MYCVAStory

10 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Having been 'on the inside'in the 70's, 80's, 90's and more I can tell you that the BSA was doing youth protection training way back. We had 'experts' on VHS tapes telling volunteers and parents the signs, we had 2 deep leadership rules, and we had handouts and even a quiz on the subject for years before any other agency even thought about this type of training. As time passed more steps were added. With the advent of digital cameras and phones that could record that was added to the mix. Sorry to break your balloon but I was a BSA employee and I know how active the BSA was over 4 decades ago in addressing this problem. Predators don't arrive with a scarlet letter on their shirt. They look just like everyone else and most of them don't have a record. The BSA was well ahead of the curve. People are imperfect and can sometimes be overly trusting and it sounds like your case was one such case (of a significant number). In an agency dealing with many millions of kids and millions of adults over the years things happen. Doesn't make it right or dismiss it. You can't make wrongs right but for the councils I worked in and the professionals I worked with, I can say that your words are in error. Regardless of the motive it is well to remember that the BSA was a part of the awakening of all youth agencies to the issue of abuse. You may say too little, too late and as a victim I understand your feelings. The bastard that abused you, I hope he got a long, long sentence. I hope that all the volunteers that I helped train did protect the youth in their charge and that my efforts to hold up the BSA youth protection standards protected kids. The BSA has well over 40 decades of getting the word out. Not once did I ever hear anyone say, ignore it, sweep it under the rug... we need to protect our image. Just had to respond to your point of view with my actual experiences. 

Tell me, what Councils did you work in?  I ask because you make it sound as if there were no issues under your watch.  I'd love to know which Councils didn't have a problem. As well, I wouldn't crow too much about being on the inside during the 70's through 90's.  Claims from that period were at their highest.  Below is the summary of claims.  You might want to read it.  As well, just a friendly reminder to all, like him of not, Michael Johnson stated that HALF of the YP reports he read were youth on youth.  We seem to forget that when we talk about all the safeguards in place.  At any rate, about your statement "Sorry to break your balloon but I was a BSA employee and I know how active the BSA was over 4 decades ago in addressing this problem. "  Well, take a look at the file below.  regardless of how active the BSA was in "addressing" the problem, I have news for you, it failed.  Don't tell me about how the BSA's rates of abuse are no worse than the general public.  Our parents weren't getting assurances from the general public that their kids were safe.  Don't tell me that training existed.  The Scouts own records show that half of registered leaders didn't take YP training.  Don't tell me the YP training is foolproof now.  I sat for it last year and could skip ahead to get my "certificate" without completing all modules.  I could go one.  Active or not, look at the attached claims summary AND remember that with men on average coming forward well into middle-age the numbers for the past three decades might be artificially low.  I won't argue that the BSA didn't try.  It did, and it failed.

BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims.pdf

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Choosing to be offended again?? 😛

The whole "Being offended is a choice" is an interesting issue.  This piece is food for thought: https://thirdhour.org/blog/life/being-offended-is-a-choice-as-cop-out/

For Survivors, it often isn't a choice.  For many, working on making that better is a lifetime sentence.

27 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

Sadly, there was and still is a learning curve on how to prevent and how to treat incidents of abuse. 90% of the cases were 30 or more years old. Some extended back half a century.

27 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

My issue is that the lawsuit did not go after the predators, their assets and finances.

Tell the 10,000 Survivor claimants since then that the abuse cases going back so long ago should make them feel better?  If anything, the fact that the BSA had such a long history of abuse AND knew enough to fix it should sting even more for those who were abused more recently.  As far as lawsuits, they remain against the abuser and every day I want mine to remember that the day is approaching when mine will commence.  What doesn't remain, are the lawsuits against any enablers within the BSA.  Time will tell whether that's a topic the DOJ will be looking into. 

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Reorganization? At the National level, that remains to be seen too

Agree 100%.  My comment was in response to someone stating that the reorg will hurt kids' opportunities.  At the end of the day that's 100% in the hands of the entity that voluntarily entered bankruptcy and those who joined in because it was in their interest to do so, the National and Local organizations.  Time will tell!

