ThenNow

Roger that.

I can't speak for CS, but I have said the same and can speak to that. I, for one, have neither said nor implied it would be the sum total, only the BSA contribution. Even at that, $6100 is insulting, especially given the weak "we'll commit to asking the LCs for a contribution of $X and you men can go fight for the insurance money." In that context and knowing they may well be protecting/hiding large assets without sufficient legal grounds, it is offensive. My personal take and feeling. In this case, claims will be vetted, but weighed by a preponderance of the evidence. It does

I believe what he is saying is that God is the ultimate arbiter of justice and recompense. "I lift up mine eyes to the hills, from whence cometh my help." Man can (and should) pay for wrongs committed, but often this does not happen. He's encouraging me/us to look to those hills and hope, and not trust in man. Man resoundingly disappoints, cannot bind up the brokenhearted nor grant peace or contentment, whether through riches or words. Still, doing what's right within society and the bounds of the law should not be avoided, waiting for eternal justice or saving grace in this life. JMO.

I get all there is to hear and know about lawyerly caution, but doesn't this speak loudly to anyone?

Roger that. I respect you and hear you, but I think you're wrong. These pages are followed and duly noted by many involved in the case.

Did they do enough? They seem to think not or they wouldn't have both implemented and improved YPT, then escalated compliance requirements. Saying no one can do enough to prevent a problem entirely doesn't negate or exonerate responsibility, accountability or liability. No one will ever eliminate auto deaths, seatbelt or no, so let's ditch the seatbelt requirement and auto safety standards. Looks the other way? Yes, we will always have evil, but do you look the other way when (if) you see abuse? Do most people here? Do most people you know? Who is society? Aren't we society? The neglig

What would be the topic? Theories of vicarious liability and the morality of supervisorial accountability?

I have pretty much no idea what this means. Go where? Restoration of my life? Good grief. I never said something so silly. I'm not that naive. In fact, I'm close to powerless, as are you. I gather this is a large part of your frustration. Welcome to the clubhouse. "Justifying the wreckage"? Say what? What meanest this?

No there is not. "Implied expectation" in a legal case? What good attorney would be that obtuse and expect to get more clients who want him to negotiate on their behalf. Nope. The TCC offered a legitimate and data-based estimation as a benchmark, since no one else was doing it. Please don't create something out of what is not there, especially by vaporous implication. Data-based. Fact-based. Claims-based estimation. I see nothing of the sort "established," other than through an unfounded implication (that doesn't exist). Show me. I don't believe that's what Jim Stang said. He

Actually, they did not and have not yet made that demand, at least publicly/before the court. I don't know what the exact mediation demand(s) have been. As I understand it, that number is the aggregate claim value estimation, and then conservative because it does not place values on repeated abuse or abuse of a boy across multiple of the tiered categories. That said, I agree. It is possible.

I appreciate you saying so, Barry, and value the compliment coming from you. I mean that sincerely. I wonder, though, if the loss is/was necessary if the BSA would be more forthcoming in this process. Also, the claimants can't be responsible for the condition of the organization going into the Chapter 11, by that I'm referring to the LDS departure, COVID and other reasons for membership decline. The February 2020 filing happened to be at a time the BSA was already "weakened." I still don't think "total loss" is necessarily imminent, but I have to focus more on advocating for the claimants

Accepted US legal definition of fault: Fault IS a negligent or intentional failure to act reasonably or according to LAW or duty. It is an improper act or omission causing injury to another and arising from ignorance, carelessness, or negligence. Faults may be gross, ordinary, and slight.

In my reading, this is way far afield from the point I was trying to make. Forgive me if I wasn't clear. The "let's compare," was trying to draw out what I see as the horribly offensive notion that the sexual abuse of boys is somehow concomitant with "reduced programs" or "increased registration fees." I may misstate, but I don't think so. Someone says they are going to be "abused" by BSA paying sexual abuse victims. It is the wrong way to "pay" for someone else's sexual abuse by a long gone volunteer who worked for/with the organization into which he pays dues and within which his progra

Just for context and contrast, I am only one of the BSA sexual abuse survivors. Let's talk about costs and fees. My in-patient, out-patient, therapy, psychiatry, medical and medication costs from 2000 until today is not less than $500,000. I'm sure that's low, because my therapy costs were around $100,000 over 20.5 years and one stint in treatment runs between $30,000-$60,000. I've done several. And, that does not include lost wages (HUGE NUMBER) or any of the "emotional and psychological" damage caused to my family and me. What has/will the abuse settlement cost you and other Scouts and Scout

In all of my posting and bantering back and forth, this is really the thing I've hoped to present. What the BSA is facing, whether in the courts or this Chapter 11, is not an amorphous force that gathered in a dark room somewhere to plot the malicious destruction of Scouting. Not whatsoever. We are men, once boys in Scouting like you and your children, who didn't invite the whirlwind. We reaped it. In many cases, to OUR near destruction. None of us expected this when we joined Scouting. None of us would wish this on anyone else. None of us are enjoying or relishing being here. I hope you know

