ThenNow

I'll let you guys have at it with the details and the numbers, but this is patently untrue. You simply can't say that. You can say that it, "appears from this or that statement they have no regard for the future health or vitality of Scouting," but you do not know if they/we care. As I've said before, when I went to Delaware one year ago to stand for the TCC, I made it clear to the US Trustee's Office I do not want to see Scouting eviscerated. He surprised me by saying the sentiment is shared by most applicants. The TCC was formed well before 95,000 claims flooded in. Please remember that

I have a standard WSJ script, but don't pay for Pro. Is there a posting of the piece elsewhere?

I’ve not listened twice, but my recollection is that the TCC vice chair said something close to, “From the outset, our concern has not been the continuation of Scouting, but maximizing the recovery to survivors.” That’s their entire purpose for existing and I’m pretty sure Stang, et al., understand the business model and structure. The BSA’s task, along with their best in the business legal crew, is to come up with a plan to meet its two stated objectives: “maintaining the program and equitably compensating victims.” Not discussing the Plan filed with the biggest player in the room was nonsens

How did you arrive at that certainty? Personally, my mind reading has proven iffy of late. That little speech wasn't meant to diminish the value (which I recognized), but to encourage you guys to fight for whatever it is you think is important specifically by speaking up. I was also jumping off from the comments of many that "their camps" are most precious and critical. That's all.

I meant ranks...

Not sure how to rank or compare, but very. I’d say inextricably linked with the monetary component, given the Chapter 11 aim to see Scouting continue. It’s worth noting, I think, that the TCC/survivors wouldn’t be “demanding” YPT improvements on a BSA they intend to “force” into liquidation. Just sayin. There are lines between which one must read.

Online petitions are super easy to create, distribute, gather signatures and forward. I think the diversity of voices here, if focused and expressed, could be impactful.

I went to sleep thinking about this last night and don't sleep much as it is. Several things have been reinforced in me since starting to follow this forum and then becoming active. Here are a few: 1) Boy Scouts National has a bunch of things that create the outline and infrastructure that is Scouting as we know it. Rankings, books, trademarks, Congressional Charter, Eagle "brand," all the IP, and, etc.; 2) National has four cherry properties with top flight facilities and programs each amazing, compelling and intrinsically and financially valuable. They are not priceless, however;

Do you guys consider writing National, leaders, their attorneys, the Ad Hoc Committee...to share your strongly held views and sense of urgency? Your story, SP, is powerful. Many of your are very articulate and effective in presenting this case. All are passionate, which surpasses most finery, in my book. I encourage you to act. Write letters. Take out an ad in the paper. Do an online petition. They’re easy. If you don’t speak now and limit it to this forum and your Units and LC’s, you don’t want to be on the field when the lights go out and realize you didn’t play through the whistle. I’m tota

The Colorado constitution currently prohibits new laws to impose retroactive liability. I don’t think they are proposing a window or a constitutional amendment. I’ve not read the legislation, though. Could be wrong.

As I have said, teeing up lawsuits against LC’s, CO’s and individuals is to force the players to the table at risk of losing all. It was clear by their conspicuous absence in the proposed Plan funding that those two groups had not yet taken this seriously. Again, “We are ready to launch. Are you coming in here to work on this or no? You pick. If not, you leave us no choice. It’s not our preferred path, but we will do it if need be.” Hand slap invites throw down, I suppose. For those who haven’t followed my posts, I’m simply stating the situation at hand, not spewing vitriol toward yo

And to this I say, “Yea, verily, and pass the chipped beef!” One of the greatest and most damaging “achievements” of the consortium attorneys - Coalition and AIS - is their success at creating the impression they are the voice of all claimants. The media has perpetuated and magnified the charade. (I directly called out reporters on it over the last month. Major publications.) Only the TCC has that role, even if the others forced their way into mediation. Yes, they control a bunch of votes, but they do not speak for me, the 9 men representing me or the overall sexual abuse survivor claiman

If there is anything that can be shared outside the mediation confidentiality shield, I’ll see if I can tease it out.

