ThenNow

13 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

That makes perfect sense.  A lawyer "not being prepared to speak" who reads from a script...Hmmmmm...

Who does he think he is fooling?

As I said up yonder, this was simultaneously an application for Knighthood, the acceptance speech and an assault on the ramparts of Fort TCC. If that was extemp, I’m Bugs Bunny. (No smart comments, any of you. I did mention that I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, so I may have it coming.)

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

Judge allows the $3500 box to stay on the ballot so the court will know who voted.  HUGE win for the TCC!

Judge: "I think it HAS to stay on the ballot."

21 minutes ago, David CO said:

You missed the bag?  

Yes, as well as the indication of recess. I swung and kicked at the same time and landed on my tuchus. 

How long is the recess? I had to go assault and batter my heavy bag and missed  it.

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I think Mr. KR is making his application for Knighthood, Sainthood, the Congressional Gold Medal and Presidential Medal of Freedom. Good grief. “Ditch the TCC. We got this...”

He gets none of them. Jim Stang’s application over road it with flourish, flare and fury. 

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Rothweiler  just outright trashed Stang and the TC

Yup. Wow, indeed. The recitation of his CV was the setup for his attack from the High Wall while riding the White Horse with the Sword of Justice extended. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Coalition is claiming its "survivors committee" should be listened to. The presumption is not the TCC.

I think Mr. KR is making his application for Knighthood, Sainthood, the Congressional Gold Medal and Presidential Medal of Freedom. Good grief. “Ditch the TCC. We got this...”

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The fact that the coalition is ok with giving a $3.5K to $2.7M range shows they don't care about their claimants.  They remind me of the lawyers that sue credit card companies, Facebook, etc. and get their claimants $5 and rake in $100Ms of fees.

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Gathering a bunch of men who were raped as kids so you can collect $100Ms+ and give them $3,500 - $10K is horrible.  It is sickening.  The fact that BSA lawyers are colluding with them vs working with the TCC makes me question the honor in the BSA.

How do I up vote this 100x?

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

combining

Oops. ‘Combing’. Trawling. Dredging...

10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

here's the bait and switch from the Coalition and FCR below.  Note thatthey use the "CLAIM VALUE" of the plan to show a figure to 2.7 million.  This is an arbitrary plan number that is the best estimate of attorneys for valuation.  They "will be valued" but that does NOT, I repeat NOT, mean that any survivor can expect to see that amount. 

Amen, brother. It’s right on par with Coalition client recruitment and I think it’s reprehensible. It’s not factual. The ‘sin of omission’ is clearly meant to manipulate thinking/voting toward their conclusion. Manipulating is not informing. There is stating an opinion based on analysis and there is stating half truths to lure one into the ‘trap’. I caught a bunch of rabbits in my handmade traps. “Fresh garden vegetables! Come and get it! See? It’s just a wee box and you can obviously get out because you can clearly get in. Oops. The box closes when you snatch the snack? Oh, that’s right. Guess I failed to mention that...” 

In my combining for news, I found this a good piece. It focuses on religious organization COs.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/september/boy-scouts-church-lawsuit-abuse-bankrupcy-liability.html

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

FCR/Coalition proposed letter for the solicitation package

I’m sorry, but this is tipping the toe and splashing around in the mystical pool of fabrication, fantasy and manipulation. Seriously? On second thought, they may already be up to their belly button in this magical elixir, ready to wade yet deeper as shortened time and expedience necessitate. Did Reciprocity write this? Inquiring minds...

15 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I don't know if the money is there, but a bump to $10k would likely settle a whole bunch of claims.

Someone please file such an idea so I can watch Tanc Schiavoni fly around the room like a whirling dervish. I’d pay to see that. (Pretty much a zero percent chance we will get to see either that sort of exit ramp cash or therefore, sadly, the dervish.)

19 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

#3 certainly crossed my mind.  But #4....an attorney settling for his/her portion of $3500???  Maybe at $10k there would be a lot more action.  Idk.  We shall see.

