ThenNow

I wish that, too, if there is some way to do it. In the meantime, I will continue to press for cold, hard cash at every turn. I'm an odd duck (news flash!), but I actually went to my primary camp to scope things out and confirm my recollections after I filed my Proof of Claim. I happened to be in that neighborhood and went by myself. It was bittersweet and complicated, but affirming. Everything was as and where I said it was. I had even drawn and submitted maps with my POC. Until I did that, I had nightmares about having gotten things wrong, all rooted in the constant self-doubt that comes with my version of the ongoing aftermath.

This is simply meant as a counter view presented by other victims. During preparations for the Miami mediation, it was suggested here that the parties meet at a camp or HAB. Some responded adamantly that the very last place on earth they would ever want to be is at a Boy Scout camp, office or facility of any kind. For many, this would be incredibly triggering and traumatic. I'm sure others, like you, would enjoy it tremendously, which is great. Just wanted to provide that bit of info from posts waaay back when.

As to a mediated settlement, I have none. I think Jim Stang's comment about NY was more a matter of "less negative," since the TCC wasn't wholesale excluded from certain discussions, per the Miami runaround.

Based on the TCC's town hall last week and the new fairly oblivious filings over the weekend, I see no evidence, smoke signals or cloud formations indicating there is any prospect of a pending mediated settlement. I supposed there is always a very, very remote possibility, but I highly doubt it.

Curious to see how this is done. I guess they will have to be sworn in and all, with the opportunity for others to examine them? If the hearing is on, and I hope it is, this will be a "bring your toothbrush" event, I reckon.

For those who are keenly aware, even pretty much aware, of the state of your LC's assets, how does/will this feel if the AHC is saying the "bulk" of the assets are legally restricted and you know that not to be the case for your LC? Admittedly, their language is intentionally very squishy -- "all (or almost all") and "many," so I guess they can wiggle it however they want. Convenient. I just want to see the BRG dashboards next to the internal financial statements for the LCs implicated in my claim. I've previously brought up the point of the actual constituency of the AHC and still wonder whose voice they truly are. I guess they represent "all (or almost all") or maybe just "many" of the LCs?

If I didn’t engage in hyperbole may I stay by the fire? I’ll tend, monitor and keep clear.

PS - I wrote this. 1 + 2 = Bingo. Process and Compliance Monitor + Expert Consultant (who has zippo interest in being a monitor, they’re substance experts) = Excellent Team. See how easy that is. We are straining at gnats... Adding a note at risk of causing heads to exploit. Tim Kosnoff (aka, he who shall not be named) has spent a long, successful career representing child sexual abuse victims. Thousands and thousands and thousands of hours listening to children tell their ugly stories of who, what, where, when and how. Why is inexplicable, other than selfishness, craven appetite, evil and easy access, in multiple contexts. Imagine, if you dare, how much he knows about grooming, predation tactics, methodologies, patterns, points of access, opportunity gaps and all the like. I know he, and other such practitioners, are not Dr. Conte. That’s what we have men like the good doctor who drill down to the core of these issues and make their wisdom available to us. What I’m saying is, you really do yourself and others no fair service by so flippantly discarding the prospect of an attorney being an effective monitor. I’m not for a minute saying that’s who should do it or that the TCC would ever recommend one. Just sayin...you know what I’m sayin. I hope. 1) Some of these lawyers have decades of experience handling sensitive CSA cases and are dedicated, brilliant, compassionate people. They are as qualified as anyone, except maybe... 2) This is the man the TCC engaged to work with them on the Proof of Claim form, perhaps among other things. These are the sorts of professionals we’re talking about, people. Let’s give some credit. The victims and our representatives are not Neanderthals, nincompoops, knuckleheads or nitwits. You be the judge of their judge of character, quality and qualifications. https://socialwork.uw.edu/sites/default/files/faculty_cv/cv-conte_jon2012 (1).pdf

Not sure how that assumption was culled out of the TCC’s demand (as it’s being interpreted), but two things: 1) Some of these lawyers have decades of experience handling sensitive CSA cases and are dedicated, brilliant, compassionate people. They are as qualified as anyone, except maybe... 2) This is the man the TCC engaged to work with them on the Proof of Claim form, perhaps among other things. These are the sorts of professionals we’re talking about, people. Let’s give some credit. The victims and our representatives are not Neanderthals, nincompoops, knuckleheads or nitwits. You be the judge of their judge of character, quality and qualifications. https://socialwork.uw.edu/sites/default/files/faculty_cv/cv-conte_jon2012 (1).pdf

Plan approval? Respect the wishes of the victims? Improved public goodwill? Basic smart PR move? Oh, yeah. What about greater youth protection?

