ThenNow

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's not a lie.  It's a reflection of the times.  

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.”

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If anyone wants to give notes from the TCC Townhall (or we can wait for video tomorrow)?

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 cents on the dollar - Tier One Claim base value is $600,000. Under this Plan, you may get $60,000;

7. Jim Stang, et al, are NOT anyone’s attorney other than the TCC as an entity;

8. TCC is fighting for you and “No more Mr. Nice guy(s)!”;

9. Stay strong and stay tuned; and 

10. See #1, above.

That’s what I’m putting under my pillow tonight

Oh, yeah.

11. The Disclosure Statement is coming to a mailbox (or attorney’s mailbox) near you. Don’t look for it before Oct 15, though. They’re busy printing 82,500,000 pages (1000 per unabridged edition). 

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

5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If TCC was serious, it would plug in and propose specific legislation for all youth organization.  

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.

14 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

What real changes to YPT?

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...

16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

@TheRealDK on behalf of the moderators, welcome to scouter.com

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. 

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

the TCC needs to not wait for the exclusivity deadline to file something

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.)

10 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Like I said, I have a hunch the TCC isn't going to sit back for that. 

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...

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't disagree.  From what I heard, I would estimate 75%+ of the words spoken by coalition lawyers were about themselves and not claimants.  Personally, I would have either gone with no lawyer or hired a lawyer outside the coalition by now.

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...

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'll try to not guess nefarious motivations. Here is where I think the two sides are...

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. They may have bellied up and said they're all-in when they were getting the fees, but let's see what happens soon; and

3) This is self-promotion, TCC condemnation by implication and fraudulent juxtaposition. Totally misrepresents the facts. Terrible. Run for office and do this. Don't represent child sexual abuse victims and then attack their court appointed "guardians" and advocate, and wrongly I might add.

5 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Coalition statement: (no mention of fees)

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."

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The example sited (this is a real example).  A youth was a member of LDS and was sexually abused.  He joined scouts and was also abused as part of scouting by the same man.  This claimant should have separate claims for the BSA settlement and also be able to pursue claims against LDS separately for the non scouting abuse.  There was agreement on this and so they are working on the language of the releases.  

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 mess just became a massive a roof leak with a sewer backup and a fire emanating from the furnace. No one say that the water intrusion from the roof will put out the fire. Promise?

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No one turned off Zoom. Judge still heard talking.

One attorney said the judge "Neutered the Coalition right at the end there" with the fees issue.

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

10 minutes ago, elitts said:

Usually the debtor organization remains in existence as a zombie more or less while the "new" organization moves on.  My understanding is that it functions much like an estate.

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.  

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

BSA has X amount of assets that it can release and survive.  That should happen and soon.  Let the trust resolve the paychecks.

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 that purported by well-established precedent? 

3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

If someone has access to claims by Tier, it would be interesting to know that number. 

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

12 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It is still difficult for me to truly understand the use of the term "value of the claim(s).  As, it seems an impossible task to actually put value on pain, either physcial or emotional, or psychological (though that would be emotional really).

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. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

All attorneys will certify their actions and there are mentions of professional codes of conduct. In other words, this sets up potential attorney disciplinary proceedings if it turns out lawyers are voting ballots without the specific authorization.

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. 

8 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

That could make $3500 look good.  This is a sad situation.  I feel that the hype in signing up claimants was negligent to an extreme.  The talk of equitable compensation and equal treatment regarding SoL only exacerbated it.  IF these numbers turn out to be close to accurate, I'm sure most of us would not have bothered.

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

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

His "let's remember today is the anniversary of the founding of BSA" comment at one of the hearings was as you recall not well received.

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

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As the US Trustee said: maybe if BSA is that strapped for cash (in that case, too poor to pay $3 million to make sure ALL victims get mailed packets) they need to be in Chapter 7, not Chapter 11.

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.

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

“Oh but we will be out of money by then”

and the “melting ice cube”

etc.

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

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

 Why did he take 15 minutes of the judges time to explain how hard he worked?

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?!”