ThenNow

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

every comma

Fair warning. I have been granted special dispensation by the court to be a participating party in this process. I am limited to the Comma Committee. Trust me, it will take weeks. I plan to leave no comma misplaced, no comma conspicuous by its absence and no comma that I don’t want just because I don’t like the point being made. 

JUST KIDDING. I AM NOT ON ANYTHING, other than this stupid, hard, dinky Windsor chair my wife substituted while I’m suffering the two-year wait time on new breakfast table chairs. 

Back to the case that kicked off this thread, I believe Auburn, AL is in the Chattahoochee Council, yes? If so, the list of claims shows 150 implicating it independently and 3 “shared” with Greater Alabama Council. I was thinking it may be a small number than that and very easy to work through and see the more recent claims, identify anyone notable, as here. I would like to know if LCs are reviewing all of their claims as a matter of course. Anyone know? 

PS - This is a Scouter site, yes? I need to report that I am baffled and troubled by the fact that topics are segregated by being designated “threads.” Shouldn’t you/we be calling them “binder twines”? There. Got that off my chest. Carry on...

5 hours ago, DuctTape said:

to those survivors whom, through this entire process, are continually being triggered, re-traumatized etc... as reports, information etc... are reported.

From my view, given no attorney updates (other than when I talk to myself which is frequently), the TCC has done a great job of tying to keep us advised. Sometimes, it can only be after the fact when things emerge from the mediation cones of silence or happen in court. That’s a huge challenge for many of us; being behind the information curve. What I’ve heard here is a number of firms, AIS and others, haven’t been so hot communicating with clients, especially in response to personal inquiries. That is awful. No attorney should get 40-50% if they’re not doing their job. 

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

If you have a lawyer, did he/she spell this out?  I'm always wondering how in-depth some attorneys discussed the process versus churning POCs.

Me, too. Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been nice for there to have been a more obvious, clear and robust explanation of the process within the POC. Unfortunately, guys who never really saw the document and/or processed through a call center would never have seen it or be told about it anyway. I hate that.

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I believe that they need to act on this information. Who knows how many kids are currently being abused by some of these men.

Ok. Obviously not done for the night.

Don’t disagree and hopefully you didn’t think I was saying otherwise. I’m trying to point out the very hybrid, unique situation this is. We’re not talking about a direct allegation to a “reporter” or observed suspicious behavior. These are, most likely, detailed retellings of a man’s abuse for the specific purpose of receiving compensation, with some expectation of great discretion, confidentiality (admittedly qualified) and the promise of notice pre-disclosure. The difference couldn’t be too much greater. 

6 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

That @ThenNow, an attorney?, whose wife is educated in insurance matters, is confused, is proof enough that this issue needs to be clarified so we can move past conjecture and supposition.

Actually, I reported my head was throbbing and I was fighting off slumber. Furthermore, my wife has no interest in talking about BSA insurance matters after cursory briefings and hearing recaps. Knowing Chubb is a/the major player, she tells me, “Well, good luck,” and rolls her eyes. 

Last note for the night, I think. What is difficult for non-victims to viscerally and deeply understand is this. Finding out about even the prospect of our Proof of Claim being used by others, without any due notice, is a massive trigger. When I read the article, it lit a short fuse. That fuse led to the implosion that occurs when I am confronted, yet again, with the falling, falling, falling into panic and despair that besets me when control is taken from me without my permission. Out of control of my body, my already fragile identity, my information and my fate. Everyone feels insecure when not in control. We feel the earth tremble, the ground open up beneath us and the seemingly inevitable slide toward dark places. 

56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not every state makes it a LAW that everyone involved in scouting/childrens programs is a mandatory reporter.

manda.pdf

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I would think this is a good thing, especially for victims.

Victims, generally, yes. As to the individual who put their blood and guts on the line to create the jumping off point for law enforcement? Maybe not so much if there is no notice, warning and, “Hey, you might want to be aware...” I know you can’t understand, and that’s got to be that (for me).

