaring message being sent by using that testimony as the lead off hitter on the Coalition site. 

7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Kosnoff has just posted this post to his Twitter LOL

I’m assuming it’s good for the cause if it is getting retweeted, whatever that means. Yes? It was another exercise is grandiose self-affirmation, fabricated TCC renunciation and Coalition canonization. 

He answered my question in a self congratulatory way. I shouldn’t have fed him that. BUT he did not answer how this person is going to have a voice in a sea of BSA people. Reason? They simply won’t.

This it their mass tort bankruptcy expert. Just FYI. I’m not disparaging, but he graduated in 2009. Focuses on pharmaceutical and some on CA fire. I’ll take the PSZJ law firm as my “experts.”

https://andrewsthornton.com/our-team/sean-t-higgins/

These people believe one survivor on the BSA board is the Second Coming. 

Ken does a lot of squeezing of people. For the record. Keep your distance. In fact, he squeezes day and night, night and day, and twice on Sundays. They even do it while flying all over the country.

And, there would be no money, but for the Coalition. I think they forgot the TCC was a primary negotiator. 

Oo. He’s guaranteeing more money. It’s fisticuffs, as far as I can tell. My Gramps was a bare fist boxer. I would love to see that bout, I tell you what.

News Flash: Tort Claimants Committee has done nothing. Zip. Zero. No, no, no.

Wait! “Coalition HAS PUT IN $1.8 BILLION!!!!” I wish...

Oh, my word. I can’t wait for The Stang to get another run at this man. Yikes. 

“This is the last time anyone ever hears about sexual abuse in the BSA...because we have a voice on the Board!!!” WHAT?

He’s angry tonight. Pray for his blood pressure. 

“Vote YES and everyone will get money.” And more more more...remember, I’m squeezing and punching everyone in sight, “all day and all of the night.” (Thank you to The Kinks.)

”Vote NO, litigation for 5-10 years...All the cash goes away...!”

Okay. He is a bald faced, unabashed, highly skilled liar. I’m sorry, but that is the absolute truth. I’m going to kick something...brb.

I asked the ID of this survivor BSA board member, selected by whom and on what basis. We shall see if they respond. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

I must disagree on all counts.  If we grant him his sincerity, there is still no way he can protect more than his immediate patrol/troop.  If he maintained his presence in BSA to guard scouts, he proves the point that no protection is enough. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival.  Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?  

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Sounds like I have been drinking the BSA Kool Ade for so long I can no longer think for myself.

Whew. Good. It’s not just my tormented, jaded and befuddled self who sees it this way. Again, flabbergasted at the error in judgement to prioritize this testimony. I can’t remember when I was taught this, but probably in middle school: know your audience and tailor your message accordingly. Someone doesn’t get this at all. I go back to my weeping, wailing and definitely flailing impression following the first infomercial. T-minus 13 minutes and counting...

Anyone else going to watch? I’m not a very good stenographer, as you’ve no doubt noticed.

51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival.  Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?  

I’m touching my nose right now. (NOT to be confused with picking, before I hear that. I am not nasal spelunking.)

1 minute ago, Eagle1970 said:

I contacted them before filing a claim since I've known for 40 years I was SOL on the SoL.  I was told SoL didn't apply because it was a bankruptcy claim.  And that's what I thought for the first 9 months or so. 

I contacted them before I filed, as well. Multiple times. It may well be that’s where I got the notion. I wonder if I have an email chain that involved that statement or if it was over the blower. Hm. I will delve into this further....

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

31 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

To the best of my knowledge, it was Omni.

Was the statement something to the effect of, “Everyone will receive an award regardless of the state where their abuse occurred”?

2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

I was told point-blank that because the was a bankruptcy, SoL would not apply or I would not have gone through this, just as I haven't done my entire adult life since being informed of the SoL on civil action 40 years ago.

Do you mind sharing who told you this?  I ask only because it of course isn't true as bankruptcy is practiced and it's important for all of us to know when we can where bad information may be coming from.  I absolutely understand if you don't want to share it!  

Oo. Oo. Let him quote me. I asked first. Fair is fair. 😬

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

  I was told point-blank that because the was a bankruptcy, SoL would not apply or I would not have gone through this, just as I haven't done my entire adult life since being informed of the SoL on civil action 40 years ago.

That was a tangential comment I heard, as well. I was a little dubious/concerned, but was hopeful it was correct. For me, it was conversation I read surrounding the potential entry into Chapter 11. Would you be willing to identify your direct source? You may have mentioned this before, but I’d like to confirm. As you know, this whole thing makes me very sad, for all the reasons you expressed very well.