I think you misunderstood what MYCVAStory meant. BSA has “done nothing,” as in produced not even a sentence of revision or commentary about how YPT will be improved in response to the TCC’s non-monetary demand to upgrade the program. “Done nothing” within the context of the bankruptcy negotiations, mediation, conversations, Plan documents and etc. I believe that is what he meant. The town hall statement is another invitation, less gentle, to tell the BSA to get off the dime on this and put forth some detailed commitments.

Which I will be doing as well, both directly and to their attorneys. I’ve already drafted the email. I’m 99% sure I won’t get it, but I’m going on record as having made the request. It may be an “early and often” scenario if they refuse. I can be a very pesky gnat with shape-shifting ability if/when a rhino becomes more appropriate.

We know the insurers only want this so they have to pay less. That's a given. Once they start, how far does it go and by what standards of validity and review? It's supposed to be a somewhat facial review and not the type of deep dive vetting the Trustee will later due, which will be more thorough and substantive. It's the old "slippery slope" problem. Yes, the benefit could be mutual to the parties. Could. As a claimant, the thought of being diluted by fraud is painful. On one had, I don't want valid claims kicked for unsound reasons, caught up in a crusade to "purge the villains." On the other, I don't want invalid ones diluting and degrading the legitimate pool of victim/survivor claimants or impacting voting. I don't have an answer. Looking at the evidence Century is bringing causes me sorrow, if true and proven. Sad for the legal system. Sad for those who would do such things. Sad for the claimants. Sad for the BSA, too, but I feel a lot less sympathy there. 84,000 or 60,000? Know what I mean? Okay. No sympathy if it is ill-intentioned to impact voting.

I'm sure I mentioned the class action I lead against an insurer for wrongful denial of depression treatment claims. That they're MO, as well. Deny the claim until the patient drops it from exhaustion, frustration, ignorance, death or they are forced to pony up after independent reviews, aggregated appeals and, eventually, a law suit if it ever gets to it. That, of course, is rare.

I've had a company, well two, get consumed. One by a true insider snake in the recording and publishing industry, the other the bankruptcy sale I mentioned. The sell-off in bankruptcy was precipitated by a $20M breach of contract award that was later overturned too late for a rescue. Security tied to intellectual property assets, which is a complicated story. Anyway, we owners would never have considered hiding a financial advantage out of embarrassment over unwise decisions or poor financial management. That is, unless there was a legal or IRS problem lurking in the shadows. It's crazy to me, but I suppose this is what some of you have been saying about BSA top brass and the way they roll.

I can't speak to the inner workings of JPM or the facts of this deal, as I've said. As a claimant who wants to get on with it and who wants the BSA to come to the table as they said they would/say they are, something stinks with this persistent non-disclosure. It just does. I guess you can make the case for it being strategic, but what is that strategy if they are simultaneously bleeding themselves dry, being pounded to release documents on a fat calf asset they say is restricted and they have to know it's required of them to retain the alleged restricted status? What am I missing? The BSA says it's restricted but refuses to prove it, which is their burden? Let's say I agree that it isn't fraudulent. Why not prove it? I'm left with the money pit argument, which is classic "cut off your nose to spite your face" behavior. Embarrassment is the motive for failure to carry your own burden of proof to establish a restriction on a major asset in bankruptcy? Okie dokie.

I'm really not understanding your point and looping back to a supposed legal or strategic advice/advantage argument re HABs being restricted (if not a problem showing a cash sinkhole). Here is the simplest way to look at it. BSA: "I told you five times. The door is locked." TCC: "I don't believe you. I believe it's open." BSA: "Locked." TCC: "Open." BSA: "Locked." TCC: "Open." BSA: "Listen carefully! It is locked!" TCC: "Okay. Okay. Let me try the door." BSA: "No freakin way. I told you, it's locked." Hello...???

