ThenNow

30 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

What do I believe?  I expect there are likely thousands of claims where BSA failed to protect children and should be financially responsible.  Let's assume 5,000 total.  Just a guess, who knows.

So, 5,000 total ... what should we pay for each instance of child abuse we let happen that we could have stopped.  $2M each?  That is $10B.  How long will it take to get to 5,000?  2 - 3 years?  Just to end up back at something we cannot afford?

To me, we should to a real top down look and determine what we need to survive as an organization and offer up everything else.  I don't think we did that and now I think by not doing that we risk everything.

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 the mournful apologies. It just doesn't and everyone sees that. Lowballing a case like this is an invitation to backlash, which we are now seeing. (See my comment regarding, "sprinkled with contempt.")

Set aside the future and intrinsic value of what Scouting has been, for many, and can be for many, many more. I concede. Set aside the SoL's issues and the debate about whether it should or should be applied. It can reasonably be debated on both sides. However, regardless the number cases, the BSA was definitely negligent and allowed men to cause serious damage to boys in the care of the organization. I believe mine was one of those cases of negligent oversight and please trust that my claim of abuse is legitimate and significant.

With all the caveats and since I will not pretend to be disinterested or 100% altruistic, how do you place a monetary value on the damage done to me, my family, my career, my state of mind, my future and my financial situation? If anyone can say anything other than, "There is no string of numbers behind a dollar sign that rises to that level," then I will be shocked and dismayed. It is from that point that I commend the idea of a top down assessment. To me, that acknowledges the situation, doesn't try to deny the reality that the horse has long since left the barn and represents a sincere, good faith effort to put your [their] money where your mouth is. "Equitable compensation to all victims of past abuse," they said it very publicly and their counsel repeated it multiple times. They started this. They said it. They invited us to come forward and file. And, with that Plan, the are not demonstrating they meant what they said.

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

And here lies one of the major issues with the dredging of stuff from the past.  Many people have come to terms with various trauma, and then to have it dragged back to the light is painful.  And, since the actual perpetrators are not being held accountable, is it really worth it, based on the true history of these types of tragedies?  

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 "babbling" idiot trying to make a quick and easy buck. Ain't nuttin' easy 'bout this.

21 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My point is - let's just be honest about the tradeoff here.  Increased settlement for claimants results in fewer program assets (camps) for kids.

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 consequences and future implications. (This not attempt to respond to the monetary issue, just a practical comparison.)

Just now, mrjohns2 said:

I'm don't think $6000 is the right number. Let's say the right number is $1,00,000. What if the BSA doesn't have that? What if they only have $50,000 per legitimate claim?

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.)

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I'm curious to explore that reaction:

1. Why is $6,000 bad?

2. Why is $14,000 or $20,00 better?

3. What is the right amount?

See above and I yield the floor and balance of my time to whomever you might listen, from whatever state or jurisdiction.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Lake property in my area sells for $10,000 per linear foot.  Over 100 feet, that skyrockets to $20,000 per linear foot.  They own over 2,000 feet of property ... expected value on that one camp is $40M just for the lake frontage.  That is one cash strapped council, one camp.   

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 in feigned surrender? Definitely, not. 

30 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The proposed settlement has been called shameful.  Why is it shameful and $500 million not enough?  Why is $1.3 billion good, but $500 million is not?

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? 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

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.

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.

To me, again my assessment, perception and opinion, this does not seem like an ideal person to Chair a representative the group of Local Councils, which AHC (I thought) was created to speak for each of your Councils. I mean no personal aspersions toward him or his firm. I could not care less who the person is or who their firm is or isn't. To be clear, if this were a question on an ethics exam, asking whether Attorney A should accept the role this attorney now holds and why or why not, I would answer "No, he should not" and list the perceived, if not actual conflicts of interest. 

Does anyone else see the potential problem here or is it just me?

I just looked and may have mixed up Greater NY Council with Greater Niagara Frontier Council. As to wealth, I think my assessment holds. As to claims, I will check...

If interested, this is a link to the Board of Greater New York Councils. Doesn't look much like the Board makeup of the LCs in my Scouting turf. https://nycscouting.org/board-of-directors/ 

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M.  LCs have billions.  It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

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 wound has been ripped open and I am trying to staunch the blood with little success. Probably TMI, but there it is. I appreciate you allowing me to be engaged and find it helpful to manage my emotions and the near constant rumination over the past, present and future. (I do have a therapist, but she's expensive. I owe somebody here a charred Elk steak or something.)

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

You requested information about the unanimity of the decision that could be of help to the plaintiff's attorney's.  Hopefully, everyone sees this.

