ThenNow
-
Content Count
2594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
60
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by ThenNow
-
-
22 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
text him at 425-830-8201 with "yes" and your phone number/email address
Two things:
1. Is that a Puerto Rico number?; and
2. Does the offer come with with the ocean fishing option or the Schiavoni fishing one? I want to know these things before committing.
PS - I will NOT be texting that number!! He offered jocularity in the name of sanity. Oo. I just found what I want on my headstone. Bam.
-
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:
The judge said pro se litigants showing up late in the game to file objections and demand discovery would be considered. And of course any claimant has the right to file an objection.
The request line is now open. What do we want to know? JK (or not).
-
1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:
Tim Kosnoff is looking for survivors looking to talk to national media. Read his Twitter account.
I don’t Twitter, Tweet or twiddly deet. What’s he sayin?
-
6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
They would look good with my members only jacket LOL
Mine from 1982 was stolen out of my college apartment while I was visiting my family. The place was basically ransacked. A day after I returned, I saw a guy wearing it while strolling down the main drag around the corner from where I lived. As God is my witness. I confronted him and he ran. Hard to give chase in a press of college students and he was quick, as well he needed to be.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:
With the little money at stake you mean a "Roylex" and "Guchey" shoes. 😉
I was cipherin my purchases on the off ramp cash. WHICH I WILL NOT NOT NOT BE TAKING.
Disclaimer: The above conversation is a miserable attempt at humor in the midst of a dark situation in which humor is my best hope of balance and sanity. -Management
-
9 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
Is there anyone on this forum that could give me a rational objective reason to vote anything but NO on the current proposal?
Easy. You’re desperate to buy that pair of Ferragamos and matching croc belt.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
Variable 3: Aggravating Scaling Factors: Impact of the Abuse (Mental Health Issues, Physical Health Issues, Interpersonal Relationships, Vocational Capacity, Academic Capacity, Legal Difficulties); Abuser Profile (the more victims, the more money); Nature of Abuse and Circumstances
Nature and Circumstances, just FYI:
a. Extended duration and/or frequency of the Abuse;
b. Exploitation of the Abuse Claimant for child pornography;
c. Coercion or threat or use of force or violence, stalking; and
d. Multiple perpetrators involved in sexual misconduct. -
17 hours ago, ThenNow said:
Just received a 13.2 pound Priority Mail parcel from my friends at Omni Agent. I hope it’s a jumbo gold box filled with Godiva mixed truffles! I’ll share...
Upon further review and investigation, it appears Omni neither sent me the actual official packet nor the Godiva. Fellow sexual abuse claimants, please forgive me for any false alarms my post caused you and/or heightened expectations of a soon to arrive packet. I would never want to do that to you. I had not yet opened the box when I posted. My bad.
-
Just received a 13.2 pound Priority Mail parcel from my friends at Omni Agent. I hope it’s a jumbo gold box filled with Godiva mixed truffles! I’ll share...
-
8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
He is demanding at least $4.5 million.
Email address “CollinLongshanks”? William Wallace’s nemesis lives? King Edward I, none other than??
-
On 10/1/2021 at 10:24 PM, MYCVAStory said:
If anyone wants to understand the mass tort ecosystem and aggregators, the WSJ did a great piece on it a couple years ago. https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-mass-tort-machine-that-powers-thousands-of-roundup-lawsuits-11574700480
Sorry, it's paywalled
Making good on my threat. Here it is.
520766341_InsidetheMass-TortMachineThatPowersThousandsofRoundupLawsuits-WSJ.pdf
-
17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
1 TBD
Did I mention I changed my name? Henceforth, I shall be referred to as To Be Determined, TBD for ease of use. Has a nice ring to it, right?
-
4 hours ago, klleboe said:
It’s been day by day for the last three years but he’s a fighter! He’s wicked strong and I am so proud of him.
I don’t know him, but I’m proud of him too!!!
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:
Sorry, it's paywalled and I'm not at work where I can do a little cuttin and pastin
I’ll get it. I know a guy. Hm. Just looked at it. I may have posted this somewhere in the haystack. No use looking. Regardless, the request has been made.
-
2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.
They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.
Because I seem to veer into torturing myself, I read a bunch of this stuff back when we were discussing the mass tort b’ness. I recall posting a piece about three federal judges making a fuss about this and are asking for disclosure of “who else is in my courtroom,” meaning outside funding driving the litigation. I found this excerpt from another piece centered around product liability instructive. I don’t agree with all the author has to say in the rest of his article, but this was added to my pain inflicting library as worthwhile. Some may find it interesting. Apologies if not.
[Begin quoted text]
Advertisements.
Since the courts discovered that lawyers have a constitutional right to use advertisements to solicit clients, they have done so – with a frequency that would no doubt have shocked the Founding Fathers. Anybody who watches TV knows what we’re talking about.
And it’s not just lawyers, either. Media specialists and third-party litigation funders also combine to run (with apologies to Marlowe) the race that launched 100,000 TV (and internet) ads. Anyone who responds – and many do – becomes “inventory,” their claims available for sale in bulk to enterprising lawyers hoping to cash in on the next mass tort.
Thus, within hours after the triggering event, “law firm” websites will invite product users to sign on as potential clients. Similar solicits in other forms of media follow.