SO....Judge Silverstein has ruled on the Coalition's Substantial Contribution Payment and has decided they get....NOTHING.  That's right, they requested the BSA pay what, $20 million for the lawyers and professionals to represent it when it tried to strong-arm a settlement that the Survivors voted down!?  The opinion is below and it's a doozy.  Basically, "you were representing a constituency that the TCC already represented.", "You took credit for everything and that was objected to.", "You told the Court when you wanted to become a mediation party that the State Court Counsels who made up the Coalition would be paying its professional fees.", "Oh, and those personal injury attorneys are making 25-40% of their clients' awards so they can pay the bills of their professionals."  So karma rules.  Big Time.  I'm no attorney but the ruling really reads like a "What not to do" for the next entity that tries to pull the same maneuver. 

11652 12-05-23 Opinion.pdf

13 hours ago, Ojoman said:

 

I found the materials on line that listed the individual cases and included the documents and I did read a fair number to get an idea of how serious the suit was and yes, it was serious but none of the cases I saw included any professionals as abusers (I certainly expect there were some, just not the ones I read) but mainly volunteer adults and in some cases adults that were not even registered but affiliated through the chartered partner or as a relative of a youth member. I would change my mind if you can direct me to the documentation that shows that BSA employees were the abusers in significant numbers.

An organization is responsible for its volunteers and operations.  Period.  The law makes this clear.  Go watch the Netflix Documentary and pay close attention to its former legal counsel who says essentially "The problem wasn't the BSA, it was a few bad apples in it."  The lack of logic would be funny if it wasn't so sad.  Oh, and those few bad apples, one was a EMPLOYED by the BSA and raped me.

The bottom line is that I don't deny that victims should have had their day in court. Frankly, most of them could probably have gotten a much better settlement if they had sued their local councils individually. I believe there was one case settled for 5 million dollars, perhaps adjusted later to a lower amount but the point is, you are correct that individual judgements were quite substantial. 

"My day in court?"  Hardly.  The bankruptcy is PREVENTING my day in court.  It PREVENTS discovery into knowing the names of colleagues of yours in the 1970's who may have known about or enabled my abuser.  The bankruptcy denies the sort of restorative justice that allows me to confront them.  And right now, it also prevents me from proceeding with my suit against my abuser because any award I receive may diminish my award from the Trust.  So, the bankruptcy is shielding him too.  My day in court?  No, but I'm a lucky one compared to those of my brothers who the SOLs prevent any sort of suit from proceeding.  For them their Council would be shielded and there is NO "day in court."

The problem for me is I know literally dozens of individuals whose lives were vastly improved because of Scouting and the BSA because of this suit will now fail to reach 10's and even 100's of thousands of youth that could benefit from the values/teachings and trainings along with the positive mentors in Scouting. I ran an inner city program for over 6 years that served hundreds of Scouts and Cubs and that program no longer exists. The council no longer has the resources to even properly support its traditional unit programs let alone staff and support the Scoutreach program. There was no good outcome in this for anyone but the lawyers and law firms that brought the suit. 

Wow, "dozens" who were positively impacted.  Tell that to the 82,000.  That said, the vast majority of Survivors I've spoken to, and even the TCC for the ost part in its comments, have said "We don't care about the future of Scouting AS LONG AS KIDS ARE SAFE."  Now, you claim that kids won't be positively impacted because of the bankruptcy?  That's complete bull$hit.  Survivors voted down the first plan and accepted a second one because for one reason the Youth Protection measures were significantly strengthened.  THAT will improve lives.  Units went out of business?  That is NOT the fault of the bankruptcy, it's the fault of mismanagement by the Council, District, National and ultimately the local market for which Scouting was not attractive.  How dare you blame current issues with the abuse that happened to many of us decades ago.  As well, read the words of the new BSA CEO who claims membership will double.  Seems to me that bankruptcy REORGANIZATION will help and not hurt.  As far as no good outcome, it isn't over yet and Survivors will judge that when we see our actual awards and come to grips with what that means.  So don't tell me what my outcome will be.  That's for me to decide.  Have law firms made money off of this?  Sure, and I will pay my attorney a third of what I see, gladly.  You get what you pay for and when billions are at stake you pay a lot.

I'm sorry that you were a part of this dark chapter. I hope you find healing. God Bless

While I appreciate the sentiment, I again urge you to do a VERY deep dive into this forum and others.  The legal analysis and discussion of the FACTS of this bankruptcy are a real education.  THAT is the best way to help Survivors.  First and foremost, understand how we got here, what we've been through, and respect that some of us want to see the Scouts continue, some want them to go away, and some don't care, but we ALL want kids to be safe and for Society to learn from what happened to us so it doesn't happen again.

