ThenNow

I’ve tried to perish the thought, but if this is indeed cataclysmic doesn’t it rather aid insurers in their coverage defense arguments? Not my mud puddle, so just wondering out loud in the dark. 

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I did not want to outright accuse him of that but the timing is…interesting.

Imitation is the sincerest form, etc. However, my oldest son does not subscribe.He says, “Imitation is the sincerest representation of an utter lack of originality.” This was born when his cousin showed up at event wearing the same pair of Cole Haan wingtips my son wears. 

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

that squashes their motif.

I love a nice squashed motif almost as much as mushy peas with fisn-n-chips. Delish. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff's having a field day of course

He’s just reading your posts and reposting. Thank the Lord I’m almost done drafting my complaint. I’m looking forward to adding some juicy tidbits from Mystery Joe’s presser. Boy howdy. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

wonder how he became former.  Was he fired or did he resign. MJ’s LinkedIn profile shows him as the current youth protection director.  So, I’m not 100% sure it is him.  

I emailed in February 2021 and got the "no longer employed" bounce-back.

This just keeps getting better and better. What time are you guys signing off? I might make a pot of coffee and hang around a while. 

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/boy-scouts-of-america-appoints-michael-johnson-as-youth-protection-director/

Huh. This is all very innerestin. I guess I’ll have to cancel my afternoon Hardy Boys book club and tea party. Another, “huh.” Mr. Mazzuca was the gent I wrote in 2008 naming my abuser, noting a small portion of my abuse and advising him that my SM had abused others. He never responded nor did he/they put my abuser on “the list.” I’m now thinkin he was busy interviewing Youth Protection director candidates. 

PS - Because of the way my brain operates in vignettes and sketches, I am picturing the conference rooms and Zoom calls among the BSA players, Coalition cohort and the hedge fund collection posse. I only wish I could watch or at least listen in. Wee...

On 10/8/2021 at 7:48 PM, MYCVAStory said:

The TCC has retained a firm to act as an expert witness and begin the process of valuing claims.  Claro has been used in many other cases to get an idea of values based upon historical settlements, SOLs, etc.  Remember thatthe TCC was trying to get an estimation motion" approved but was swimming upstream when the parties decided it would take too long.  So, if this plan has the votes or is close the TCC will potentially have the ammunition to demonstrate that the values are unreasonably being compensated too little

Is this a true deep dive analysis of each claim, read and reviewed with fresh eyes, or will they be using the already mined and compiled data? 

5 hours ago, MattR said:

I keep saying this and I'll say it again. The 82k cases contain a lot of information. It should be analyzed and understood. It would benefit the abused, the BSA, future scouts and society as a whole.

I’m not sure if this was mentioned here, but during the last TCC town hall Jim Stang noted they had, “put eyes on” each and every POC. If anyone has the most in-depth and thorough understanding of AND appreciation for what they reveal, it’s the TCC and their professional team. It is one more very important reason they and other survivors MUST be involved in YPT advancements going forward with a high measure of certainty (accountability) they are not relegated to an also ran footnote. Absent that, this will end up being nothing more than an sterile accounting exercise. I say that knowing true recompense is quite unlikely at this point. Trying to be realistic while remaining tenacious and hopeful. Well, at least tenacious…

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

As a result, it can be a bit of an echo chamber. If people outside of that world knows someone is heavily involved in scouting, most won't ask unpleasant questions or say derogatory or challenging things. 

Knowing my situation and involvement in the case, my baby sister asked good friends of hers about YPT and the case, etc. This family is the type you described. No sooner had she asked made a brief intro of the topic and got out here questions and *slam* went the door. They more or less put an index finger in each ear - the respective fingers belonged to the party into whose ears they were inserted - and started chanting, “La. La. La. I can’t HEAR you!! La. La. La...” My sister was shocked. 

2 hours ago, elitts said:

Not the age per se, rather the stage of physical development.  Pre-pubescent fixation (generally under age 10) = pedophile, Pubescent fixation (early adolescence, generally 11-14 or 15) = Hebophile.  Post-pubescent fixation (generally 15-19) = Ephebophile and that's not even automatically considered a "disordered preference".

Right. I was saying “age” as in typical ranges. I realize late bloomers, like me, had a prolonged period in my abusers target zone and thus change the “age” spectrum. I just didn’t want anyone assuming a single category was solely applicable to our abuse claims or misconstruing the previous post. Thanks for listing the details. At least I wasn’t wrong wrong.  

31 minutes ago, leedavid815 said:

 

The correct term for BSA sexual perpetrators is not "pedophile"

Hebephilia - Wikipedia

 

I believe the term/categorization is based on age of victim/fixation, yes? Three distinct categories, pedophile being the second age range. I may be wrong.

