Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ThenNow

  1. One fella filed 13, as it was told to me. That defines thorough, manic or faulty short-term memory. Or, intentionally on purpose to maximize potential return, like buying a bunch of raffle tickets, maybe?
  2. Agreed. It’s actually contradictory to the science and the POC which asks about trouble with the law as a (potential) direct consequence of the abuse. That’s why it was a question in the Official POC.
  3. Again, I didn’t say that and put it in a separate category. My point was they want to go after ALL of it. Invalid...
  4. Right. That’s why I used “invalid.” Glitch confirmed.
  5. Maybe CS would cut and paste from the discovery motion. They don’t make any bones about facially defective claims (lacking critical details), those found to be fraudulently filed (outright lies, critically contradictory assertions...shown by some research they’ve done or will do), filed/signed improperly (however that gets defined). Time-barred being its own category of “invalid” on its face, per the insurers.
  6. Remember, the insurers are not hiding the fact that they include time-barred claims in the “invalid” category. It is right there in black and white. They’ve beaten that drum harder and louder as this has gone forward. What’s that, 59,000 or some such? I try not to remember the number, frankly.
  7. Yes. Solely and exclusively speaking for myself. I apologize if that post suggested otherwise.
  8. Question for my fellow survivor/victim claimants. What say you about this effort? As I’ve said, I hate the prospect of fraudulent claims and unethical attorneys, but have trepidation about letting the camels (Century/Chubb and Hartford) get their nose under the tent. Curious to hear your thoughts and feelings. Both matter to me.
  9. My important questions way back there got buried under the avalanche! PS - I’m glad I turned off email notices for every post. 😬😅😉
  10. Dang it. I had my machine on text to audio while swinging in the hammock. Reminiscing about my Gramps listening to baseball on the old transistor, but this was exciting from the first pitch!
  11. When do you think you will get the additional information? I’m not in any way poking, just very interested to see it, whatever ‘it’ is.
  12. Because of BSA was going to collude with any group of lawyers, they wouldn't have picked Kosnoff D-oh. I misread your post. Apologies.
  13. Agreed, but the statement was that the AIS secret agent accessed the POC somehow.
  14. Why do you say that? From the launch press conference, he was clearly the lead dog. Stewart E. was a bit of a mess in terms of moderating and presentation.
  15. I don’t know if this happened, but I’m seriously enjoying this rabbit hole right now! I had a crap day yesterday, slept poorly, woke up early and went straight into wrangling and vexing over a matter of no eternal consequence.
  16. How did they do that? The claimant failed to mark the POC confidential, as opposed to publicly available? Not sure how the are accessed. Never asked, since I marked mine for confidentiality. Or, the AIS person, as a Permitted Party (via what group), jumped on a pro se claimant not already represented? Dunno.
  17. You can direct message. Click a screen name and select it. I’m nearly a Luddite and unsure of group DMs.
  18. Debtor in Possession. Yup. That pesky word and legal concept of agency.
  19. I'm glad you used the word "conflate" as opposed to anything accusatory. I'm not sure if you looked at his profile, but I highly doubt there is any malicious intent or volitional deception. My take.
  20. I don't care what is there to be revealed, only that it become known and widely distributed.
  21. That is less egregious and doesn't implicate BSA, but nonetheless very wrong on multiple levels.
  22. I'd say, affidavit(s) from those who experienced this firsthand. And, pronto. Sounds like they are there for the asking and a trip to the Notary.
  • Create New...