Agree 100%. In fact, enhancing and improving YPT is one of the key non-monetary requirements for the TCC to recommend approval of a Plan. The BSA knows that, but utterly blew it off in what they filed. Zippo. This is the sort of nonsensical, arrogant non-negotiating negotiation strategy that infuriates us as survivor claimants. Why was it not addressed...at all? “Thank you, sir. May I have another?” Good grief.

Thank you. Me as well. Your time in Scouting sounds amazing. I’m glad to have a place to give voice to my many silent fellows. In a way, it fills my cup. I share here more as a way to put a “face” on the otherwise amorphous group of survivor claimants, which some see as the marauding force storming the Scouting castle. I didn’t want that to be the only perception or allow the screeching voices of certain attorneys to distract from and drown out the deeply human story at hand.

Which genuinely hurts my heart. I say this only to note the “law” of consequences, whether physical, financial, spiritual or whatever. I’m not making a judgement or saying it gleefully. “Sins of the father...” I’ll add a footnote: I don’t like how this case has been built by aggregators and advertising, assuming funny business, which I can’t confirm. I support survivors, but not abuse, unscrupulous behavior, fraud or greed.

This goes back to my questions on whether the Ad Hoc Committee of LC’s is representative of the whole. Is there any collegiality between LC’s such that one/some would help the others, whether day to day or contributing to the Trust?I bet not, which is sad. If there has been poor management of the insolvent ones, that’s one thing. Crap luck another. I suppose one LC mostly uses its camps and HA, so others are of little interest or concern.

I wondered, as well, and recalled reading this NYT article. It states the obvious about the subjectivity of valuing fine art, as well as the fact that some of the pieces were constrained by BSA commission guidelines. The result being they cramped his style and therefore don’t represent his “best,” most collectible works. (I’m sure the TCC has that value, at least an appraisers best estimate. Not sure if the plan would be auction to maximize, use a broker or sell at “retail.” https://duckduckgo.com/?q=value+of+boys+scouts+rockwell+collection&t=brave&ia=web

I’m sure the TCC knows, but is there any sense of the average liquid and real property asset value of the LC’s? I realize the Councils will be “called upon” to contribute based on SoL status and claims filed, but it might be informative. Does it range from squeaking by to 100’s of millions, property values included?

Yup. My thought exactly.

Personally, I’m watching the disposition of this as a possible indicator of Judge Silverstein’s inclination toward finding the LC assets to be separate or within reach. I know, I know. They are technically very different. I’m talking about where her head is at on cutting through what some assert are smoke and mirror games to get on with it. Are these merely protective facades meant to insulate and isolate or are legitimate and separate? “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”Yes. I’m mind reading and putting a wet finger in the air, not hazarding a legal opinion. For the record.

For context, the generally accepted stat is at least 1 in 6 men have been sexually abused or sexually assaulted. (This includes during adulthood, btw.) Even if the 11,000 number shouldn’t be taken as fully accurate, if there such a thing, this is a very good sign. I hope the downward trend continues. https://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/

Yes. You nailed it.

Filed 3.12.21 RE: ARROW WV, INC, JP MORGAN CHASE, SUMMIT BECHTEL JOINT MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL TORT CLAIMANTS’ COMMITTEE AND FUTURE CLAIMANTS’ REPRESENTATIVE FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER GRANTING STANDING AND AUTHORIZING THE PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CHALLENGE CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATES https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/878880_2364 a.pdf

Great. Thanks. You're not attacking me by responding with your opinion and good, additional data. I was merely pointing out a factor that must be applied if we are to properly interpret the data. Some of what I take as my part here is to do that from a survivor perspective who knows as well as anyone how the creeps seep through. On its face, the data looks like YPT is a slam dunk. For some, that's it. Case closed - it worked, even if there are 11,000 claims. But, considering all factors that may contribute to the drop is important to understand what the numbers are actually "saying