ThenNow

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the reason I don't think you see or hear LCs clamoring to claim the TCC's numbers are wrong is because I don't think there's much of a conflict between what the TCC is asking for/saying LC financial status is and what the LCs are about to announce to the court they are giving

I hear otherwise. Maybe time will tell. Or not. "For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed," just maybe not on this side of the dirt nap. 

5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Perhaps this

https://howmuch.news/how-much-will-erie-council-give-in-settlement/

Grazie Signore!

8 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Hamilton's point was also that the best case scenario here would have been a an omnibus settlement that included one number made up of a) BSA payments to victims b) LC payments and c) insurance payments

This, in a very hard, impossible to crack nutshell, is what (I think) most of us unwashed and lowly thought we had signed on to witness. I sure didn’t expect the Bass-O-Matic I find myself stuck in, waiting for the sketch to end with uproarious applause and a break to a word from our sponsors. I hope it’s not the Ginsu knife people. Out of the Bass-O and onto the chopping block with Julia Child...

7 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

More media coverage on LC assets/what will the LC have to pay https://www.goerie.com/story/news/crime/2021/07/11/boy-scout-bankruptcy-how-much-will-erie-council-give-in-settlement/7894716002/

Available on the proletariat side of the paywall?

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, my council is probably atypical because we don't have property to sell (we were forced to sell our camp and office during the Great Recession). But anyone thinking that somehow my council's holding on on victims, we are not.

I am sorry for what your council will be facing, having interfaced with you here. You’ve been supportive of me and victims, generally, at many turns.

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. That's exactly who it is with I saw it myself.

An NDA with National serves to reinforce one side of this discussion. Self imposed failure/unwillingness to disclose. I believe the point is, LCs are not compelled under the court’s watchful eye to maintain confidentiality. They are non-parties. So, I ask again, why are they being withheld from you folks, victims and the public if all is well with the numbers? The fact that BSA is imposing this gag order is worse than if Lcs were under court edict. It simply compounds the perception that there is something (more) to hide that may be damaging to the cause. That does not sit well with me as I’m sure it does not with others. I’m going to ask my reporter friends about it.

EDIT/ADD: I’ve been on a number of non-profit boards and was and Exec Director of one. Granted, none of them faced anything like BSA has on its hands. Still, if there were financial statements floating about challenging our public representation of our financial condition (and our integrity) and we refused to cough them up, it would be bad on multiple levels, including with major donors. BSA donors may be different, all part of a tightly circled wagon train. I don’t know. As an Exec Director, I would have been pleading with the Board to allow them to be released, unless there was something hinky in Moneytown. More of my pocket change for the street poet. 

6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

He has tangentially unpacked the abuse he was subjected to.  It is more than I care to discuss, not feeling at liberty to do so, even concealing identifying details, and don't even care to contemplate, except to help me wrap my own mind around the degree and depths of the damage done.

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

We are going to have to pay a little over $1 million, including our entire endowment. We'll be left with less than 2 years of operating expenses ($500,000; we'll be left with $450,000).

If it’s appropriate, what is your claim exposure? If you already said, my apologies.

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

What BSA produced is also consistent with what Grand Canyon Council filed as its IRS 990 forms. Here is their 2019 filing (there's no 2020 filing yet or at least not online) and the end-of-year 2019 balance sheet is very, very close to BSA's reported balance sheet for that Council as of February 2021.

So, if all is buttoned and zipped, let’s see the BRG Dashboards. Small ask if they are mirror images or mere inches apart. 

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

All data from the 4th amended plan

I assume you’ve referenced the BSA balance sheets. So love to see a side-by-side with BRG’s findings.

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

But here's the thing: to my knowledge NONE of the Catholic Dioceses have ever been criminally prosecuted. And not only did they hide the abuse, they actively moved priests around

Right. I, for one, didn’t say anything about prosecutions. My point is, an exhaustive (or thorough) investigation and a nice five pound report revealing criminal activity is potent in its own right. I have no delusions of mass arrests and public trials in the town square. I will be as content as I am able to learn what happened and let the chips ahoy fall where they may. That’s how the cookie crumbles...

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My guess is the claim is going to be some form of

The Michigan AG might be able to fill us in at some point, as may any other state AGs who board the train. Gonna be inerestin’. 

18 minutes ago, elitts said:

And your viewpoint of "They didn't do what I wanted done, so I think they've failed, but I don't blame them because they were nothing more than well-meaning stooges who never stood a chance anyway" strikes me as fairly condescending and puts me in mind of patting a little girl on her head and telling her "Don't worry, why don't you just go play with your dolls".

For the record, I believe he apologized and gave context for his “fear,” based on personal experience that created deep regret and it sounded like sorrow:

“Fair points brother. It’s premature. 
I speak from personal sad experience where I wasn’t up to it and I let people down that I cared for. It’simportant that a man know his limitations.”