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 wrote: "Is anyone here connected in a meaningful way to a member of the Ad Hoc Committee? I am curious if they have any real influence and if I am correct in my assertion that many LC’s consider themselves beyond the reach of its representation and influence. I know some do, but not the degree to which, how divided the group is, and etc."

9 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

If Mr. Mason is representing his council than his sworn duty is to represent his council, irrespective of what other clients his very, very large firm may represent.  I always find it unseemly to question the integrity of someone in our profession without evidence.

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...

11 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Since you have said that you are a claimant and have a professional role as an attorney, is it actually acceptable for you to request information from members of the ad hoc committee?  That seems like asking to get into the opposing team's huddle.

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 an interest of note in this matter.

Hm. Life is curious and follow the money. Write it down.

8 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

What we really have here is a bevy of groups with different, yet sometimes aligned, goals:

As a certified oddball and registered pedigreed odd duck, I'm onboard with the odd numbers. 

36 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

If I look at this dispassionately, its just a group of people just trying to preserve as much of Scouting as possible while claimants are trying to extract as much as thy can.

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 to read into that, as may be appropriate; 

3) I did not initiate this campaign to do "equity" by all survivors of past abuse in Scouting. I was minding my own business and trying to manage my life, such as it was, when this blew up in my face. It set off a train wreck of a year wrought with months and months of darkness I won't go into, not the least of which was 4.5 months of research and documentation creating the materials to submit my Proof of Claim;

4) Neither I nor the other sexual abuse survivor claimants forced Mosby or Turley to make the promises that were made and repeated about their motives, goals, intentions and heartfelt sorrow;  and

5) To say that I/we/they/whoever are trying to get as "much money from Scouting as possible" is a non-statement, and uses your 'only two camps' assertion lumping everyone together. It's neither accurate nor helpful. What does "as possible" even mean? What the formula is, I don't know, but what has been offered, and the way it was done, is nothing short of shameful.

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Except, in this case, the subjects (us), left to fend for themselves, go on happily scouting because there are no "marauders" after the us. 

That sounds like a reasonably happy ending. I can foresee certain marauders drowning in their hapless attempt to recover the booty. 

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So, if this is delayed for 6 months to vet the list, and we drop to 25,000 claims ...  BSA may just end up having to liquidate as they run out of cash to fund continuing operations.

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.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This really does look like "what is the absolute bare minimum we can put in as a plan." Holding $667 million as restricted. Protecting every HA base. and the $300 million from the Councils is "voluntary" and "ask".

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.

When I stand back and look at the mosaic of this story as it plays out, I cast National in the role of the wealthy ruler trying to make an escape to establish its domain on the far shore. Arrogant, defiant and unwise, the ruler makes a fatal of error of judgement. He has loaded the ship with so much wealth that it sinks halfway across the channel. His subjects, left on the shore, must fend off the marauders at the gate with little by way of stores, few resources and no precious metals or gems with which to negotiate. (Not saying we survivor claimants are marauders, but you get the idea. A certain lawyer has long ago auditioned and been cast in that starring role.)

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Delaying the process to vet could actually lead to a worse outcome for BSA.

How so?

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Those statements may seem adversarial - but in reality they are simply protective measures trying to navigate this process in the most responsible way possible.

As an attorney, I don’t take them that way. Well, nor as a claimant. It is the way it is.

Is anyone here connected in a meaningful way to a member of the Ad Hoc Committee? I am curious if they have any real influence and if I am correct in my assertion that many LC’s consider themselves beyond the reach of its representation and influence. I know some do, but not the degree to which, how divided the group is, and etc.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

b) there are enough victims who are ready to say "I don't want to kill off BSA, therefore I'll take a pittance."

Yeah. You also have to factor in that the overwhelming majority of claimants have counsel. As I said, I don’t think many of us entered this process wanting to crush the Scouts. Some changed their minds, having seen the numbers and watched the behavior of the BSA and LC’s. Others are still so inclined, but unwilling to walk away with a token. And, a large group will be heavily influenced by attorneys who can’t be pure of motive with 33%-40% riding on way the cards are laid.

4 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I don't know if $1.3 billion will be enough

I think you can pretty much convert that hunch to something resembling a fact.

What news of that humiliation and torture exercise masquerading as a game of quickness and hand-eye coordination? I refer to the thing where you hold your hands above the other guy’s and try to move them before he slaps them silly? I was never very advanced at that, but did move beyond looking like I was wearing red mittens in all seasons.

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Since 2018 or 19, dodgeball is now banned

I just had a moment of silence for dodge ball. I will eventually recover from the loss. Cards and flowers not necessary.

43 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

... and don't get me or my Troop started on dodge ball. 

Are you implying that dodge ball is now verboten? I can’t imagine my early days of Scouting without welts on my face and body at the end of of each Monday night. The older guys who could whip it like that red ball was coming off a jai alai cesta were brutal.