ThenNow

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This is a question borne both out of curiosity and my interest in the health and safety of kids. Are there "model" structures or relationships between the various entities that can be put forward as exemplars? I'm sure some of you have it dialed in to a science. This is how it's done in other context with great success. To borrow from the franchise discussion, this is why and how the good ones succeed wildly: strict adherence to replication. Even as I say that it dawns that as volunteer driven it lacks financial incentive, effectively downgrading the engine of the model. The V12 becomes a Volt. It was a thought. "Here is what works and this is how to do it, if you manage to pull it off."

Especially this judge. She doesn't play, is very sober-minded and I believe she sincerely grasps the gravity of what is before her.

They cannot get 66% on this turd no matter how much they polish it. Doubtful with a side of supremely unlikely. This tussle is just in Round One, anyway. https://www.wsbankruptcylaw.com/chapter-11-business-bankruptcy/cram-down-provision/

The case can only countenance claims before it. Absolutely no other part of the story is of any concern or relevance, other than to public perception. That's the entire function of the reorganization. What are the valid debts, what are the assets and how can we clear the deck to keep this thing afloat (or not).

None of what I can say makes it less of a burden for those working to maintain all that is good about Scouting. I hope it is clear from all I have written that through it all I value and acknowledge what Scouting did for me. It was very muddled and tarnished, but I have my awards and badges and sashes and so on. Many people don't understand me being "of two minds." They don't understand because they didn't live either or both side of my life. One family may have three abusers over a generation and the percentage of predators very high, per capita. With Scouts, it doesn't matter if there were millions of Scouts or 100,000 Scouts. 85,000 is the takeaway. Not many of us "do math" (or arithmetic) anymore. In the era of sound bites and over-simplifications, hashtags and catch phrases carry the day. Said, but true. Whether Scouting was or is at the top or bottom of such a list is pretty much irrelevant now. You have to face it and go on, as you honorably and earnestly propose. It is become a convenient symbol for institutional sexual abuse and some will always see it as such. That looks horrible to read on "paper," sounds equally terrible and is unfortunate. BUT, abuse victims didn't create that reality and the BSA did, in fact, facilitate it. No two ways about it. What the public and attorneys have made of it would not be possible if it had not happened. Do I know that 85,000 claims are 100% legit? No, I don't. Do I believe they are? Not so much. I do know for certain one is very much true and accurate, and I know what wreckage was caused. Agreed. Money can't erase the predation or history. In this context, it might just do some good.

I guess I glossed over those statements. Sorry. I have been through the YP materials available online. Unequivocally and without reservation, I found each module of such excellent quality I tried to find a generic version to pass on to others in custodial positions, whether individual or institutional. I know it would have helped in the past and cannot be anything but a great benefit now. It is not only educational and structural, but it gives practical markers to detect abuse of all kinds. I was very impressed. I hope that helps you feel reassured about what you are doing, coming from someone who suffered because of the historic lack of training and instruction about protecting kids from abuse and mistreatment. Before you react, I recognize much of that "lack" was both cultural and emblematic of the times.

I'm not inside the case, but have an opinion based on all the reading and review I've done. I see no indication in the Plan that the insurance companies had any input. It's not their "side" of the deal and are aggressively embroiled in trying to obtain additional information and challenge claims. I can't image they're ready to give up anything just yet. There could be a baseline contribution being discussed, but this is what the BSA National is putting on the table. Likewise, I don't think so at all. There is an Ad Hoc Committee of LC's that ostensibly represents all LC's. I know for a fact that some LC's reject that notion. They don't believe the Ad Hoc Committee is their representative, and it does not and cannot speak for them. Thus, National has committed to making a request for a voluntary contribution from the LC's. That's about as squishy and non-committal as it gets. If National had the blessing to make the commitment, I would think they'd make it. All that said, what do I know...

Because the two creative entities exist separately, like when an artist retains rights to duplicate and use in future publications, they can be retained. For example, a lithograph of an artist-owned original or a painting you may own that the artist retains the right to duplicate. Of course, the latter diminishes the value of the original work, but it is done. I have prints of photos on which I paid a premium to ensure the artist would not further duplicate, other than in promotional and portfolio materials. Does that help? It may be the case that this is what they are proposing and is implied by them not being listed among assets being contributed. I can't say for p-positive, of course.

By that do you mean whether or not they they will have future use via existing/retained copyrights?

I getchu. I was simply explaining the likely basis for McD's ability to swoop in and reclaim the 3 franchises from Mr. McDrug.

Was it literally "immediately"? Many such agreements have a "moral turpitude" provision that triggers a reversion, right to terminate and/or assumption of rights. There would be an extrapolation of how it is to be interpreted, defined and applied. I'm betting this is what happened. I private contract wouldn't need to require a conviction, either. PR, brand diminishment, public perception, interference with business advantage and all that.

I understand the point. I know a good deal about therapy and treatment modalities to address dual diagnoses and Complex PTSD stemming from child sexual abuse, with all the derivative circles of impact (family, and etc.). I just think you're running a rabbit trail, based solely on the point made by one survivor to the effect that $6000 won't even cover his therapy. That was used to highlight the inadequacy of the BSA's portion of a contribution to the Victims Compensation Trust. For most of us, though I don't presume to speak for 10's of thousands of men, we are not looking to specifically pay for therapy, whether basic, enhanced, evolved or otherwise. We are hoping to receive compensation that acknowledges what we have suffered. In part, that is financial damage so compensatory "damages" are implied. The financial impact to me has been enormous. In larger part, it is about the life and soul impacts, which I addressed at length months ago. Though rebuffed that any such is ephemeral and too amorphous to be worthy of full recompense, I assert it again, believing it is a primary motive for many of us. (Reference my posts on "soul murder" and "identity assassination.")

I have no clue what this either means or implies.

Having followed the case since the outset, as you have, and after reading many of the other cases and RCC Chapter 11 files, I think Judge Silverstein will seriously consider proactively "piercing the veil" to access the LC's. This is obviously being hotly debated in the mediation. When the issues surrounding transferring assets to Protection Trusts arose with the Middle TN Council, she was not happy. From my reading, National holds a reversionary interest in LC assets upon revocation or relinquishment of Charter. If so, that is the thread upon which one tugs to show the two entities are, indeed, of the same cloth.

I'm going to predict something and it's not something I am inclined to do. This will likely energize the national effort to 'reform' statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. There could not be a better platform than this offer (Plan) and the way it will almost certainly be perceived.

Most anyone who has followed the case to any degree or reads this cold will see the offer as smug, insolent defiance sprinkled on top of contempt for sexual abuse survivors. Just sayin'...

This a $100,000 less than my therapy bill alone. Session costs for a decent therapist have skyrocketed since 2005 or so.

Yes, provided he only went to therapy a total of 48 times over the course of 26 years at a rate of $125 per session.