18 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff's made the clear in his Twitter feed already and I suspect will be what is deposition looks/sounds like.

Are they going to lock and key the transcripts in the vault? 

This is a question that sits like a bomb in my little brain so I try not to think about it and light the fuse. Has there been any research or analysis of the IVF, since it's the most accessible record, to determine how many or the ratio of arrests to reports of CSA? In the case I've researched the most which impacts my claim and implicates the SE, the parents were effectively asked to stand down and not press charges. Their one condition was being assured the perpetrator, an ASM and Institutional Rep for the CO, be barred from Scouting. Okay. I'm going to try not to think about it now and stave off the explosion. If you don't hear from me for a while, you'll know what happened. 

8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

ThenNow, I love you like a brother. I’m so tickled by your brand of reality and humor.

Well, thank you. I’m honored. I try. I make myself laugh so at least I know one person is doing so with me and not just joining the gallery laughing at me. 

8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

But here’s the deal. This bankruptcy is not normal. It’s not about bond holders, corporate vendors, banks and the creditors of the commercial world. Yet this is the bankruptcy code template superimposed on the TCC members. No disrespect but how does sexual victimization qualify a person for this job? Earnestness is not a qualification. These poor men have been manipulated to believe they are equivalent to creditor committee members in commercial bankruptcies. This requires a level of competence that cannot be conferred by don of the sword on each shoulder. 

I don’t know about such things. I have no training, history or experience in the arena. From the grass level like a mouse on a battlefield, it looks highly complex and a game for giants. From 35,000 feet, it definitely looks a bit hanky. The behavior of attorneys at hearings is so disingenuous that it creates a sense of grand, absurd theater. I can only comment from the perspective I have and that’s what I did. Being “in the pocket of” implies more than just duped. It’s sounds like active complicity and being paid off. I think that’s inaccurate and inappropriate without proof of same. Dunno. That’s my opinion. I do love a good story of intrigue, skulduggery and back room dealing, so I very much welcome what more you can reveal of the facts.

One of the things that most intrigues me about you, and it’s really only hinted at in your posts, is the background knowledge you seem to have in this area connecting the players. Would you do one of those “A Beautiful Mind” push pin and string walls connecting the dots? Who knows whom and works with these guys and is in cahoots with her and has a vested interest in their business and is an ally of this firm and goes to the Bohemian Club with his son and knew his father and they get kickbacks when this expert is hired and so on. Please?! There’s a map of players and history and connections in your bean that I REALLY REALLY want to see. I’ll pay cash on the barrelhead AND split the gate from my next 10 standup gigs. Don’t go looking at BMWs any time soon. Just sayin’.

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

It is VERY important to note that the US Department of Justice career employees (not political appointees) interviewed over a hundred victims and selected the nine it felt most appropriate.   They did this without consideration of how many clients a specific attorney represented.  They wanted nine that would represent ALL victims and not one firm's clients.  None of the nine were Kosnoff's clients.  The  Coalition was self-formed and filed to be recognized as a mediation party.  I bring this up just so that victims recognize that the TCC was selected and instructed to represent ALL victims regardless of the "business" of their attorneys.  Think what you want about the motivation of the coalition but It is grossly unfair and inaccurate for Kosnoff to suggest that the TCC is in the pocket of anyone other than the people it represents. 

I know I may sound like either an apologist or an evangelist for the TCC - nine guys chosen from among their peers via a thorough application and interview process - but I know a couple of the key guys. They are legit survivors, businessmen, family men and people committed to this process and their fellows. They have skin in the game and pounds of flesh, sweat and buckets of tears have been expended. They are not paid and I’m not sure how often they are thanked or receive praise. They have fought their tails off while working their own jobs and maintaining their relationships. I applied to be on the TCC and it was a blessing all around that I wasn’t selected. It has been grueling. So, I echo this post and second the motion. I now call the question and see all “yeas.” Let the record reflect that the motion passes without opposition. Next matter...

NOTE: I received no compensation or special treatment for this review and it was not part of any promotion or rewards program.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I believe he thinks the Coalition is going for the quick settlement because many lawyers took out high interest loans from hedge funds to pay for advertising and other companies to aggregate claims.  These loans are starting to come due and/or have high interest rates so law firms that took them out want to pay them off quickly, regardless of the result on their clients.  Therefore, the Coalition, driven by a need to close on a settlement to pay off these loans, are agreeing to a lower than desired (by some other firms) payout from LCs.  Since the Coalition represent 60,000 claimants, the TCC has to work with them to get the best deal possible.

If, and I restate IF, there is any truth in this, it will be painfully ironic. They push for deal to pay off loans and simultaneously facilitate millions of dollars in payments for their costs and expenses from the kitty because they were so critical to crafting the deal. I still don’t understand that part and I don’t think it will ever get through the granite that is my skull and into the gray matter. We’ve gone over this in a somewhat cursory and technical fashion, but is it just me? How does this make any sense to pay fees and costs to attorneys who have 60,000 contingent fee clients (40-50% worth) and from a victims fund at that?? Say it ain’t so and “What you talkin’ bout, Willis?!?

