ThenNow

BSA or claimant side persons?

Consider it worsened. That happened already.

She only deferred to a future motion and hearing, having preserved any objections. If the plan is finally blessed, that money will land in the Settlement Trust.

Question for our faithful and vigilant fee checker: What be the current damages from professional fees billed to the Estate? As always, I am grateful. /s/ Iman Arithmaticfailure

So I’m sure I understand your ponderings, by “under the carpet” and “deflected” you’re referring to the concealment theme that started our conversation? Thanks.

My SM abuser was in the Army National Guard. He borrowed vehicle for our campouts. He took me there many times...

"Opt out CO" is not a different "CO type." It's a term of status/treatment under the plan and it drives whether key provisions apply or not.

"Hello. Um, yeah. This is ___________ your non-CSA expert non-tort and non-bankruptcy lawyer who hired an aggregator and call center to fetch me some BSA claimants. Uh huh. Yes. I know you haven't heard from me since the case was filed, but I was busy with 25 slip and falls, a ton of evictions, 6 domestic disputes and a couple hundred DUIs. So, about that claim of yours. It's taken a really really really long time and I know it's been very rough. In light of the judge's ruling on Friday and some complicated matters she's addressed, my partner and I have spent two minutes thinking about your case and come to an important recommendation. As of this moment, we are strongly recommending you opt for the $3500 expedited payment. Yes. I know what the call center intake person told you. Uh huh. Uh huh. Yup. Yup. Yup. Anyway, about that wonderfully attractive and utterly sensible $3500 speedy pay option..."

Perhaps, but this is a matter of her knowing foxes aren’t good guards for henhouses. (I guess ferrets are fine.) Judge Houser is going to be vetting claims and sniffing out fraud, with the hammer of penalties and prosecution. JLSS wants no self interested parties - or those with something to hide - to obstruct the process from tip to tail. The STAC has plenty of advisory and oversight influence in other matters, just not here. JLSS is seeing to that. Very wise stroke of an angry pen.

I have nothing to say that is worthy of much attention, other than I am SOOO VERY grateful for Eagle1993 and his excellent reverse engineering of this opinion, and other such. I, for one, am indebted to you. Well done, sir. Jolly good show. Jolly good, indeed. Seriously bro. I really mean it for realz. Hip, hip and pip pip. I shall return to vexing over the next round of dredging up the past to reiterate the dastardliness one more time. And the band played on...

I need to go back, so don't hold me to this. A few happy notables on the approval side: "Many survivors have been waiting for thirty, forty or even fifty years to tell their stories and receive a meaningful recovery. This plan makes that happen." (Page 158) "While I understand objectors' strongly held view that they are better off individually if left to their own litigation, this is a mass tort case. There are 82,209 claimants whose views need to be considered, and ... I consider 85% to be overwhelming acceptance." (Page 164) "This is an extraordinary case crying out for extraordinary solutions.... The combination of monetary and non-monetary aspects of the plan are fair to the holders of abuse claims." (Page 168)

I concur. It is a very circuitous route for having spent such and enormous amount of time getting to a destination which location is in no way crystal clear. Mud comes to mind. Enjoy. As I go back with a flashlight and tweezer, I will pine for Eagle1993's anticipated outstanding Cliff Notes. Reader's digest version would be totally sufficient, in the alternative. Buckle up people. It's gonna be a bumpy ride, me thinks.

Might to go here. [hint, hint] https://www.scouter.com/topic/33132-why-hasnt-the-plan-been-approved-yet/?do=findComment&comment=543597

Hot off the press. Have only opened to the title page. You heard it here first. Somebody might want to open the Mother thread. Pushing 300 pages Wee... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9ba8739e-283b-4ce4-b328-5a1eda289f30_10136.pdf 1568973928_BSA-Decision.7_29.22.pdf

I've been watching from my aisle seat and have eaten about all the popcorn and Sno-Caps my belly can handle for a while, so I suppose I'll chime in. Let's loop back to concealment with this sub-thread as a segue. As I've come to understand more about the Scouting world that is not seen by much of the outside world, I've discovered many things. Some are related to people - volunteers and professionals - who are truly heartbroken about the abuse many of us suffered. I'm sorry if some don't buy that, but I'm not selling. Just stating a fact. Others go to how Scouting works and sorely doesn't. Many of those lessons have been learned here and offline with Scouters I've gotten to know. And still more are studying how the gears really work, who is at the tiller, who provides the dough, and who is tapping the till. Here is one observation on the gears. I had no specific knowledge of the number of political and 'public servant' leaders who are sprinkled all across the upper echelons of Scouting's volunteer leadership matrix. I was quite astonished, though previously was away of some of the notables over time. I came to discover this is at the LC and National levels. Some of these government officials knew about and participated in things I would call downright morally and legally wrong. I am not alone in that assessment. A former high level National Scouter feels even more strongly about that than I do, if it's possible and I believe it is because I've witnessed it. Can city, county, state and federal official's complicity and/or active involvement in such behavior be imputed on the entities they populate? Dunno. Is it clear to me that officials at all levels were and are involved in the inner sanctum of Scouting? 110%. Did some know what was afoot with the historical child sexual abuse in Scouting? Honestly, I have a hard time thinking some did not, especially given what I know firsthand about the other things I mentioned. Does that participation go to active concealment by our tiers of government as a result? Again, dunno. I do know I could make a very good argument that it is so. I just need more research to build the case. Okay. Maybe I can pound some Sugar Babies or Junior Mints now. I've burned off a few calories getting that down on visual paper. Carry on.