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I cannot fault unit level leaders for not having the time or energy to try and track down this information.

I’m not faulting anyone. I just report the news.

14 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Question to current scout leaders. What do you tell current scouts and or their if asked about the current bankruptcy and the child sexual abuse in the past?

I’ve been asking my friends with kids (or close friends) in Scouts and to a person none of them is talking about it and mostly don’t want to hear anything. This is the parent side, mind you. I recently spoke with a good friend with a young son who’s actively involved. She hadn’t told me that before, even though she  knows I am “working on the case.” When she found out “working on the case” meant I was a claimant, her tack and level of interest changed 180 degrees. She started asking me all manner of questions, knew pretty much nothing about YPT and not a single thing about the case, other than “Everything is great...keep rock-n and roll-n with your Troop!” She’s now going back to speak with leaders at all levels to find out why they have told her (and others) anything about this. I told her about those few recent cases we’ve discussed her and she said, “Okay. I’m going to be going on the camp out with my son and interview all the leaders.” She’s not a woman to be trifled with. Interesting field research, at least I find it so. 

9 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

I love blood pudding. I was born in Brooklyn and am a dual citizen of the United States and Ireland.

Confession: I’ve never had it. It just went with my “proof of the pudding” and dark prose of the moment. For those who didn’t know what it is, I knew it would be very dramatic. I’m thinking I will really like it because I love all manner of sausage. I’m Austrian and Irish so it’s in my blood.  

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served?

Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

@CynicalScouter  If this was not a Scout forum I would be saying very un-Courteous and un-Kind things to you.  Anytime someone defends the BSA you take it to you do not want to compensate them at all or you wish to deny them of council.  Quit making up garbage!  

This is the sword play I was referring to, CS. I don’t think it’s benefiting the people you are defending or concerned about here. I have to agree it seems to have gotten emotional and reactionary, missing the forest for the trees. You seem to have a hair trigger lately and I don’t think it’s representative of your intellect and ability to remain balanced in the discourse. This is my thinking, anyway.

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

  There are many times more stories such as yours for every victim.

I’m sorry, and I respect you, but why do we have to say things like that? I, for one, have had this duel for many pages back in the day. It is not fair to create that juxtaposition and say “all this good outweighs this little bit of bad.” It is not a reasonable, moral, ethical or compassionate calculus. Please don’t do that. I can tell you from this one victim, it feels very demeaning and invalidating. It just does. 

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Done right, this would be good. My dad was invited to a school in Germany where he grew up to talk to kids about what he lived through. 

In all honesty, it did him at least as much good as the students.

Exactly. That’s very powerful and what an example. I know I can fall prey to my own smart mouth, but I did and do mean that sincerely. If the Doug Kennedy of today had appeared in June of 1972 to talk with the soon to be 11 year old me a month out from my his first Summer Camp, what an incalculable difference that could have made in my life. I don’t dare even think about it. 

Just now, HelpfulTracks said:

No it is not. But the current scouts are absolutely part of the equation in terms of how the final settlements are made.

For me that is absolutely part of the equation. 

Let us come and talk to them and their parents about our Scouting “experience” and see how they react. I’ve been told that we, together, comprise the victim class in this case. Maybe we should meet. I wonder how that would go. For those who “know” me in the virtual sense, I value the valuable and despise the despicable of my years in Scouting. I wish no one harm and certainly not that which befell me and my fellows.

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

It seems to me that the views on this thread are so vastly divergent and, for many, the emotions are some what raw so that this will devolve into arguments.  It seems to me that fair is largely determined by one's starting point.

As brother John has been saying, what wears me out is the lack of offering solutions or stating what you think is not happening, should happen or lending honest assessments of what we deserve, in context. Some do. Others throw grenades and run off. I don’t think much of this sword play is getting a great accomplished at this point. I think we get pent up waiting for the next plot pivot.

My above post is what I think should have been done from the jump. It wasn’t. It won’t. I don’t expect it. It made me said as soon as it was clear that it would be the course of action and inaction. That is why we are where we are in this case. There are battle lines. I think the insurance companies delight at the infighting, which gives them additional delay and strategy time. If someone comes to you and says, “Hey. I didn’t do right by you. I really want to make this ‘right’ (as much as possible). I just ask that you don’t obliterate me and give me provisions so I can do what we both likely agree is important work.” You do not then expect them to quickly drop back, build bunkers and start shelling you. Say what you want, I just don’t see the proof in the pudding. I’m not eating it. I’ve never cared for blood pudding. Is there a path for equitable compensation? Not without a tremendous fight and not if this Plan passes.

43 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My personal feeling is that I should receive 1.5 to 2M and out of that would come my lawyers cut.  If I was in state court the 2M might be on the low side.