38 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

"Information in this Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim may be required to be disclosed to governmental authorities under mandatory reporting laws in many jurisdictions. "

Yes. Ok. I see it and I now recall. It’s at the very end of an 8-line paragraph, comprising the totality of “PART I: Confidentiality.”

Since I previously reported all this crap to law enforcement in 2003 and BSA in 2008, it wasn’t an issue for me. HOWEVER, we were told there would be due Notice of Designation of Additional Permitted Parties in the event any other previously unnamed party requested and was being granted access to our Proofs of Claim. If they’re forwarding to law enforcement, that should trigger the notice requirement. I know, I know. They are using an exception for expediency/existent circumstances or some such. Perhaps the victims received such notice? In ANY case, we deserve to be advised if this is happening with our POC. Right?

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Btw, this conversation has been banished to the basement. I know, right? I guess I’ll see you there. Forgot what it’s called.

Because I’m a forum ‘how to’ dork, this is da link (I think):

1 minute ago, Eagle1970 said:

Wait a minute.... Are our proofs being shared with law enforcement?  I'm about done with this charade.  Guaranteed confidentiality and offered equitable compensation.  Now there is neither???

I’m trying to figure out exactly what the H. E. Double Hockey Sticks is going on. (Btw, this conversation has been banished to the basement. I know, right? I guess I’ll see you there. Forgot what it’s called..)

I hereby lodge my official request for a new thread to talk about BSA and CO insurance or lack thereof. My head is throbbing trying to keep up. My wife’s undergraduate degree is from the top Risk Management & Insurance college in the nation. She always told me her texts were a great cure for insomnia. 😬 Not so here, but it is getting a bit hyper-focused and specialized. My view. Maybe I don’t mind table tennis that much after all?

15 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

So, regarding National insurance policies under which the CO's were allegedly insureds, would that coverage also extend to adult leaders in the unit chartered by that CO?

I’ve also spent way too much time pondering the implications of all this hooey on E&O and D&O at all related levels. If this has been discussed, I’d love to be pushed toward the relevant discussion, regardless the necessity to play table tennis or other such. 

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Got an email from someone on my council. List of ALL council contributions will be released/come out from under the NDA this afternoon. That doesn't mean all councils will release everyone (e.g. my council will release our number, but no one else's) but they will be able to release their own.

My bet is the big reveal is going to cause irritation not unlike mine. Have all LCs been aware of the contributions by all others? Will the non-mediation firms will be seeing these for the first time? As far as I know, the members of the TCC are the only victim claimants who’ve been privy. Fair assumptions? 

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

47 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

the number of scouts having collapsed.

Was there a mysterious outbreak of fainting spells, hiking exhaustion and/or too much tent-contained flatulence that lead to this crisis?

33 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Changing membership policies, sponsor orgs pulling out, rising fees, bad press due to sexual abuse, general decline in civic involvement, then COVID. 

That was today’s (apparently bombed) comedic moment. One of them, anyway. I offer no equitable compensation in the event that commitment is breached. 

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

they just can NOT be sustained with the number of scouts having collapsed.

Was there a mysterious outbreak of fainting spells, hiking exhaustion and/or too much tent-contained flatulence that lead to this crisis?

Forgive duplication if previously posted. I’m busy playing table tennis, bumper cars and pinball. [smirk] 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-scouts-get-conditional-approval-850m-bankruptcy-deal-n1277250

5 minutes ago, RandomScouter said:

To the Moderators: I posted here rather than Bankruptcy Losses because it does not list the specific camp to be sold and because LC contribution needs to go somewhere... If you feel that contribution amounts belong elsewhere, okay.

Please resist any temptation to do so. Some of us don’t excel at forum thread table tennis, bumper cars or pinball. 

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What if anything is to stop the TCC from posting the Berkeley Research Group Dashboards?

This I do not know. I am a lowly peon on the BSA Chapter 11 totem pole. (Can we use that phrase or has it been stamped “CANCELED”?)  

