ThenNow

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Ya know ... many of us ... at the request of other here ... have toned down our comments about the motivations of those diving these cases. 

The request of others (me) and direction of the moderators was regarding global, general aspersions and negative characterizations. They specifically said it can be appropriate and acceptable to comment on the actions, etc., of attorneys and other players as it is relevant to the case, as in this situation. Also, I see no abusive or derogatory language in either of the posts quoted. I may have missed the point you were trying to make.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm going to give counsel the benefit of the doubt and assume major family or personal emergency.

I  said the same in my initial comment. Hoping for no true calamity or disaster. This was more about her presence vs. today’s. He wasn’t to blame, I was just making note in what was probably a less than sympathetic manner. Apologies. 

15 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

He seemed nonplussed and suggested that bankruptcy court is a wonderful venue for grandstanding and lengthy proclamations if you are a corporate attorney, regardless of the validity of argument.  "Why?"  "Because the client is listening." 

I’ve been in a good number of diverse contexts with attorneys (not including myself) and I’ve never, ever witnessed the degree of sycophantic, self-congratulatory pandering I’ve experienced on these hearings. I needed Saltines, tums and Ginger Ale to make it through. As I said before, I was proud to be under the TCC’s cover when John Lucas spoke. Class act, IMHO.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Boy Scouts’ timeline to solicit and confirm a Chapter 11 reorganization plan must be pushed back to allow for depositions and comprehensive briefing on the nonprofit’s watershed deal filed last week, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware said at a virtual hearing Wednesday.

I wonder what’s going on in tonight’s post-pushback huddle up. I’m sure all the sectors are scurrying. It has to be a double, “Oh, crap!” for the BSA and Ad Hoc Committee of LCs. Timeline adjustment, hearing on the discovery motions and then the not so subtle tongue-lashing they took from the COs counsel. Maybe Jessica Lauria shouldn’t miss hearings or status conferences. That young fella took a capital B beating today.

57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Cannot format to save my life.

You’ve done AMAZING reporting work today. Go easy on yourself. Many of us are most grateful for your diligence and speed.

9 minutes ago, yknot said:

Our state United Methodist Church Council issued a statement today saying all Methodist churches should not renew COAs but have the council charter units instead to limit liability. 

So, that simplifies it to a lease agreement waiving all liability other than premises?

Are any of the 70’s Charter agreements available to view?

2 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

He wants to expose the Coalition hedge funds and their fronts that he believes hijacked the case. 
 

He’s probably licking his chops to tell the insurance companies that part of the story.

I can't wait for the next episode. Is it getting to the good part? Since the mediation parties agreed to pay the Coalition millions of cheddar for their critical role in reaching the deal, sans a hinted at objection by the TCC, do all said parties oppose "exposing" the Coalition? I know it will delay the process, but I will again admit and reiterate my feelings. These are not well thought out as to the impact at this stage, but they arose from about September 2020 through the bar date. I resented and also panicked watching the exponential rise in claims through a process that seemed painless to many claimants. It looked like there was no skin required to enter the game. No interview. No signature with penalties for fraud. No mulling and dredging out the past. I mean to cast no aspersion on any and all claimants that entered the case by whatever means if they 100% legit, regardless facial deficiencies in their claims. That happens. Memories fade. I just had a tremendously hard time seeing 100's and 1000's of attorney-signed POCs generated at mimeograph speed to get in under the deadline. It has always smelled of Danish fish. It may be wrong and currently counterproductive to voice this (again).

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Throughout the entire process, I have not gotten one single thing from my Council other than the Townhall Zoom in January. There is no way any LC is sending out updates about a status conference that many/most didn't even know happened.

All I do know is that the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee does send communications to the Council Key-3 (that I was able to get confirmed by my Key-3) who are then told not to share the info in that email with anyone.

Oh, well. No certificate for you, my friend. I'm deeply sorry.

5 minutes ago, elitts said:

This is one of those areas where it's hard (for me at least) to know how to approach the issue.  Whenever I see someone making impassioned but incorrect statements I always have to argue with myself about correcting them.  I'm always trying to decide "does this person actually want correct information or do they just want a chance to express their feelings?".  On top of that, my second thought is usually, "regardless of whether or not the commenter wants/needs to be corrected, would leaving it alone result in other people getting incorrect information, and would that matter?"

So sometimes I respond, and sometimes I hold my tongue. (or fingers)  Frankly I think sometimes my decision depends on how argumentative I'm feeling in general.

I'm not sure if I'm the one who should be biting my tongue, but I am totally open to correction. On the issues that go to claimants' feelings and state of mind (and heart), I frequently respond.  That's especially so when the "information" is wrapped in what could easily be perceived as reactive adamance that might read as hurtful. There are ways to say most things while being mindful of not making the pain worse. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, BSA's play games with victims: oh we just have to rush this plan through because we are running out of cash...but maybe not.