This early stage is usually the point of no return. The lawyers involved will freely buy, sell, and trade the would-be clients that have signed up – to the point where those clients often don’t know who their lawyers actually are. But once they have clients, no matter how attenuated the relationship, lawyers cannot ethically let them go. Regardless of the facts, the mass-tort litigation process takes on a life of its own.
https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2018/09/anatomy-of-a-mass-tort-2-0.html
-
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:
During the hearing there were several discussions about discovery. The plan hasn’t been confirmed. How can they have a confirmation hearing without this discovery?
Yes. Agreed. I recall several times she shut down attorneys deferring or deflecting with, “that’s a confirmation issue” and “you’ll have discovery for that” or language similar. She didn’t make her discovery rulings in ignorance of how this process works or with the anticipation that would “expire” upon her approval of solicitation. That’s boneheaded to think and even more numbskulled to put in a motion. That’s my cranky opinion anywho.
-
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:
They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.
The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.
Clearly, no shame. I hope and pray their unabashed brazenness comes back to bite them. Viciously. As a matter of ethics, isn’t there yet a compelling interest of the court to examine, even it their lack of shame wasn’t so shameful, which it is? Having no shame is, in this context, well, shameful.
-
21 minutes ago, elitts said:
The rest of the stuff isn't about rules or actions taken to keep kids safe, it's either stuff we already have but you think somehow it needs to be better, or it's about reporting and oversight. (which I have no issue with)
I’m checking out of this one. I was just sharing and tried to do so with the caveat that you might not think any of it is valuable. You guys can pound on each other. I have other fish to fry.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, elitts said:
My biggest problem whenever this topic comes up in a forum or article is with the headings. The heading is always "Increasing Youth Protection standards" or "Improving Youth Protection Training standards", but I have yet to see anyone offer a convincing argument about there being something insufficient about the basic Youth Protection rules within the BSA.
You may not consider any of what’s said (even just now) a “convincing argument about there being something insufficient...”, but this is the list I made when we had another thread on the topic. I’d add the new stuff, but I’m too lazy. To me, when any other organization is doing something more rigorous, effectively innovative and thorough, it argues in favor of there being an insufficiency or room for measurable improvement.
https://www.scouter.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/image.png.1a5c05d84aa9d8ee188124df631ce364.png
-
1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:
I'm increasingly feeling like the BSA's finances aren't the only "melting ice cube."
If KR’s “Gloom, despair and agony on me...!” infomercial, the Coalitions press release and the *tick, tick, boom!* reactions to them are any indication, something smells and it ain’t Tobi Vail’s Teen Spirit. Smells like desperation. Couple that with the judge’s nip-tuck “neutering” of the Coalition in the form of their attorney fees (just quoting the court record!) I think the heat is on. TCC on the ascendancy. Return of the Jedi, my friends, ROTJ.
This is officially my favorite pop culture “name” dropping post of all time. By the by, the nice thing about name droppings is there’s really no cleanup at all. Well, unless someone tells me I’m off color again, in which case I’ll be forced to squeegee my screen after spewing Diet Coke as I burst out laughing.
-
This is from a press release when WI legislators last introduced the Child Victims Act (SoL reform). The same Representative (with a new last name, post-marriage) is introducing it again, with the aid of outside advocates, survivors and legal advisers. I imagine it will be similar. Thought it worthwhile to share. Sorry if this belongs elsewhere. I’ll prepare my backside to be ponged.
“Under current Wisconsin law, the right of childhood victims to bring legal action expires at the age of 35. This extends to victims of sexual assault, incest, and other forms of child sex abuse. The Child Victims Act would remove this time limit altogether. Additionally, it would allow for those who were unable to bring charges under the previous statute of limitations to seek legal action up to three years after the passage of the bill. Regarding the legislation, Senator Taylor issued the following statement:
“There should never be an expiration date on justice. There are numerous reasons why victims find it difficult to come forward, especially in instances of childhood sex abuse, but our laws should never be one of them. This bill will make it possible for victims of sexual abuse to seek justice, no matter how long they wait to speak out.”
“I’m proud to add my voice to the growing number of legislators across the country demanding justice for survivors. There’s nothing partisan about this legislation, it’s simply the right thing to do.”
-
-
8 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:
was doing the print job math when it was mentioned that the Plan was over a thousand pages. Whew!
Now you tell me the calculations had already been done. Coulda saved me these hand cramps and raw fingers from ciphering it out!
-
1 minute ago, SiouxRanger said:
And to conceal information from an expert acting on National's behalf, where that information, if provided, would clearly have changed the expert's testimony-that is a lie by concealment. A lie nonetheless.
Is that Scout-like? I’m a bit rusty.
YPT Changes in TCC Proposal
in Issues & Politics
Posted · Edited by ThenNow
I said I would keep my yap shut and go back to lurking, but I changed my mind. As a BSA victim who experienced “expert” grooming over a span of every year I was in Scouting, this is a very good point. Hire me to draft the survey. Seriously. A team of us would be the best resource, under the guidance of a psychologist and the appropriate (supporting) BSA leaders and probably an attorney.
Same. As above, I was a clear target. 10 years old. Father was very distant, stoic, a victim himself and unavailable. My only defenses were flight (didn’t know how), flight (hard to get too far in the most remote campsite on the Reservation with a powerful, charismatic leader watching you), freeze (my default and remaining option) and forget (which I proved to be capable of with great aplomb).
See above.
I also tried to quote from the discussion on how the guy slipped through the proverbial YPT crack(s). The glaring point that was impressed upon me from this recounting is his voracious appetite to repeat this behavior, hide his past and find new, familiar hunting grounds. Frightening how these monsters roll.