Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ThenNow

  1. Sorry I posted that. It’s just created more confusion and anxiety.
  2. On the pad for July 20, in the event it's not completed by then. I've been waiting for someone to say this. (Don't send me into exile, since we're kinda talking about a verboten topic again, no? Since I'm replying to MattR, I think I'm in the cone of silence.) Theory is great. Practice unto perfection is amazing, if it can be achieved. Reverse engineering and recreating breakdowns is the key. Who, what, where, when, why and how under a giant beam of light and a powerful microscope is best. I think things will leap off the page, if you will do it. Critical system failure an
  3. Yes. Many. Most court proceedings don't have one side who can step outside the process and fire 10,000+ heat seeking missiles (complaints) at multiple non-party targets with billions of dollars at viable risk in the event the proceeding goes completely sideways. "We're launching. You wanna come in here and work on this or no? You pick."
  4. Wild shot at rank and yank: Lawyers, National, Abuse Victims, Councils, CO's.
  5. From the Claims Data Summary, P1: "Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims in Chapter 11 Cases of Boy Scouts of America There are approximately 101,135sexual abuse claims filed. Of those claims, the Tort Claimants’ Committee estimates that there are approximately 83,807 unique claims if the amended and superseded and multiple claims filed on account of the same survivor are removed. The summary of sexual abuse claims below uses the set of 83,807 of claim for purposes of claims summary below."
  6. That data hasn't and probably won't be released from the data room, since it's directly connected to individual claims. This is my understanding. Same with attaching specific locations to CO's with similar names. There are multiple variations of potentially the same entity - St. John's, St. John, Saint John's, St. John's School, St. John Parish, and etc. I tried to find the city and state for some with no success with inquiries to the Key Master. There, I go again.
  7. I know this is probably only for me, but I was feeling like I have been going too fast and realized I said my the abuse was at 10. That is wrong. It was 11. I had my birthday while at Summer Camp. Apologies.
  8. This was raised above, but I don't know how to show the link to the poster, MYCVAStory. Unless the YPT absolutely locked in during the last decade plus, you can't take that 11,000 as gospel. All data indicates child sexual abuse by men against boys is reported at least 10 years later than for girls abused by men. For most men, it's well into their 30's. For me, I was 41. Exhibit 1 at Page 3 of the Claims Data shows the dramatic declination of claims (as filed in this case only) in recent years. If it the YTP began working like a finely oiled machine or if the reports have not yet sur
  9. The term, "it happened on your watch" seems most apt. If the whole of society is to blame and liable for everything culturally "winked at" that then manifests in isolated cases - families, churches, youth organizations, schools, and, etc. - thereby exonerating the overseeing entities who specifically winked at specific incidents that occurred while they were stewarding children, we've entered the twilight zone. If only perpetrators/the direct actors are responsible, we are in a world of hurt. Well, that was stupid. We already are. To be concise, the BSA is not more to blame than the
  10. With what consideration do they suppose they are buying protection from future lawsuits? That's the logical disconnect I can't reconcile. Someone must see there is a transaction going down and getting something so significant for nothing is like Pollyanna in rose-colored glasses singing, "The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow," am I right? Dang. I did it again.
  11. Very good point. Sorry. They were inaccurate, whether innocently tossing roses or otherwise. Again, all I was doing is pointing out that I watched the proliferation of claims, checking to see what was landing on my Troop and in the LC's area. In my case, they were pretty on point. I didn't mean it to be an official anything. It's one of the large attorney groups accused of questionable tactics. I wrongly assumed most put the two together and might flavor with a grain of salt or 100. My bad. Since many were ignorant of any claims of note, this gives some idea of the explosion. I imagine a
  12. Wow. They were shoveling it deep and wide with a mining front loader. That's just one group of attorneys showing where their clients have claims. I shared it to show the way I was tracking claims while they were being filed up until November 16, 2020, since so many here had no idea of the mounting claims within their Troop or LC. Sorry to be unclear.
  13. 10 at the time of the first instance abuse by my SM. I was turning 11 the next day and it was the night of my birthday-eve, if there is such a thing. I was 17 at the time of the first SE incident I mentioned. You haven't read my exhaustive retelling and that's no fault of yours, though you could. Fine to be blunt. Trust me I don't care. No. I tried 18/19 years ago but I was too late. The SoL's were changed shortly after, but they were prospective. If you read all my posts, my singular interest was putting the SM in prison and wiping out his assets. I was in stasis before 2.