I'm eager to read any communications Scouters and represented claimants receive recapping the status conference. Anyone who is willing to provide such will receive a limited edition commemorative "More Wood to Chop" certificate, suitable for framing. 

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There's no way BSA emerges from bankruptcy in time for fall recruiting. Even if by some miracle the August 17 hearing results in a disclosure statement that can go to a vote, it will take 90-120 days to vote on the disclosure statement and confirm that is November 15-December 15 before BSA emerges.

Please refer to my post that begins, "I drone on..."

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And remember folks: BSA said it was out of cash in August.

See above. 

Um, the BSA's lead bankruptcy counsel is NOT attending the status conference?! I hope the "unavoidable conflict" is significant and, of course, not a calamity or tragedy. If it's work-related, that's stunning.

BSA counsel seems close to the "pass out the cigars and snifters" phase of his celebratory remarks. 

These attorneys on all sides love to say, "We still have wood to chop." I'd like to see the calluses from their frequent chopping of actual wood.

I am very grateful that John Lucas for the TCC didn't engage in 5+ minutes of self-congratulatory commentary. I needed to calm my belly. He acted honorably and appropriately. 

13 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Yes, if the story was really out there, the media would pick up "Boys who were molested in New York may receive up to $1 Billion dollars.  However, due to the Statute of Limitation in Mississippi, boys who endured the same abuse will receive somewhere around 10 cents".  At bare minimum, that would catch the attention of Legislators.  Whether they choose to jump in and do something to make this equitable is an entirely different story.

Yup. 100%.

Almost to a person, every one of my friends and family who know what I'm up to read the headlines and sent me some kind of "Yippee!" text or email. I started just cutting and pasting my stock response, since it was relatively long and involved. The two who didn't asked me if it was good news or a big TBD. They are my two sisters who know the most about the whole thing, from my perspective, and from all the articles and research I fling at them.

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I wouldn't say they're overjoyed, but they feel satisfied because the Boy Scouts have acknowledged what they have done.

I have not heard a full-throated "acknowledgement" of "what they done." Ever. Did I miss it? I don't expect one, either. Like any settlement agreement, it's often entered into with no admission of guilt or liability. Because you cough up money, you aren't shouting to the world, "We really screwed up and a lot of boys paid the price."

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

now they have come to the table, and compensation is coming to the survivors...

I know I'm parsing and he's in an interview, but this is more vague, global language that sets us up for another let down. The tank is still technically empty, won't be anywhere close to full and the spigot is being guarded by time, insurance companies, COs and the Great and Powerful Oz. Not to mention SoLs.

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Different amounts to different claimants, depending upon what state they're in, the severity of the abuse, the longevity of the abuse.

I've been hammering on my press contacts to talk about this. The public is almost universally under the impression that this is going to be an equal slicing of the available assets. It's not fair to anyone to continue the perpetuation of that misperception. 

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

those lawyers don't know what the plan was from the beginning.

Bah. He needed a better answer than, "Those guys are just stupid and ign'ert!" No substantive attempt to rebut or explain the opposition was the easy way out. "Trust me. I know what I'm talking about and those weenies don't." I'm not saying I agree with those accused of ignorance, but let's be lawyerly and honest. C'mon, man!

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Frankly, it's amazing I have done as well as I have.

I'm not inclined to allow this to tear up what remaining years I may have on this Earth. 

And I, for one, am proud of you for that tenacity. It is not easy in any respect. 

45 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

You are right. I'm sorry.

I drone on further not to pile on, but to add to my effort in kindness. Please take it that way.

The feeling this has elicited in many of us is one of being defrauded and abused, again, now in a very public way. Most of our abuse was "private," to use the best word I can think of at the moment. Many told their stories for the first time, including to loved ones, therapists, attorneys, the court and others. A huge, enormous, immense, momentous and ginormous event. In most cases, no one thing or moment was more difficult or wrenching than that one. Now, exposed and out in the open, we came with hands out to receive long over due restitution, compensation, recompense or whatever we want to call it. We did that at the public invitation of the BSA, which in hindsight we now see was very amorphous, vague and speculative. We didn't realize that or grasp the mantras known to insiders of, "welcome to bankruptcy" and this is "just business." It feels soooo humiliating and soul-crushing. We are reasonably intelligent and reasonable men. We feel foolish, gullible and confused like a the sexual abuse. I hope my description helps paint the emotion image. I've never before felt this kind of see-sawing between hope, elation and anticipation on one side and depression, confusion, anger and dismay on the other. Well, maybe when I joined Scouts and ended up being abuse by those I admired and trusted.

The BSA Bankruptcy Seesaw Game:

"It's going to be good. Wait, that sounds terrible. The LCs are hiding their assets and the HABs are protected?" 

"Ouch! The judge likes the BSA more than us. We are less important than 700,000 happy Scouts and annual dues. That don't feel so hot."