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

 

Could someone summarize the "fish smell"? Something to do with the COs, Coalition and TCC. I don't have the time to read the past few days of posts. Thanks.

 

It’s only about the insurers wanting to delve into the claims aggregators, high speed POC generation and all. It grew out of Tim Kosnoff’s tweeting and the licking of his chops post. I was expressing my feelings on the claims generation issue and mentioned the smell. It’s a great post. I recommend it highly.  

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is interesting that they had a firewall between CSA and Safety. To me, they are one of the same. With limited resources, we need to tackle the most severe and frequent injuries. If people are being abused, and we are working on poison ivy, that is wrong. 

The book is pretty compelling. The following section is about the connection to the religious/faith community (obviously) and that's also really "good." The sections about image and membership protection as the major driver of the firewall/concealment is, I'm sorry, damning. I had none of this information prior to the filing and research for my POC. I've continued to research and study and the quagmire just gets murkier and deeper. Mired in the muck and mire of the quagmire. 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I think it was in the book, Scout's Honor, by Patrick Boyle. That may be correct or it may be my faulty memory, yet again.

Ha. I was right (after being wrong the first time). It was in the book, starting at page 134. This, my friends, is concealment plain and simple. A brief excerpt:

19 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I hadn’t heard about this “smoking gun” of a coverup. Do you have a source? I haven’t watched the documentary or book or what ever, so maybe I’m missing out on a lot of these types of coverup action. 

I'll see if I can find it. I think I cut and pasted it into a Word file. It was  from another post. Maybe from Muttsy or Cynical? Likely one of them fellas. It talked about the expert they hired to do what I mentioned and how, throughout his period or research and reporting, nothing was disclosed to him about the abuse history, IVF or nuttin' whatsoever. It was all about accidents, deaths, swimming incident, monkey bridge hazards and why dodgeball should be verboten. I just through that last one in there because it was a critical aspect of my Scouting experience and I was aghast it was banned. Jk. 

EDIT: I think it was in the book, Scout's Honor, by Patrick Boyle. That may be correct or it may be my faulty memory, yet again.

8 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The problem is that the CO was not timely warned of the nature and scope of the problem by National. The files were a closely guarded secret at National. The files were a gold mine of criminological data that BSA could and should have used to train and educate scouts and CO’s. 

When I found out BSA hid the internal files and investigations from their own experts hired to review, assess and report on injuries and risks in Scouting, my perspective on highly active and ongoing concealment was signed, sealed and delivered. That was clever, if I do say so myself and I do because I just did.

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Recognize that this set of threads and posts are highly one sided. 

I'm not sure about that, but I'll let others make a run at rebuttal.

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I question whether BSA is different enough to be uniquely called out.  

Other than priests, BSA has been historically clearly unique in two ways: (1) extent to which boys have been available to adults, thereby significantly elevating the potential for abuse; and (2) the undeniable and extraordinary pedestal placement of leaders. It's not coincidence that the Catholic Church and BSA are at the center of the CSA spotlight. (Word used to reference the film.) Here are some excerpts from from BSA literature lifted from this link. Frankly, when I read these things it makes me shudder. As I've said, this is how I viewed my SM. When I initial said that, people here mocked me. Check it out for yourself.

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Good point.  I was being sarcastic.  This whole thing has smelled.  Definitely some well meaning lawyers, but how this has gone down has always smelled of people middleman seeking a get-rich-quick scheme.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. 

4 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

My very best friend only 2 years ago advised me that a Scoutmaster had abused him.  That he has been in weekly counseling ever since.  My friend holds a Phd.  My friend has NOT filed a claim in respect of the program which my friend believes saved is life.

Welcome and thanks for a very good post. That’s a dandy for #1!

As to the quoted portion, has he ever unpacked that for you? I haven’t heard anyone else express something to that effect and it may well be a revelation into my experience. Many people are shocked to hear I was abused for years, yet persisted in Scouting to achieve what I set out to achieve. Only as I read what you wrote about your friend did I consider what would have “happened to me” had I dropped out at 11, the time of my first abuse. The picture was not pretty. As those who’ve read my posts know, many things about my Scouting life are precious to me. I took many things to my therapist to dispose of when I first started working with her on all of this, but some mementoes I wouldn’t part with, including my Eagle Certificate and pin, sash, key patches, NESA pin and a few photos. Just prior to the Chapter 11 filing I made a significant move to reconcile with Scouting. Against the advice of family, I wanted to become involved again. Then, two months later, I read the announcement in the WSJ. Thus began the adventure of the BSA Bankruptcy Seesaw Game.

If he’s given you any insight into what he meant, I would welcome it.