  14. You all know I hope Scouting survives for a number of reasons, including sentimental and the possibility our grandchildren could take part. To that end, is your "contingency plan" something others would find applicable to their effort or is it specific to your Council? Just wondering if it can be shared, whether here or via PM. Thinking out loud. Also, assuming Scouting remains viable, would any of you guys, who believe in full 360 degree abuse prevention training and see the current deficits, participate in advancing and improving the YPT?
  15. I'm sort of shocked. but not. Part of my surprise is built on my experience, knowing it's real and happened to me and younger guys in my Troop, but also on my knowledge of risk management and layered planning. I guess they truly believed they could either handle it or completely shield you from impact. Probably both. It's rather patronizing, though, as if you weren't entitled to or to be trusted with information that may or may not significantly change your (Scouting) lives.
  16. I've been tracking this since 2.19.2020. I've watched the claims increase against my Troop and LC, in particular. (AIS had existing cases pre-Chapter 11. My tracking may have started a bit after the 2.19, but that's not important. At first, there were none against my Troop and I watched as the first, second, third...were pinned.) https://abusedinscouting.com/map-of-reported-abuse-locations/ NOTE: You will see that AIS gives the contact information for the Member of Congress associated with the location of each Troop with an abuse claim. This goes back to my point about legislation a
  17. Were your respective Councils keeping you, in the field, updated about these numbers? Over the past year, I saw news reports of Councils blowing off talk of "legitimate abuse claims" against them, even while claims were being filed, logged and publicly noted on sites like AIS.
  18. My wild guess is they looked at the total liability assuming a low end number of 2500 or so, given the landscape on 2.18.2020. Based on other cases, if they were thinking each claimant would receive $250,000-$500,000, that's $625M-$1.25B and doable through all contributing sources, including insurance. Given the financial, community and political might of some LC's I've looked at, I'm sure a number of them did make contingency plans and have them ready to roll out. For a number, I'm guessing those plans included asset protection transfers, but who knows.
  19. In fairness, very few people anticipated this number of claims. They could've gamed scenarios for 20,000 on the highest end. Then, when the storm cuts loose and the flood of claims came down, there simply weren't enough white boards to do much good as the water rises and washes away the X's and O's.
  20. Through the last two years, have you guys received any trickle down news or tactical planning from above? This whole operation, as illustrated by the non-plan Plan - little detail, no commitment from LC's, completely misreading or ignoring the other side's likely reaction -appears to lack any sophisticated risk management/tiered A, B, C contingency planning. Am I wrong? They have high powered big law with them so I don't get it. From a purely survival and business planning standpoint, it amazes me if they weren't "gaming this out" for a year or more.
  21. These are the claims filed and now a part of the case. Unless and until someone winnows them, whether that be the insurers in the sooner scenario or the Settlement Trustee in the latter, this is the number. As many have said, let's say it's 42,500. Is that going to make a big difference? At this point, the discussion has passed well beyond what the BSA is giving and the survivors getting. The BSA and LC's totally blew the opening salvo, have insulted and enraged the survivors and, frankly, failed Scouts. They managed to piss off the insurers in the process. As several have now said, this
  22. I understand the notion that if money is good, more money is better, but the TCC's lead firm (in particular) doesn't need this money. They have a spate of other cases and made oodles well before this one. I have met Jim Stang and interacted with him and John Lucas, the two main attorneys. They are earnest, extremely smart, uniquely qualified for this case and frankly the best of the best at what they do. I believe they are deeply troubled by this case and truly dedicated to assisting the survivors. I will also say, the BSA and LC's have managed to get their heads and hearts further into the ga
  23. I know this helps nothing and no one, but when I understood what they had/hadn’t offered and what they didn’t bring to the table (LC’s offer), I wondered if any member of their legal team warned them of lowball whiplash. It’s the most classic case of poor optics and stumbling out of the gate negotiation strategy I’ve ever seen. Also notable, TCC counsel said the Plan was in no way no how reviewed by or negotiated with them. That’s just plain stupid. My opinion.
  24. I can be naive, as you well know, but is there no one who foresaw the high likelihood of this very backlash from the non-plan Plan they filed? It’s too late to run back with whiteout and a red pen, but they really and truly hung everyone out on this. Too be further gullible, any chance they got the message?
  • Create New...