ThenNow

Thanks for the invite. I’m off to Puerto Rico. Hopefully, I’ll do better than Century’s PI in locating him and the boat at his club. In any case, expect my future posts to have a gentle, Coppertone glow about them. I’ll report from seaside…

Arigato!

I don’t know who to quote on this so I’ll just put it here. The entire funding of claims aggregation and mining and whatever you want to call it, coupled with the need to examine lawyers and claims to see what’s hinky, makes me sad and angry. I’m sure that was not apparent in my recent post. Thought I’d clear that right up. Plucked this from law.com, but I no longer have full access, so here’s the banner splash. Best I can do while I appeal to my friend at Bloomberg to let us in. Forgive this jumbo font. Still waiting for that tech consultant following my appointment to the entire C Suite

Yup. AND, sloppy lawyering that utterly flaunted the judge’s admonition, toothless I might add in retrospect, that she “better not see a hundred signatures by attorneys...I never signed for my client in all my years of practice,” to paraphrase her statement. Looming bar date or not, get your poo-poo together and prepare your signing hand for a two month recovery from clinical writer’s cramp!

I didn’t say this current examination of the potential shell game isn’t allowed, appropriate or potentially productive in the hands of the insurers. I said (meant) the eventual validation of “all the peanuts, rotten or otherwise,” once this camel does its thing and reveals what it does or doesn’t, is not the insurers’ b’ness. Yes, I assumed that actual transition to the Trustee phase, but my point is they cannot be allowed to play The Great and Powerful. The actual is waiting in the wing somewhere, or maybe the green room, drinking bourbon and talking Cosmos club speak with his fellow play-yah

Dunno. My fear has been that the insurers want to use this as the camel’s nose to get under the tent and start turning over every shell to find the rotten peanuts. (Do camel’s like peanuts? I digress.) I don’t want that. It’s now the Trustee’s job. The entire thing, if 13+/- or whatever, launches a stink bomb in the room and sours the process. That’s how I feel as a legitimate victim/claimant. Again, I fear a pallor of illegitimacy will be spread over the case, which is/would be very unfortunate. Is there already one? Some would say, “Yup!” That said, I can’t abide fraud or fast and loose

Right or wrong, misguided or on target I can’t say, but if you’ve not read this, I recommend it. At the least, you’ll understand what is being alleged. I still shake my head when I look through it. Given human nature and the power of gold, I default to there being more than just grains of truth contained therein. Even considering the source of the document and their obvious “Don’t touch my $$$!!!” motives, if it’s true then let the chips ahoy fall where they may. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872620_2022.pdf

In fairness, some of them had several seconds between signature stamping to review and vet. (Please reference, the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading & Memory Training class I took freshman year of high school. I'm sure they're graduates, as well.)

My recollection is that AIS is not under the microscope on that score, rather the Coalition and other firms that generated large numbers rapido y furiouso with few attorneys on their letterhead. I may be wrong. I know some of the AIS guys and they are thoroughly legit and upright law practice citizens. Perhaps there are exceptions within that group, as well. Dunno. I'll let others speak to the ramifications.

He's keeping his Tweety Birds fed, me thinks.

For my part, I would look at the calendar. We're a fair piece from August 12th. They've called town halls on short notice and the clock has not struck 8.12 nor nearly.

Same. Eagerly awaiting the news from our resident ace reporter, analyst and town crier.

The pro se claimants here, including me, certainly would. Danke, in advance.

I'm no sooth sayer, but I could see precisely that scenario coming to pass. As always, who knows? As a claimant, it seems like the dangling carrot would be attractive and a flicker of hope. As a person suffering with CPTSD and other co-morbidities caused by the abuse, chasing that carrot for X years of battle with the insurance companies, compounded by who knows how many of the same while the legislature(s) grapple with victims' advocacy groups might be an emotional death knell. Possibly physical, as well.

Take a ticket and get in line.

Because it's particularly near and dear to my heart, er case, I am wondering how the 3 Shades of Gray councils are processing the demands set before them. When we were all young, spry and hopeful, we speculated about the, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances," responses that could be down the road. Well, here we be in the cul-de-sac. Is it just me or does it kinda feel a bit like the OK Coral? I'm trying to figure out who are the Brothers Earp, the legendary Doctor and the notorious Cowboys. I'm hiding under the front decking of the general store across the way. Wave one of those red b

Yeah, but no. Derogatory does not equal "a false statement purporting to be fact." Opinion doesn't rise to the level of defamatory. As to making their living/money by litigating, the last gnat "they" want to pursue is someone on this forum ranting and raving about how bad they are, in whatever respect. Even if it was a false statement, there has to be injury. I don't think anyone, especially a well-compensated personal injury attorney, is trolling this pond for a potential libel action. It may be well stocked, but not many keepers, me thinks. If they put themselves into the line of fire for cr

Don’t feel compelled, but if you do, you’ll be forced to edit your comment that nothing you’ve read qualifies as ranting.

That is a knife twister of a thought. Ack! And, double Ack!

Legitimate "grousing" confirmed. Author's Note: The use of a term that also refers to a bird that flies loudly into your face when you flush it and subsequently make a feeble effort to get a bead on it is intended to be taken in the best possible way. It does not imply whining, rather intelligent objections based on analysis and personal experience.

Has anyone done a thorough review of the LCs (or BSA overall) on the various NGO/NPO watchdog sites to see how they rate? I just did a very quick look on Charity Navigator, picking LCs by random. There is a common denominator: lower ratings on "Accountability and Transparency." Each one was marked down for a lack of available Donor Privacy Policy, Audited Financials and Form 990s. I don't know about any of this, since I didn't bother to dig further. The same could be done on Charity Watch, Guide Star and BBB Wise Giving Alliance. All that aside, I've heard many here grouse about the very issue

Thank you so much for posting this. Truly. Excellent interview. She has my vote to be the overseer of the new YPT!!!!!!!!

This is why I posted the excerpt from Scout’s Honor when we were discussing fraudulent concealment and AG investigations. I think the case against BSA is much stronger than diocese by diocese. Much. It appears so to me, anyway. Who were the National decision-makers during that Menninger Committee period and before? They clearly decided to withhold the data even from their own safety studies, much less the Scouting community and public. That is some gag-worthy smelly cheese in my book. If it happened then, into the 80’s, what went down prior?

C’mon now guys. Don’t make fun of me. Mama needs a new pair of shoes (and a yacht and an island and a fleet of cars, servants, penthouses in all cosmopolitan centers and…a new printer and technology consultant for her hubby).

Yup. That is what I've been told, as well. But, that is not to be taken as an agreement that the numbers given by the Ad Hoc Committee or BSA accurately reflect what the TCC discovered through the work of BRG. That's the basis for my "Where's the beef?" beef.