Mods....I recognize that my tone is a bit aggressive but it's done respectfully to drive home a point or two and lend emotion to where it belongs.

I listened closely to the SCOTUS hearing today, and spoke to several attorneys after, all of whom have a history in reading SCOTUS "tea leaves."  What made today a bit tricky were the underlying feelings/hatred for the Sacklers.  Cutting through that though this dealt with the existing law and the inconsistency between Districts as to how they treat third-party releases.  The media is portraying this as the Court having strong feelings both ways.  It usually does because it queries attorneys on both sides of their arguments.   My takeaway, and it was confirmed by the attorneys I spoke to, was that the Court was extremely deferential to the proponents of the Purdie plan and the use of the releases.  Time and again the Justices raised the issue that the plan proponents overwhelmingly supported the releases, and the underlying theme was "then why should the Court disagree?"  There were also questions regarding why the Court should step in when Congress can remedy this as it has with Asbestos claims specifically.  There is never any way to completely predict SCOTUS decisions but those I spoke to predicted that in June the decision will be to uphold Purdue with some new direction to place some guardrails on cases going forward.  In the case of the BSA, if the Appeals Court rules before SCOTUS does and denies the appeal, and then SCOTUS doesn't take it up (and why should it now) then the BSA Plan is set in stone and the settling insurers can pay up fully.  Many predict that the Appellate will just wait until after SCOTUS, deny the appeal, and then the same outcome is reached.  Again, no way to predict but if you were looking for a deeply doubtful SCOTUS that was looking for a reason to deny third-party releases then you didn't get it today.  The full oral argument, and it's fascinating to listen to, is here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-legality-of-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan

2 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Most BSA staff at any level really only had hearsay, 2nd or 3rd hand information that might not be allowed in court. Add to that little or no physical evidence. The BSA lawyers didn't do a very good job of defending the National organization. The BSA needed some 'pitbull' lawyers to defend it. I say, go for a new trial. I doubt that the BSA has much to lose and a lot to gain.... as long as they get some new lawyers to represent them. 

That's just a portion, but I beg you, please, spend some time and go WAY back to dig into the posts on this topic.  While there are opposing views, there is a great deal to be learned from the posts.  In the words of the late Senator Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Sent out from the Trustee retired Judge Houser:

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Is this a new appeal due to the Supreme Court or is this “the process still playing out”? 

These attorneys appealed to the Circuit, and the Circuit said "Nice try, you need to start with the District."  They have previously objected at the District level and lost.  This is another shot, this time a stay, on slightly different grounds.

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Did I read somewhere that this was First In First Out, as far as questionnaire submission?  I represent myself so I can move it along, if that is the case.

Yes, but that doesn't mean claimants get any more money, or that it "should" run out.  The Trust will make awards based on projections for all claimants.  I'm probably not saying that correctly.  Bottom line is that there isn't a financial advantage to being first in line.  Also, I've heard some attorneys will slow-roll in case clients' abusers get reported by someone else first.  That might bolster a claim.  Fingers crossed the Trust is going to address questions like this.

On 8/17/2023 at 12:12 AM, RememberSchiff said:

My question, will there be a response to above statement from the current  BSA Youth Protection Executive, Glen Pounder?

This will be an excellent opportunity for the BSA to comment on the YP agreements in the bankruptcy settlement, announce the third-party it's going to hire to consult with, and not sound tooo defensive.  We'll see.  Oh, remember as well that there must be a mechanism so that the public can find out how many YP infractions have occurred in the past with a specific troop.  That transparency will mean more than any back-and-forth over press releases.  Only thing is this, all the transparency in the world won't help if children don't report their abuse.  We know many do not.

Re the questionnaire being available...