The punchline being, what is behind door #3 where Carol Merrill is standing? I don't know if I want to open it.

How did we get here from "Why hasn't the plan been approved yet?" 🤔

Interesting, for sure. Makes me feel pretty weak and wimpy. I sit all the gosh darn time. I’m ordering a standup desk right now!

As I've said before on posts regarding this score, I "uh huh" your "uh oh."

I have a question is perhaps best plopped here. In light of the many, many comments from Scouters about how in the dark their LCs have been to the details of the bankruptcy, do many have a plan for the prospect of a plan plotz? I noted on another thread the post about one LC that has thought through it and has such a course of action. If I were in any local leadership role, and assuming I am informed about the machinations of the case, I sure definitely would have been noodling on that since word of the dreaded Toggle Plan. I get notices from two Councils and speak with a friend who is a longtime Scouter and now SM of a huge Unit. Mention of such a state of being prepared is absent. Crickets. My friend and I reconnected about two months ago. Until then, he was apprised his LC had their contribution in hand, was effectively released and ready to go on their merry way with the fall of the gavel. We were texting with the last hour, I mentioned the near 100 days silence and my speculation about the impact of the delayed ruling in Purdue. He was shocked that the third-party releases might be in jeopardy. He knew nothing about a BSA only plan or what that would mean to his Council. Nada. Nothing. No notion. Nein nootropics nowhere, nohow.

For me, the above components go directly to the YP priority. That is my #1 concern. If BSA breaks up, who will ensure the enhancement of YP or even the enforcement of it? That scares the bejeebers out of me. I think it would be a disaster, not to mention your other well-articulated organizational benefits of a national organization. I am no fan of centralization as a governmental construct, but this is not a good context for "federalism" (which I love and too often miss these days). Yes and amen. Time to pass the collection plate. That's just a phrase and no reference to raising funds or popcorn sales.

At first, everything about this case surprised me. Today, nothing does. That is not a happy shift in perspective. Meh.

This has been an incredibly tedious and painful learning experience, but I think I have gained some knowledge and insight. Someone needs to do a full analysis of the files at some point, for multiple reasons, but as I began reading and researching I knew I needed to 'look closer to home'. I knew from the little reading I did that the macro-level fraudulent concealment cases were not finding success. "So," I says to my self, "Self, how many CSA IVF were logged in your little area? Were any of the same leaders involved, locally and/or regionally?" That's when I started doing the geographic search to id the cases and players around my hometown, Troop and LC. Under the law as it's been interpreted so far, the 9 IVF I found, including the one with my SE as the point professional, are more powerful evidence of specific fraudulent concealment than the 19,829 POCs on file for 1972-1979, the 1315 for my state (overall) or the 139 for my LC. In the 9 I mentioned, police and press involvement is well over half. The case most relevant to mine was not in the press, but police were involved. My strong objection is the information died in small towns or board rooms and was not carried to parents, Troops, Scouters and Scouts. For the cases that were publicized, the information was already public, for goodness sake. I know Scouters who are incredulous they were never made aware of what was going on around them as far as the number of CSA IVs and the incidents of CSA. They didn't even know how many boating accidents there were, even though they repeatedly requested injury incident reports, etc.

I am not a moderator, but I do understand something about facilitating dialogue and fostering an iterative process. That's what humans do, unless we're on the clock of a debate and are given a very rigid format. We wander, since we think and ruminate at different speeds and in different directions. We express ourselves differently and more often than not less than well. We are making progress. Feelings can seem to overwhelm the discussion, but I believe it is very much still on track and having benefit for all involved. (I may be too optimistic.) The subject matter is highly charged and there have to be broad lanes to allow for 90% passion to tease out 10% substance. 1. Concealment. Did BSA conceal the fact of a significant pattern of historical child sexual abuse in BSA? This was the word used when the conversation started on the Mother Thread. (I didn't use the term, others did.) I think the consensus answer is yes, since the definition doesn't necessarily rise to a level of legal culpability in the minds of most. In my view, that relative agreement was a big win. We made progress. 2. Higher Standard. Did BSA set itself up to be held to a higher moral standard for its leaders and, by logical extension, the institutional behavior of its leaders generally and universally? At this stage, there is not consensus. I think the ayes are the ascendant side of the debate. This seems very clear to me. I'm waiting for promised evidence that other YSOs who came anywhere close to mirroring how BSA elevated SM and other Scouters. Seeing none...? 3. Fraudulent Concealment. Because this is a multipart legal question requiring lots of factual analysis, we have just touched on it. Ellits rightly made the distinction between concealment and the fraudulent kind, but I've been waiting to bring it back to that point., since many had things to say about the higher standard, which necessarily becomes passionate, especially for survivors, since we feel strongly someone could've, should've acted to protect us. The first prong, "special relationship" between Scouts, Scouter and professionals has pretty much been established throughout he various elements of the conversation. These are the elements of fraudulent concealment. As I've said, it's a fact-specific test. No BSA case I know of has succeeded in demonstrative fraudulent concealment based only on the existence of the IVF and processes surrounding them. To establish a prima facie case of fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff [here claimant] must offer proof that satisfies five elements: 1. the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; 2. the defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff (special relationship); 3. the defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff; that is, the defendant concealed or suppressed the fact for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act differently than s/he would have if she had known the fact; 4. the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; 5. and, as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damages.

Amen, brother. You’re a hero. I’ll let John’s list of life events speak for both of us. No need to pile on.