Are you referring to or do you have specific data on the memory "maintenance/retention"issue? I'm 60. My SM/abuser, who's very much alive and enjoying his retirement, is now 71. I can tell you details about him and some of the abuse that defies most people's understanding of vivid memory recollection. I'm not alone. My Scouting cohorts, most of whom are still alive, could be called to corroborate many of the ancillary and contextual allegations I have made. Some can corroborate instances of non-touching abuse (grooming, drinking, pornography...) and others their own physical sexual abuse or pu

From my own experience and the reams of research and data, any age cutoff must be tied to the real world knowledge of when people come to grips with CSA and have the “ability” to come forward. If it’s a random number, like 40, it’s just pulling numbers out of a hat. For me, if it was 40, I would’ve been just about 2 months too late to the game.

I appreciate you/someone saying this. I’m a bit amazed no one has to this point, but I’m glad you did. Can you help me understand your “However” qualifier? Personally, I’m not seeking “revenge,” don’t know of many guys that would characterize their involvement in the case as such, and the SoL law in the state of my primary abuse has not undergone substantial change or reform. From my understanding, 50,000+/- victim/survivor claimants are in that last category. Again, thank you for those first two sentences. The laws facilitated law suits seeking compensation awards, which sna

I don’t think I ever said that. Not once. In fact, I believe I’ve acknowledged my concern for current and future Scouts. How that plays out is not within my control. I appreciate you’re frustrated and, perhaps, angry with me and others for pursuing compensation from the BSA and related entities. Are you saying you would not do the same had you or your son been abused? I was minding my own business, making my way as best I could when the BSA called for men like me to submit our sexual abuse claims. That’s why I’m here, along with the tens of thousands who also returned their RSVP. Because

This is per California non-profit law and likely similar in other states. Are you a “member”? The term “member” is a term of art defined in California Nonprofit Corporation Law (the “Law”). Generally, a member under the Law (sometimes referred to as a “statutory member” or “voting member”) means any person who, under a provision of a corporation’s articles of incorporation (“articles”) or bylaws, has the right to vote on (1) the election of directors, (2) the dissolution of the corporation, (3) a merger, or (4) a disposition of all or substantially all of the corporate assets; or any pers

Assuming you're talking about the BSA (or any other corporation) as an "inanimate object," this is simply not true. It is a total misunderstanding of the nature of corporations. In fact, they are sometimes referred to as a "legal person." Corporations exist separate from their owners, but can do most all of the business, financial and property/asset transactions an individual person can. They can sue, be sued, invest, own property, hire, fire, borrow money, pay taxes, and, etc. They are very much alive and fully animate for all purposes relevant to this discussion. Specifically, they are 100%

I don't want to pile on or call (further) attention to myself and my story just for some additional acknowledgement or affirmation sake. For what it's worth, I will put a "face" on this and speak for others like me, as I try to do where appropriate. My experience tracks with all of those, except numbers 6 and 10. These are not isolated experiences nor are the letters from a select few who were most impacted or 8 handpicked and designated spokesmen. Caveat: I don't want to misspeak. Perhaps the TCC or some state attorney or consortium selected the men to write the letters. I should say, "

I don't understand this whatsoever. Chapter 11 is voluntary, regardless the pressure of abuse cases that pushed the BSA to that decision. The BSA is requesting 84,000 CSA victim/survivor claimants to release them from future liability. This is not a hostile takeover or class action. They want a release? Produce the financial documents, especially if they really want to stop the fee bleed they repeatedly bemoan. This is nonsense. Want to demonstrate bad faith and a lack of commitment to "equitably compensate" BSA sexual abuse victims? Keep playing this game. Want to step up, be honorable and ne

As one of the guilty, I love this line of friendly jesting and mockery. Regardless the historic basis and reasons, our use of language can be absurd in its lack of clarity and accessibility. I believe that was the initial poke, as well as an admission of a lack of patience and understanding of legal gibberish. It was a poke at us and himself. Jolly good humor, I say. While working in legal affairs for an entertainment company, I got in trouble for redrafting a series of agreements to make them understandable to the artists forced to sign them. It was one of my proudest moments as an attor

As you say further in your post, I agree that magnitude took the BSA by surprise. Other factors, too, but I won't reiterate what I've already said. For many on the victim/claimant side, it was less shocking and some publicly predicted an enormous number of claims. I can't quite imagine the shock and stunned silence in the BSA board room when the finally tally came in following the Bar Date. I have little knowledge of the BSA's decisions and decision-making processes prior to the Chapter 11 filing, but since it does seem like a fair measure of weak "game" and "clock management." To me,