1.  FOUR months to submit, and not six.  Attorneys with thousands of clients scrambling.

2.  Check this interview from today's TODAY Show: https://www.today.com/video/former-boy-scouts-can-now-file-claims-in-sex-abuse-settlement-191094341570

If I were the Trustee I would NOT be telling Survivors that they will receive EXACTLY what was spelled out in the claims matrix.  Regardless of ONE expert's opinion on this, and that opinion changed significantly during this process, my response would have been" "I am committed to seeing that Survivors get every penny available but we won't be able to best determine that until we understand fully the abuse and the number of Survivors that complete our questionnaire."  If this moves forward AND doesn't turn out well financially she'd better prepare her answer to the question "You said that Survivors might get up to $2.7 million.  Now it appears that none received that much.  Why not and why did you make that statement?"

Bottom line, this is all about scrambling the egg but the race is on to complete the questionnaires and move things along at the same time that the end result is still very much up in the air.

The Dumas and Vaughan attorneys, representing 69 clients, have filed for a Stay with the third district court of appeals.  Unsurprisingly, Purdue and its issues, most notably third-party releases, was cited as cause.  The requested Stay would of course pause things until the Supreme Court rules by next June.  What a pause means though is not known right now and would be litigated.  It could mean a pause on awards or a pause on all Trust activity, or somewhere in-between.  Briefs objecting to the Stay motion will be due in October from Plan Supporters.  One interesting issue is the requirement to provide a Bond while you get your stay.  The Bond is also litigated and serves to protect the Trust against any losses during a Stay.  If the court rules for a bond amount that D&V can't secure the Stay goes nowhere.  Regardless of all of this, I haven't spoken to an attorney who practices in bankruptcy who expects the Court of Appeals to rule before the Supreme Court does.  So....the post-Purdue pause expected Stay motion has been filed.  This will heat up in late October or sooner if all briefs are filed beforehand, and Survivors will again wait to see whether it is granted, and if so, what gets paused.  If you like the plan, stay worried.  If you don't like the plan, know that there's an effort to have the Supreme Court's Purdue decision impact it.

15 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Not one lawyer representing a claimant in the bankruptcy (outside of the TCC lawyers) has received a dime as of now.

Just reminded me.....Judge Silverstein still hasn't ruled on the Coalition's "Substantial Contribution" request for reimbursement by the BSA. 

3 hours ago, yknot said:

This documentary is one of at least three that have been in development for some time. One was Leave No Trace, which aired last year on Hulu, this one on Netflix, and there is a third but I can't remember who it is affiliated with or when it will air. 

I understand that the third was from the "Tiger King" production crew but Covid hit and it didn't move forward.  At least for now.  I have a hunch the Netflix project was completed mid-bankruptcy so perhaps that's a story waiting to be told, someday.

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

I would have far less issue with this if it actually did make any real effort to go beyond the BSA and the sensationalism. 

So not having seen it you've formed an opinion huh?  Sorry, but I fall into the camp of "Let's see what it has to say" before I form any sort of opinion.  If it moves the needle at all to prevent what happened from re-occuring then good.  As Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  The fullest understanding of what happened and why will be the best way to step toward preventing its being repeated.  I don't think you're black-hearted.  I just hope ALL of us will do our best to watch with an open mind and consider its values and faults.  Too much was secret for too long.  This is a part of the reckoning.

7 hours ago, SNEScouter said:

There is a HUGE difference between BSA and Purdue, which is that BSA's plan has already gone into effect.  Purdue's plan is now stayed and cannot go into effect, if at all, until after SCOTUS rules on the validity of non-consensual third-party releases. 

Not as much as you think.  While the BSA plan has gone effective it is still under appeal.  So, it is reversible.  One of the reasons the Trust is moving quickly is because sometimes a Court of Appeals will effectively say "The egg has been scrambled so any ruling we make shouldn't undo what has been done.  In this case, the Court of Appeals is expected to NOT rule since it knows that the Supreme Court is addressing a key portion of the BSA plan, the third-party releases.

7 hours ago, SNEScouter said:

That said, IMHO, the most likely outcome is that the Third Circuit receives all briefs and decides that the appeals of Lujan, D&V, Certain Insurers, etc. are equitably moot.  Briefing has already begun and so it seems like the Third Circuit ruling could come before a SCOTUS ruling in June '24, but who knows.  Therefore, even if there was reversible error in the BSA Plan approvals, the Third Circuit will likely find that it is powerless to reverse those errors because the plan has already gone into effect.  BSA is now a reorganized debtor and lots of assets have been paid to the Settlement Trustee in exchange for the third-party releases (largely by insurers and Local Councils).  The Settlement Trustee has already started incurring substantial operating expenses against those assets, and might very well start paying at least the expedited $3500 claims before either the Third Circuit or SCOTUS issues any rulings.  There are a lot of other aspects of the plan which also depended (at least indirectly) upon the third-party releases.  It would be virtually impossible for an appeals court to unscramble that egg. 