Yes, of course, you are right. But I hear the sound of, "Objection, your honor. Relevance?" We are in the BSA's Chapter 11, arrived at by force of child sexual abuse claims in, around, while, during, related to...adults in Scouting.

Yup. Apparently so. I am not intending to belittle -- this is my comic relief brain, again -- but I periodically run sketch scenarios built on The Office or GetSmart, as I imagine what in the heck the BSA war room looks and sounds like right now. Or, perhaps, "Who's on first...?"

Why would one preserve fatted calfs, eat the seed corn and starve oneself out of existence?

How about we demonstrate great unity and magnanimity by seeing how many upvotes we can get on this one single solitary sentence? Or not. I just thought this is a flag worth saluting, but then again I have a tendency to humor myself with visual images of calming conflict through simultaneous salutes via digital button pushing and other such borderline nonsense.

An Adversary Proceeding is Different From the Main Bankruptcy Case - The main bankruptcy case involves a debtor and the creditors of that debtor, and the main bankruptcy case has its own separate electronic docket and case number. An "Adversary Proceeding" in bankruptcy court has the same meaning as a lawsuit in other courts. This means that one or more "plaintiff(s)" file a "complaint" against one or more "defendant(s)." In many situations an adversary proceeding is required if a plaintiff wants to obtain a particular type of relief. Consult Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 7001 to determine if a particular type of relief requires an adversary proceeding. When an adversary proceeding is commenced, the clerk's office starts a separate electronic docket to record all activity in the adversary proceeding. Each adversary proceeding has its own "adversary number" which can be found on the first page of the complaint, right below the main bankruptcy case number. An example is 2:AP:12-01501-VZ. This means an adversary proceeding (AP) filed in the Los Angeles division in calendar year 2012 and assigned to the Judge Vincent Zurzolo. After an adversary complaint is filed, the defendant has a specific deadline to file and serve a written response to the complaint, and then a series of pre-trial hearings/conferences take place until the lawsuit is settled, dismissed, or goes to trial. https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/faq/bankruptcy-case-vs-adversary-proceeding-what-difference

I can't take this response seriously when two of the points have already been supported by Moderators, one has been (apparently) managed though internal self-government or some invisible, magical restraint and two others are completely neutral, to play your us vs. them game. I should've just DMd them to MattR and not further bread (sic) your hate.

Thank you for posting and staying strong. This reiterates what I have said. It exploded in our laps afresh and ablaze in our hearts and minds. Hang in there and thanks, again.

If mine is a worthy voice, I would be happy to contribute my thoughts and suggestions on a separate thread. From the jump, and a couple of these are things I've previously posted and few have proven successful as I've begged for a "back off," I would start with: 1) Request a reduction or elimination of all caps and/or repeated bold font statements when the post is emotionally charged (or maybe always?). I have fallen into part of that and could've adequately made my point(s) with underline or italics. This is a visual medium and what we see, not only read, has a HUGE impact. (Did that on purpose. See what I mean?) 2) Continue to stay the hand of lawyer bashing, other than to note particular communications or report what's going on with attorneys involved in the case. (Well done us, so far. I'm grateful. Thanks, Moderators.); 3) Continue to stay the hand of using "abuse/abused" and "victim/victimized" to describe the impact of program reductions and increased fees on Scouts and Scouters. (Again, thanks for the respect shown since my plea); 4) Stay the hand of direct juxtaposition of the emotional impacts of the bankruptcy on Scouts and Scouters with the emotional and psychological damage of sexual abuse survivors. I do not want to minimize. Please trust me. I had a breakdown when my son's wanted to join Scouts and lost my company in a bankruptcy sale two years later (as I bounced around in treatment and hospitals). I get it. I really do and I hate to see anyone lose what they love and built; and 5) If a poster has already made a specific point, instead of reposting or further extrapolating and going off about having to repeat oneself, just link to the post. Not sure how to do that, but it would allow me/us/one to go back, find the conversation where the points were being discussed, educate myself on what I missed and then fast forward back to the current stream of post. Just my thoughts.