I’m mostly referring to the Mass Tort Claimant Cottage Industry, as my friend calls it. Comb the papers for the latest action and file away. “Penalties for fraud? Jail time and fines? Pah. They won’t enforce that.” I’m not saying it is the case, but there are 5000 pro se claimants, a couple of us included who are NOT such humans. Also, if you have a decent pool of claimant clients, do the math. $3500 adds up quickly especially if you didn’t do a lot of legwork on the front end. I am NOT saying this is rampant, but cipher it out. $3500 x 1000? 2000? At 40%+...?

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Most people haven’t.

Nor done their homework.

• Archdiocese of Portland, 32 months
• Diocese of Tucson, 4 months
• Diocese of Spokane, 28 months
• Diocese of Davenport, 19 months
• Diocese of San Diego, 9 months
• Diocese of Fairbanks, 23 months
• Oregon Province, Society of Jesus, 29 months
• Diocese of Wilmington, 21 months
• Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 58 months
• Christian Brothers of Ireland, 33 months
• Diocese of Gallup, 31 months
• Diocese of Stockton, 36 months
• Diocese of Helena, 14 months
• Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 44 months
• Diocese of Duluth, 41 months
• Diocese of New Ulm, 27 months
• Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, 17 months
• Crosier Fathers and Brothers, 14 months

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can think of two reasons:

1) “I want closure”. The prospect of months if not years before the settlement trustee reaches decisions in many of these cases may not be palatable.

2) “I want privacy/I was told this would be anonymous”: there are a lot of victims who were told or expected that all they had to do was file a claim “anonymously” one time last year and never have to do anything else. If they want more than $3500 then at the very least there will be a second round questionnaire that will be used by the trustee along with likely interviews. Victims may not want to subject themselves to that.

3) My claim is not actually valid or verifiable and I’m going to avoid that exposure and/or hassle; 

4) I do this for a living, filing in any and all cases in which I may or may not have a connection or grievance and see what happens. Cha-Ching. $3500 is a dandy pair of ostrich Ferragamos and matching belt.

35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If you and LDS survivor, you get (on average) $19757 + $100,000 ($250 million / 2500 LDS claimants) for a total of around $120,000 on average.

Oh, joy. Oh, rapture. Wrong state. Wrong church. Wrong turn at Albuquerque and “definitely not wearing my underwear.” (Nod to Raymond, aka, Rainman.)

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think "claim" here is "how much LC assets there really are".

I assumed that, but he used the plural. What else you got, Sir Volunteer? If the asset assumptions are incorrect, bring on the comparative analyses and let’s get ready to rummmble. 

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

As we evaluate all the various twists and turns, let us remember that what the TCC claims may not be correct.   

In what respect and as to which “claims”?

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No, but I can also see fighting the language maybe?

Agreed. This ain’t going in without a fight. Still like to understand precedent and implications if denied.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's why I note they include "come to the TCC town halls" language.

Ja. Du hast einen guten punkt. (A good point.) Anyone know the attendance at the meetings? I’d like to see if there’re an uptick. 

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If they get this letter in, the plan's toast. The BSA and the Coalition are going to fight tooth and claw not to let it in, of course.

Thanks for this.

As has been said, they/we must be given this opportunity. I can’t see how the judge excludes an official statement from the Official Tort Claimants Committee representing all victim claimants. It’s also signed by our representatives, not merely their counsel. I don’t know the legal implications, but from a precedent standpoint, has a TCC ever been denied this right in a mass tort bankruptcy? That said, as one of our posters stated several times, he sends a client mailing stating in giant letters, “THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL.” The response? A perennial deluge of calls to see if it is a tax bill. Including the TCC statement and having it read may be two different fishes. I hope both occur and it’s in very simple English. It’s pretty darn good, now but maybe some tweaks. I know. I’m in the peanut gallery. I’ve found that creating added white space helps people transition between thoughts, especially when bullets are used. My point being it needs to be absolutely as accessible as possible. I’m proud of our TCC!!

1 minute ago, elitts said:

And with that we are going to need to let the discussion of contingency fees die folks. 

Please don’t delete my last post. I was submitting nearly simultaneously.

