Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    2527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Everything posted by ThenNow

  1. That is the case here. The link below will take you to the insurers' Rule 2004 Discovery Motion. You can scroll to page 7 on the docket file, page 1 of the motion, and begin reading from there. Of course, this is what the insurers "allege" and the respondent groups deny many elements, especially the negative characterization. Several great news stories were written related to this internal battle, as well. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf
  2. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I truly wonder what is going on in the conversations within the claims mining entities who have thousands of claimant clients under their tent. When you have that many, they must be keeping a directed focus. It appears that for some of them, definitely the group headed by he who shall not be named, that focus is "burn it all down" and we'll sort through the rubble and ash for for the good stuff. Personally, I see that direction as against the interest of most claimants. The complexity and implications of converting to a liquidation, with its varied impacts on
  3. Thank you. Sincerely. I do not want to discount any valid claims from others like me, but I deeply question the validity of that many claims flooding in, especially knowing how they were solicited. Having read the discovery motions, the banter and blather from the so-called Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (which name is so presumptuous and pretentious it makes me ill) and he who shall not be named, I think the number will go down if the judge allows the vehicle to be inspected with the sniffer dogs. I don't know what the number should be. Ultimately, it will be larger than the
  4. Initially, I thought about it related to the squeeze being put on you guys via reductions in revenue and all. I was hoping, I guess is the word, that it wasn't merely being felt at the street level. I retracted the question as somewhat irrelevant because COVID and otherwise declining revenue are intermingled with the impacts of the Chapter 11, so it's hard to tell which is having an impact on what and whom. Sounds like "hurt" is pretty much widely distributed, by whatever ripples are now in the pond from which rocks one can't say. When a company is going through crisis, laying off workers and
  5. Toss in a select group of politicians and several technocratic “experts” and you might just have my vote.
  6. Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...
  7. As I've tried to be, I'm going to be very transparent. When I read the press coverage and looked at the Plan to confirm the $6000, I cried. If it had been $50,000 I would've felt very differently. I would've believed they were taking this seriously. Factor into that the non-commitment commitment of "asking for a voluntary contribution" from the LC's and you have a sucker punch to the gut (or front kick in the elsewheres). As in, "What they hell have the LC's been doing in mediation and negotiations all this time? They've been mucking around in the numbers, data, asset valuations and appraisals
  8. It is an accurate statement that plaintiffs' attorneys will come out of this with goodly coin and may be the only winners. Yes, they have seen a case pull down $19M and change. Cha-ching. All other beans are small potatoes. I get it. As said above by the trixy odd number wizard, there are layers of players. I am not a plaintiff's attorney. I am my attorney. I am a claimant. I did not want this. No way this is sliced will I make off with the a big fat chunk of the pie. When I say, the it's "shameful," I am not looking at $500M, in the aggregate, and am not speaking as an attorney. I'm look
  9. For what it's worth, in the days after filing last February, people I know who work in this space and with/against the BSA in the past, were all estimating in the high range of 5,000-8,000 claims tops. If something got crazy, a bit over 10,000. This situation? I certainly never expected and suspected foul play in July. Just my reaction and sniff test. The "top down look [to] determine what we need to survive" goes to the heart of the emotional responses you get from me, the one (?) survivor claimant in the forum fray. The effort and offer from the BSA doesn't match their stated goal or th
  10. Naive though it may have been, I was very publicly offered the hope of "acknowledgement," finally being "seen" and receiving equatable compensation. As I've said in writings elsewhere, and will before the court, I did not ask for this and was not seeking it. I was invited, even urged to come forward and file. I discussed with my wife and therapist. Now, if $6000 is offered, it will be yet another trauma at the hands of the BSA. Some may not like that or put it in the psycho-babble bucket, but I'm telling you what I know, feel and am experiencing. I hope everyone sees that I'm not some "babblin
  11. Individuals stewarding a business, NGO, family and, etc., are caretakers and responsible. With corporations, that liability runs into the future, just as losses can be booked against future gains. Here, someone wasn't minding the house in the past and some may/will "suffer" in the future. It is 100% not fair to those kids. Agreed. Neither is it fair when a parent squanders their paycheck and the kids have to work and miss school, aren't given decent clothes to wear or fed properly. Actions/inactions and decision/indecision by those in with authority and responsibility have real world consequen
  12. I say, that doesn't feel like a pat on the head and the gifting of the aforementioned, "I'm sorry" and "Can I go back to my big salary and pension plan now?" (That last part might not be fair, but added it for a wee bit of flair. And, that rhymed so I'm sticking with it.)