I agree but remember that the settling insurers are NOT required to make a large portion of their payments until ALL appeals have been settled.  So, the egg may not be as scrambled as it could be.

The bottom line I believe is that this is still up in the air a bit more than most recognize.  IF the appeals are denied tomorrow then ANY Supreme Court rulings later on won't matter.  As well, should this be denied on appeals it CAN be paused if the objectors can get the Supreme Court to accept a writ doing so.  Given its move to do so with Purdue, it very well might grant that as Purdue unfolds.  Again....things are still in flux.

19 minutes ago, BadChannel70 said:

What about survivors like myself who voted "no" on the plan because we didn't agree with the 3rd party releases. I saw no reason why sponsoring organizations should receive the benefits of a release. And likewise with the local councils. 

You point out well the problem with addressing mass torts through bankruptcy.  It reduces every individual to one "class" and sacrifices individual rights for collective agreements.  That's what the Supreme Court has to decide since to this point different circuits have ruled differently.  It's a shame that the issue wasn't long resolved before now. 

On 6/22/2023 at 11:58 PM, johnsch322 said:

In an email from my lawyers today I was informed that in their opinion it will take more than a year before appeals are exhausted. Hartford and Century do not have to put money into the settlement trust until after the appeal process however the claims review process will be taking place during this time.

Hartford and Century have made partial payment.  Approximately 150 mil total if memory serves.  It's in the confirmed plan.  Optimistic assessment:  Yes, the remainder must be paid after appeals but at least the Trust is funded to a level that allows it to start its work.   Pessimistic assessment: Yes, let's hope that the plan isn't overturned on appeal at the same time the Trustee and Trust professionals burn through the initial contributions and become the only recipients of Trust money!.

On 5/7/2023 at 1:47 PM, Eagle1970 said:

My question for the group regards the "Proposed SoL Scaling Factors".  So, are they set in stone with the Trust having moved forward?  Missouri is listed as 10-25% in that chart.  But when I compare what is likely to be the new SoL, it would become longer than some states that have a 50% factor.  What other factors are involved with those rather arbitrary percentages?

To the best of my knowledge the scaling factors will be modified to the "current" State of the SOL landscape.  That's also why there's a 12-month holding period for Survivors who anticipate changes for their State.  Just my guess.  But, a couple other points:

1.  The Trust has a LOT of explaining to do regarding processes.  The Judge has said she's going to answer questions.   We'll see if she knows what that means. A claims processing company will be retained.  It will get a lot of questions.  For now we all have questions and the questionnaire is in development.  THEN, there will be six months to get that in.  So, there's a LOT of time for a LOT of issues to come up and hopefully be addressed.  As well, there are 4,000 pro se claimants and the Trustee knows it so there will need to be assistance for unrepresented Survivors and those who aren't happy with their attorney communication.

2.  And, a "Don't shoot the messenger" message.  Remember that the Third Circuit still has this to be considered under appeal.  All it did was refuse to continue the stay.  That allowed the Trust to move forward since the plan allowed it after District Court affirmation.  So, while the Trust is motivated to get things going ASAP since the Circuit will look at how much progress has been made and will consider that before overturning anything, that may take a year considering the Circuit's pace.  Non-settling insurers are happy to wait.  THEN, if they don't prevail they submit a writ to the Supreme Court to have it consider their position.  Getting that accepted is anyone's guess and then the time to any hearing is also an unknown.  What all of that means is that Survivors will get an award "letter" but any award "payments" are more than likely a multi-payment proposition that will take more than a year and the percentage of the award value is still a big unknown.

Sorry, I know this didn't answer your question directly.  It's just meant as some encouragement that a LOT of questions are to come AND there is a lot of time for this to still play out.  What did I hear, 10,000 claimants over 70?  I just want to be alive when this is done playing out.  The fact that many Survivors haven't made it, and still more won't, is tragic and I hope some day that story becomes part of the narrative that changes how the bankruptcy laws are being used to address what happened to us.