ThenNow

Riddle me this: You’re saying BSA, as a “reflection of the times” IN THE LATER part of the 1980’s (when did YPT start?), simply overlooked and thought unimportant the decades of historic child sexual abuse while giving all other Scouting-related risk factors to the head of their risk assessment team? Ok. Roger that. Did they tell their finance department and Scouters and Scouts and parents and LCs that Summit is a sinkhole into which one can shovel money? Oh, yeah. That’s another issue entirely. Again, a “reflection of the times.”

1. We’re pissed x 82,500; 2. How DARE the Coalition attorneys moan and weep about their pain and tireless efforts and how hard this is for them...FOR SHAME and GIVE US A BREAK; 3. We didn’t wait DECADES to be abused again by a race to the bottom Plan or attorneys who stand to make $425M as the Plan is currently configured; 4. We don’t like this Plan one bit, but we can’t give advice until the Plan goes out for Solicitation...stay tuned. Videos and much information to come soon + more Town Halls; 5. If you think you need an attorney, now is that time; 6. This plan is 10

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tort-claimants-committee-for-boy-scouts-of-america-bankruptcy-rejects-modified-fifth-amended-plan-of-reorganization-301389422.html

Grab a beverage, sit back and be assured it’s coming. I’m not on the TCC, but I’m already at it with CHILDUSA and CHILDUSA Advocacy. Refer back to the Funny Pink Hat Brigade posts and John Humphrey’s emphatic statement of commitment to this course of action as his new “mission in life.” Also, if BSA whiffs on what’s proposed, that’s not on us. Further, if change sweeps, they gonna get swept right along with it.

As with many other things, we’ve run this path down to bedrock. In fact, a long list of improvements to consider was made, the TCC included theirs in the non-monetary components of the Plan and CS and others have referenced key and critical things done by others that BSA is not doing. I don’t see this as mudslinging in the least, when “real changes” have been thoroughly discussed. Were you here for all of that? Not poking...

As one of the tens of thousands you and the other 8 men represent so vigorously and tirelessly, let me say “THANK YOU!”, I got your back and have tried to do that on this forum. I am most grateful to be able to say this publicly. When I witnessed Jim Stang with his hair on fire and his tongue sharpened to a fine point during the last hearing, I had little doubt there was a bonfire blazing behind him in the form of a cohort of 9! I’m glad to hear you confirm it and look forward to tonight’s town hall and the increased frequency you mentioned.

I want to apologize to any of my fellows who are represented by the Coalition firms. My intention is not to attack you or their work for you. All I see is what they are doing publicly (press), in court (hearings) and via their filings (OmniAgent Docket). Taken as a whole, I cannot help but react as I am, given the apparent self-interested motivations of counsel, the willingness to undermine the TCC, their efforts to get the estate (BSA/victims funds) to pay their attorneys, all topped off with the histrionics I’ve witnesses. I hope all goes well for you and all of us, but I am unable to keep q

Agreed. I think Jim Stang has now got his dander fully up and my guess is it's a mirror image (or understated) of the same condition among the TCC members. Btw, is Ken Rothwieler on the TCC? His dander seems to be raised, as well. Oh, that's right. Maybe it's that the fee thing and the aftermath of getting skinned by the aforementioned Mr. Stang. ("Did it stang when he did that?" he asked with a southern twang.)

Is there any reference point to something like this happening in another case? They are literally self-promoting their position (self) to the detriment and diminishment of the TCC's view, analysis and position. If you don't have a good product, paint the other guy stupid and lazy...

Thanks for saying that. I respect you, appreciate you, value all your input and analysis, and support for victims. That press release made me very angry. Did someone say something about "decades of pent-up rage"? Hm...

I understand, but all of your (very) good analysis and recap isn't my point. I said that because: 1) They implied the TCC has "no" plan, but the Coalition does. CS, we're not talking about a technicality here, we're talking playing to the public with baldfaced, unsubstantiated accusations against the Official Tort Claimants Committee by way of a "get the vote out" PR effort. I've worked campaigns. I've overseen direct mail. This is crystal clear as to motive and intent; 2) They pretty much stated that they built the plan with their own well lotioned and manicured fingers. Pah-lease.

Despicable. Reprehensible. Disgusting. I cannot believe they said this out loud, in public, had someone write it down and then send it out to the world. Shame on them. Shame... "Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

So, if this goes down with these bifurcated claims, is it going to carry over to all claims? All CO settlements? In my case, I met with and was abused by my SM while at his home or on his boat. Some were part of merit badge work. Others part of the special treatment. How do those fall out? Obviously, merit badges are Scouting-related so I assume an official event or activity. The ancillary things? Not so much. I met him exclusively through the Troop at my church/CO. If all the abuse was on his boat or in his home and not related to Scouting, per se, no viable claim in this case? If so, the mes

Somehow I knew you stayed on, as I always do, just waiting for that choice hot mic moment. Bam!

Thanks. How do they stay out of the fray, living or mostly dead? (Another nod to "Princes Bride.") Insurers already say BSA valuing claims is against their own interest. Now, they just won't have to pay any further on those liabilities after they pony up their pittance and get bitten by the Chapter 11 walking dead? For the record, you said "zombie," not me.

Insurance question on which my wife made an over the shoulder comment then raised her hands in that patented "good luck" gesture. BSA emerges a new baby with pink skin and cooing smile. However, they are the principal insured holding the insurance policies and that insured entity has evaporated. Are we saying they can unequivocally substitute in the Settlement Trust as the new owner/insured prior to exiting? Does that really mean the insurers will leave them alone during the coverage battles and claims estimations? They bought the policies and I don't understand how they get "released." Is tha

By Tier, but redacted to remove descriptions/abuse categories.

We've discussed this previously, ad nauseam. History and the law are rife with means, methods and bases for calculating this. Correct. No "making whole," but that is entirely different from being able (or not) to calculate value in the realm of legal liability and damages. I know the response is likely to be, "this is not a fine art painter with a history of value of their work who loses their panting hand," but many judgement and settlement numbers are on record to aid this process. THAT is how the TCC arrived at their valuations/estimations.

Per my looong query 'years ago', I was waiting for this. As an attorney and claimant, I can't say I disagree. I'd still like to see the specific ethics provisions/standards on which they rely and are referencing by implication.

And remember, all but the 5000 pro se claimants would see at least a 40% reduction to those numbers.

I spoke with someone in the know about that. Their interpretation of his intent was very different than how I took it.

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but Mr. B. is among my favorites in this dramomedy shot through with intense tragic and farcical undertones. I'd pick him to play Samuel Clemens (over Hal Holbrook) any day and twice on Sundays. He has Clemens pith and misanthropic air.

I said this once before so, for those who recall, please forgive the echo. I heard with my own two ears an LC talking about major donors holding off on giving until the settlement trust is funding and BSA emerges post-pupation. Stated reason? "I don't want to just give more money to the _____ity _____ lawyers." I know. I know. They're drawing down on reserves and what not, but I can distinctly hear Obi-Wan saying, "These aren't the droids you're looking for."

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/09/28/634139.htm

Agreed as to all and, further, why did she let him go on like that? I was certain she was going check him at five different times. And then, she made a point to remind TCC counsel they were short on time? That was was a a double double, “Say what?! Say what?!”