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Thus Grand Canyon was looking at anywhere from $195 million to $874 million in liability. Again, insurance would cover some of this presumably. It is able to obtain the buy-out at $7 million.

Meh to infinity and beyond.

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

As a claimant, I would want my lawyers to watch for that.  How was that $600M calculated?  

To be fair ... National is feeling the pain.  I think we all see that.

Yes I do.

As great as it would be to know the general calculus to get to the number(s), my irritation and response were built on the Bay-Lakes Council example. I was washing away all else, looking only at the live claims and the Under the Gray Cloud claims compared to their asset base. And, as I keep harping, why can’t we see the competing Berkeley Research Group Dashboards? “Non-disclosure/NDA,” “redacted,” “under seal” and “mediation privilege” may end up banished from my vocabulary after this. They have 155 claims, 5 that could easily chew up their long-term investments if they were the sole source of recovery, which I know is a fiction, and a pile of assets. It feels diminishing, in the specific, not in general or as to the overall calculation methodology. If they do not have the benefit of the channeling injunction, what impact will the claims have on their financial condition? They ain’t looking at coming up with $3M, me thinks. I’m not asking for pain, I’m saying this looks like a mini Hartford deal: exposure incommensurate with the ticket to home base. Meh. I don’t like it.

22 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Many of these investments could be roughly tied to the S&P 500.  When BSA went into bankruptcy, the S&P 500 was around $3,200.  Today it is $4,680 ... a growth of 46%.  That likely helped most councils & national BSA absorb the cost & settlement more easily.

I know you’re doing calculations and speculating, but do you have any idea how this feels on “our side” of the table, as you wonder about it? “The market is doing great so it will be ‘easier’ for National and LCs to ‘absorb’ the cost of settlement...Huh. That didn’t hurt as much as I thought. Off we go...” I’m not seeing a market bump in my award making the pain of these 50 years easier to absorb. Sorry, but that’s how it feels. 

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Allowing multiple parallel conversations in a single thread gets very confusing. 

My “Art of War” tactics have been discovered. On to chaos, I suppose...

By the by, limiting the topic/titling the thread around the RSA Ruling is a very tight leash unlike all the previous iterations. I still like, Episode V: When & How Much? but I have a built-in bias. 

5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Moved recent posts regarding proof of claims turned over to police to existing topic

I understand that decision, but for us as claimants, this issue of confidentiality, disclosure and access to our Proofs of Claims is directly related to and driven by the bankruptcy. This particular instance of reporting to law enforcement was not generated out of whole cloth or a recent, random occurrence, like the Shower Stall Creeper. This investigation is the direct result of a Proof of Claim filed by a victim who was likely unaware the case would be turned over to law enforcement. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but we sort of deserve to be talking about this. It goes to the essence of BSA’s dealing with child sexual abuse (preferential “Oh, crap!” reporting for SilverWeasel?), the bait and switch (for some) as to anonymity/confidentiality and the major issue of what happens after the case to ensure investigations, prosecutions where possible and disclosure to the fullest extent allowable. That’s my reaction to you putting this in the basement with the sump pump, a rickety old card table and a single bulb dangling from the ceiling. (I’m playing with word pictures, not impugning you. You are my Spartacus and I will NEVER forget it!!)

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What I mean is that the fact that this person was not just some relatively unknown scoutmaster but was a long time scout leader in the area and had been awarded the council's highest honor probably made him more well known. Thus if a scout executive saw the name "Scoutmaster Smith" on a proof of claim he might say "who? huh?" whereas this person was active in local scouting for decades.

That’s what I thought you meant. Likely true and that’s a problem in itself, isn’t it? “Oh, crap! Ol’ SilverWeasel is in this Proof of Claim! Better get this out there now.” That’s a bit of a problem if the action taken is in any way driven by an element of notoriety, LC exposure or lack thereof, as opposed to the substance of the claim and the alleged abuse, yes? I know we’re off into the field of whine and supposes, at this point.