I am also a Tier One claimant with multiple aggravating factors. As far as I can tell, the only variable that remains unknown is whether 5+ or 10+ claims implicate my SM/abuser. I tick all the other boxes. Then, I am technically in a Gray 3 state, but have a strong case around the time-bar defense. Whatever. What is my abuse and the implosion it caused worth. Dunno. According to the Claim Matrix, $2.7M or a tad less due to the one unknown. My deep discontent and vexation is twofold:

1. I do not feel like BSA, especially LCs, are being forthright about their assets. If both BSA and the LCs were truly - and I mean deeply and sincerely - committed to equitably compensate BSA child sexual abuse victim claimants, they would be in lock step with the TCC as much as humanly possible. I don’t think that’s happening because it is not the primary mission of this case nor has it ever been. My opinion. Emergence is paramount. Transparency and collaboration clearly are not. My LC has $33M in assets (per the BSA and not BRG) and is contributing under 3. The contribution is a clean scoop from the investments. Why is it honorable to do anything other than a true mea culpa and how can we make this as “right” as we can; and

2. This is a corollary to number one, but I see it as distinct. Again, if the deep commitment were there, BSA and LCs and all the insureds would be fighting the insurance companies side by side with the victims and TCC. They are, after all, the policy holders. Ditching the 40 whatever pages of policies to the Trustee, telling us have fun with your multi-year death dance with the insurance companies is a chicken poop move. Stand with us and fight. You and WE paid for those policies. Pursue maximum coverage for US. Aren’t we what you say you’re all about? Leaders in my day would call us “My/their Scouts.” What are we now? The actions speak so much louder than the words I’m about deaf from watching this theater of the tragic and the absurd. If your child is injured and you hold the policy do you tell the lawyer the policy and agent information and let them go into court and settlement discussions without involvement? Strike that. More to the point, do you give your son the information and tell him, “Go figure this out, son. I need to get back to work and help some other kids, because I’m REALLY, REALLY good at it...now.” Of course not, unless you’re a complete deadbeat absentee parent willing to put your child at further risk of injury. Is this not plain as day? I don’t get it.

15 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Here are the numbers in the Seattle Times article

• A rape claim against the Boy Scouts might entitle a survivor to as little as $3,300 under a nationwide proposal filed in court Tuesday.
  • In truth, it is actually lower per BSA .. $3,177 for the closed state midpoint
• 82,500 claims
  • I have heard 84,000 unique claims, so the Seattle times is reporting a lower number
• A Washington survivor who was molested unclothed could collect as little as $9,000 under the proposal.
  • Actual midpoint is $8,666 ... so the times is overreporting the BSA#

Every other number in their article appears accurate.

I guess I missed the link to this. Help, bitte? 

59 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I am not a lawyer, don't play one on tv and didn't spend the night in a Holiday Inn last night, but my understanding is a judge has the right and power to issue and enforce gag orders on participants in cases. The participants do not enjoy the same protection of free speech they generally have. I'm not saying the judge has or even should, but the judge can from what I understand. 

No:

1. There is no jury pool to influence or infect;

2. The gag would have to be universal, as all main players discuss elements of the case outside the courtroom and you don’t direct an order at one party; and

3. Tim Kosnoff is doing absolutely nothing that the BSA, Coalition, LCs and insurers aren’t already doing in spades. Namely, those parties are way down the line in speculating on the case and manipulating “facts” trying to move the needle in the direction of their respective positions. Schiavoni says Century will be bled dry. Anker says he welcomes going back to state court. (Really?) BSA says they’re out of money and these are all the assets we have. (BRG Dashboards, anyone?) LCs are going under. (What’s the average percentage of assets contribution, again?) The Coalition says they’re part of the TCC, Jim Stang is a liar, the TCC has no plan to assist victim claimants and they refuse to make deals where deals can be made. It’s a mess and those parties have cleared the path. Also, I think TK is saying what he believes and is acting in the best interests of his clients, per his perception. 

4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal

Confirmed. His crew will not be the only survivor claimant voices heard and stories published, for the record. 

13 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

To survivors who read my tweets: If you are willing to talk to the media about your reactions to the plan, please text me with yes and your phone/e-mail address at 425-830-8201. You don’t have to be an AIS client but if you are not, you should clear it with your lawyer first.

Thanks, Brother. Is there an image of the Tweet? I’m demanding, right?  

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Hearst owned media based on his Twitter updates.

Forgive me if I missed it, but would someone post paste his post post haste? As I said, I have no interest in responding, but want to forward it to someone who will be interested in the story. It’s that guy I know...danke.

PS - Is it post paste or paste post? I think the latter, so please cut and paste post the correct version in my above rambling. I’m too lazy.