  13. See above and I yield the floor and balance of my time to whomever you might listen, from whatever state or jurisdiction.
  14. Exactly. I've done a limited amount of research looking at the public filings of several Councils. Many list liquid, investment and real property assets at or well above that number. Some of them much more and the real property assets can be stated at assessment value, which in some states is the value upon acquisition, as in many years ago. There is an enormous amount of "money" there. Do I want to drain it to cripple the Scouts? No. Do I want to be insulted by someone turning inside out their pockets, looking at me with an innocent and quizzical look while hunching their shoulders
  15. Thanks. I do appreciate that. I feel like whatever I say, on this score, is not going to be acceptable (to you). I refer you back to several of your fellow Scouters and their responses to the Plan. They have more contextual credibility than I ever will. As I recall, a handful of them pretty much said the same thing I did. The one thing I will say, by way of a sideways answer, is: $6000? Seriously?
  16. I'll put a point on it. The AHC Chairman concurrently represents the Committee and is the President of a LC's Board. That Council, The Greater NY Council, has what I believe to be the greatest number of abuse claims, as submitted. Also, his personal LC has comparatively disproportionate wealth to many if not most other LC's. Someone in his "very large firm" represents the major creditor in the case. Can he or better, should he, represent those LC's with vastly fewer claims and substantially fewer assets? Is there such an LC represented on the AHC? I would hope so, for everyone's sake.
  17. I apologize for being so active today. I didn't sleep well and am a bit manic. As you suggest the proposed Plan leads me to fear the entire thing is on the verge of becoming frightfully attenuated. For me, and I am probably not alone among the abuse survivor claimants, I don't think I can bear several years of this. I rather feel like I was unwittingly attached to a team of horses and am being drug across the prairie. Granted, I could drop my claim and try to walk away, but it is not so simple as that. I am now invested in the process and the outcome, regardless my financial interest. The
  18. Incorrect. I did not ask for inside information to scuttle off to someone of influence working on behalf of abuse survivors. If you took it that way, I apologize for being unclear. I was wondering if you men have an interface that would allow a channel to relay some of the good and common sense suggestions I've heard articulated here. I am not a power player in this case. Far from it. I have thoughts, a voice and, eventually, one vote among tens of thousands. I don't influence a group of claimants, a single claimant or state attorney, or any member in a position of leverage. This what I
  19. Actually, he's purportedly or ostensibly representing your Council and all the others, as the Chairman of the AHC. If you want to remain beyond reproach, avoid all possible appearance of conflicted interest. Take it as you like. As I said, I was pointing out something that may be of interest. To me, whether as a claimant, attorney, spectator or person interested in the future of Scouting, it's worth noting. Perhaps he was the one and only option to chair the AHC and be the lead negotiator in contexts that include the major creditors. Again, what do I know...
  20. Did I ask for information from the Ad Hoc Committee? What I did wonder out loud about is whether there are LC's that don't believe the AHC is representing their interests and if it has any real force or effect on the process. I represent myself as to my claim and have no formal professional role beyond that. Some may find this an interesting side note and others not. The chairman of the AHC is attorney Ricky Mason, also the President of the BSA's Greater New York Council. Mr. Mason's firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, happens to represent JP Morgan Chase, which may or may not have
  21. As a certified oddball and registered pedigreed odd duck, I'm onboard with the odd numbers.
  22. I almost don't know where to start with this, because it seems like I am repeating myself, ad nauseam. I'll try: 1) I'm not part of any "group trying to sue the BSA." Never tried. Never initiated. Never thought about it until all of this blew up however many years ago. I wanted to put a man in jail, take his house and assets and reputation, then burn down the house, sell the property and assets and give it all to a child protection charity. It's just little ol' me representing myself; 2) You don't know what, if anything, I continue to do or don't do in support of Scouting. Might want
  23. That sounds like a reasonably happy ending. I can foresee certain marauders drowning in their hapless attempt to recover the booty.
  24. Got it. Personally, I don't believe that, "the well runs dry in July," rhetoric. I've not heard anyone on the claimants' side verify that apprehension and it sounds tactical, to a negotiator's hears.
  25. I have sat at some reasonably significant negotiation tables, both merger/acquisition and legal settlements. In context and to scale, this is about as "In your face!" as I've seen, short of someone who simply thinks they have no reason whatsoever to give way or zero liability and are begging you to go to trial. It reeks of "I dare you," but what's the call? To wax historic and romantic, it's a slap in the face with a white glove. Still historic but less romantic, a head on a pike at the gate, perhaps? I have a thought that's been rambling in my head and fits reasonably well here. Whe
×
×
  • Create New...