"Those guys are XXXXX and their lawyers are such and so! Um. How do we do this without help?!"

"What? The Hartford gets out for a fraction of their exposure? Gah...Oh, wait. That deal won't stick. Whew!" 

It's mind numbing and exhausting. Just standing and watching the legal gamesmanship has felt that way, as you've heard from a number of us. I apologize for continuing to try, but my effort is for myself (and the other guys) as much as hoping you can better understand.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No, it is because as part of the bankruptcy BSA was required to notify ALL potential claimants that they needed to file a claim and the language the BSA ads used were approved by the court.

I'm sorry, but again, you don't get it and you won't convince claimants by repeating the technical details. Being right is not the same as it feeling right and resting comfortably on one's fragile psyche. I mean no offense, but you simply can't understand or reason it away with legal precision. Sorry.

28 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Talk about fraudulent concealment. 

I'm going with the Child Catcher in Pinocchio. 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And here's the other concern: the re-traumatization is not over. Any victim who thought (or were told) they would be able to just file the Proof of Claim last November and be paid out is sadly in for a rude awakening (unless they take the $3500 not-questions-asked payout).

As I've said in detail several times prior to my above post. Remember the one about, "the documentation burden alone is going to be nearly insurmountable to some claimants" and the ever popular "fulcrum to flip to the Expedited Track"?  

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

How does a two lawyer law firm like Slater, Slater Schulman get the dough to finance a TV campaign that enabled them to sign up 14,000 clients in three months???

And why does the advertising copy and content of the video ads look so similar to that used by other firms? Benevolent sharing of material for the common good? I don’t think so.

5 hours ago, Bronco1821 said:

I have spent tons more than that on counseling.... and basically trying to keep myself together.  I still don’t think this was helpful in any way or worth digging up the horrific memories.  I realize that money won’t make it all better but finally seeing some justice I thought would be helpful.  Now if I could just stop blaming myself.  Plus the thought of the insurance companies and my church being able to wiggle out of any responsibility makes me nauseous.

As I just posted, I don’t have a clear line of sight on what the heck is going on here. At one point, it seemed like it would be straightforward. As the judge failed to rule and impose some order on the process, it seems like it devolved from there. Now, it feels like no one knows what to make of this, if they are completely candid.

I will keep beating this drum, to what end or good I don’t know. The re-traumatization of this process for victims is so hard to accurately state and more so to understand if you’re not in our seat. Vulnerability. Someone else holding the advantage and seeming to take ours. Looming uncertainty. The high likelihood of more pain. Crushed expectations and very few who want to listen. Fewer who can understand. Decision makers busy decision making as we huddle in the corner of our tents. I hate that it can’t be voiced to a broader audience. It’s not just about the effectiveness of this or that path to some award, it’s about the horribly convoluted and confusing process. As I’ve said, I am fairly tuned in and I had no clue it would look like this 16 months after the announcement. My therapist is about ready to burn something down. She asked for Tim Kosnoff’s contact information, but I thought better of it.

Hang in there, brother. I hear you and am praying  for you. I hope that’s okay. If not, I’ll send good thoughts.

7 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

It's just important to understand at this point the impact of letting anyone sue who they want.

Just so my post isn’t misinterpreted, I wasn’t saying I’d like to see or support the rejection of the plan in favor of a state court shoot out and race for the cash. I was just sure Muttsy was locked and loaded to give his view of where the judge would tell us all to go. I couldn’t resist the lob.

I’m coming to the conclusion that I have even less control than I thought I did a month, which wasn’t much. Since Deal 4.0 was announced, it’s also becoming clear that I have almost no idea how this is going to play out. I don’t like being out of control and vulnerable to so much uncertainty. I try to lighten it up with humor, however meager my attempts. “Nobody told me there’d be days like these. Strange days, indeed.”

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Yes I do. It’s called state court and the guys and gals with pitch forks are called trial lawyers and yes it’s hot because the HVAC in those decrepit courthouses are always bad. Lowest government contract bidder thing…you know how it works. 
 

The people sweating however are the insurance carriers. One bad verdict in a place like LA County or Philly. 9000 more cases coming up behind. That’s when the DDD xxxx stuff stops quick. 

In case you didn’t recognize that, it was a perfect soft lob to the center of the net. Well played. I think it ended up in John McEnroe’s mouth as he sat in the press booth screaming, “You cannot be serious!?!?”

15 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

She could well dismiss the bankruptcy case and tell everyone to go elsewhere. 

Do you have a prediction on where that will be? Is it interminably hot with red guys wielding pitchforks? 

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Insurance Companies are going to say absolutely not no. And Kosnoff is claiming that the NO it doesn't cover insurance carriers.

I believe his question was a compound, including both the severity and the chart issues. He was asking if the Shades of Gray percentages dictate the best case scenario for us with the insurance companies, as well as the BSA. “Are we locked into...,” as in, “Is that all we can possibly get even if our claim is severe?”