Just now, johnsch322 said:

I also see a need for legal representation when it gets to the point of being in front of the trustee. The lawyers who just sat back and did nothing and if they continue to do nothing will find that their clients will get next to nothing. And they will get their cut of next to nothing. I think this is why the TCC is pushing for claimants to have representation. Of course if I was a lawyer I might feel I could represent myself. 

I don’t entirely think so, beloved brother. Those with well-stated open state claims could sail and skate with little involvement. Cases in point, some of our fellow don’t even know who represents them. That’s ghastly and telling. I don’t see that magically changing. Open to be wrong. I’ll just add another hash mark to my poop sheet.

11 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I agree with you entirely.  The model (reasoning and justification) for contingency fees does not fit National's bankruptcy.  It seems to me that an attorney could file 500 claims and then do nothing-just let the big players duke it out and wait for a paycheck at the end.

To quote The Fonze, “Exactamundo.” Precisely my point and on the nose for this case. 😠  Bankruptcy is not the forum for mass torts, as the mantra goes.

15 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

First I don’t think you totally understand contingency cases. If there is no award the lawyer gets nothing. Also there are quite a few lawyers with 10 to 20 clients. If 20 clients received 10k each should the lawyer worked for 500 to 1k? Also all claimants signed on their own volition a contract which specifies what portion of any award that they may get in writing or they could have represented themselves. So they had options. 

We had this conversation at some length back when I was less gray-headed and had more stomach lining. I’ll briefly reiterate some of what I said then.

My response and opinion to the contingent fee debated divides between the mass aggregators and the long-term (faithful and committed) child sexual abuse attorneys, including Tim Kosnoff. As complex as this case has become, if you have tens of thousand of clients simultaneously, the workload and per client out of pocket is relatively insignificant. Add to that the attorneys have attorneys and I find it even more troubling and egregious. That ethical muddle stands in stark contrast to bringing a single person personal injury case through trial, even one with great complexity. Add that to third party, front-loaded investment and I now have a big problem with 40%+ percent. As MYCVA has articulated, we now have non-attorney third parties in the mediation room, owning leverage beholden only to their interests, which are purely and exclusively financial. Several judges making commentators on mass tort funding believe this is a very, very serious problem. I agree. They’re the ones who came up with the third party/non-party language. Anyway, there are contingent fee cases as described, including class actions, then there is this mess. I have a different opinion about each, as described.

13 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

In contingency cases, the lawyer evaluates a contingency case based on the amount of time the lawyer anticipates will be expended, AND the costs that the lawyer will advance to handle the case.  ("Advancing costs" means that the lawyer is paying for the costs of court filing fees, service of summons fees, deposition fees, copying costs, experts witness fees, travel expenses of expert witnesses, office staff payroll, office rent, on-line legal research fees, and everything else related to handing the case and moving it forward.

In my community, the typical costs advanced by an attorney handling a medical malpractice claim is $150,000.

And though the fee agreement between the attorney and the client provides that the client is responsible for all those fees, clients never (a strong word in the law-so perhaps a few have) reimburse the attorney for this fees and expenses.

It is a big decision for an attorney to accept representation of a medical malpractice case.  Not quite as risky taking on a personal injury case (auto accident).  But the costs there can still hit $25,000.

Normally, contingent fee cases are taken at 33.33% contingent fee, and if an appeal is filed, the fee goes to 40%.  It appears that the abuse claims started at 40% for fees-that is high.  If that includes handling all appeals (and I expect there will be many), then maybe it is on par with the typical contingent fees charged.

Ditto.

However, these cases/mass netting of clients did not involve a “big decision” for some (all?) in the pool of aggregators. I’ve noted that a number were approached with greenbacks extended even though they had zero experience in this arena and would get decimated standing on their own wobbly experiential legs. Zero experience. Zero to lose. Lots to gain. As an attorney, child sexual abuse victim claimant and citizen, this creates a distinction (for me). I don’t think we should ignore it in the name of defending ‘legitimate’ contingent fee engagements. I join you in defending the one, but I can’t pull that cloak of decency over the others. Sorry if that is judgmental or perceived as wrong.