MYCVAStory

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

She made some very interesting points, including that around 40% of the individuals she has dealt with were false claims (at least based on certain standards). 

Her experience is as a court investigator and deals with a lot of domestic issues where abuse allegations are used as retaliation unfortunately.  This is not the situation with the population in this bankruptcy.  TCC attorney on cross asked her if she would discuss with the Trustee applicable questionnaire items..."Of course."  Coalition attorney asks who pays her and if it's the insurers.  She doesn't seem to know!  Says they come from the "Boy Scouts Defense Fund."  Document presented showing that yes, the insurers are paying her.  "Yes, but they still come from the defense fund?!"  Seems very sincere about Survivors being compensated for valid claims but her lack of bankruptcy and trust experience was a mistake for the insurers.  Insurer's attorney looking on very pained.

Informative discussion related to reliability of the TDP in addressing claim validity.  A better description may be the "validity" only given the points trying to be made.  As a reminder, the TDP was always intended to be a first step and placeholder.  The Trust is to design a specific questionnaire that would then be validated along with other evidence by trust personnel.  Dr. Treacy continues to discuss the RELIABILITY of the POC but doesn't seem to understand its limited use in the TDP.   Anyway....a good discussion though of a "Conceptual Framework for Child Sexual Abuse" by Sgroi.  Here's a Google Books link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/XfBX3y5O8WcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA9&dq=sgroi+framework  Pages are missing but this framework includes five stages: Engagement, Sexual Interaction, Secrecy, Disclosure and Suppression.  That framework hits the nail on the head.  

32 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

This may be a stupid question but what has district court have to do with a case in federal court?I'm not savy to the judicial system.

Basically, the Federal District Court must affirm all decisions by the bankruptcy judge.  Additionally, expect the "certain insurers" to appeal IF there is confirmation.  The insurer M.O. is to appeal and delay.  As anyone who has ever filed a home/auto claim knows, they're kinda picky about holding on to their money as long as possible!  The good news is that the District Court usually takes fairly quick action because it looks for significant mistakes.  We'll see next week the beginnings of how ugly the DOJ is going to make this.

Judge to decide on Brian Whitman testifying and being crossed again.  Guam folks thought they'd get another shot.  He appears to be the last person testifying for the debtor and the judge sounded like she was inclined to have him be crossed again.  Game's back on at 10AM Monday.  Enjoy the weekend break all.   Probably closer to the end of this hearing than the beginning.

16 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

Anyone watching the confirmation trial ... have they said anything about scheduling?  Do they expect to wrap up testimony any time soon?

They haven't started on objecting party witnesses or final arguments so this will go well into next week and there's the suggestion that it will start and stop around the judge's prior committments.

23 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The judge looked very concerned about the direction this is headed.  She had Bates leave before asking the TCC & FCR why they were going to cross examine him.  Interesting...

Perhaps because if Bates' low valuations are accepted it could make it a lot more difficult to get at the excess insurance coverage in some years. 

39 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Are you saying a TCC member was disqualified from voting because he had a conflict of interest. Was that disclosed to the UST or to the survivor body?

Wow....I'm not jumping to a conclusion.  I'm only, again, reporting what was said today.  No one on the TCC voted to reject the plan.  If any abstained that hasn't been reported, wasn't asked, and no TCC specific outcome of votes have been reported as far as I know.

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

BTW__ Dr. Kennedy answered clearly. The vote on the TCC was NOT unanimous. Your answer above is Orwellian. 

Again, he said that NO MEMBER objected.  What constitutes "unanimity" is not defined by Roberts and is typically accepted in practice as the results of those who vote.  For example, if a member had a conflict of interest and abstained that member acted properly as a fiduciary and that should not be considered as objecting for purposes of a vote.  As well, as he mentioned today, the TCC had a fiduciary duty to ALL Survivors and members found themselves voting against their own self-interests financially at times when it was in the best interest of all survivors.   I'd rather have representatives doing that then voting to reject, or even abstain, because they are protecting their own interests.  Orwellian thinking is that which is destructive to a free society.  Stating the facts, that no one objected and that he was never asked if anyone abstained, is the opposite of Orwellian.  It's the truth.

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I wish someone would have asked Dr. Kennedy about this Plan paragraph. Who else could this apply to except TCC members? Smells very fishy. 

Well....members of the Survivor's Working Group that helped craft the YP changes, Survivors who become part of the Youth Protection Committee, the Survivor who will become part of the BSA Board and serve alone.  Perhaps Survivors who step forward and serve on their Local Councils?  I'm glad the PSZJ "fine" is going to YP and by this extension to Survivors who contribute.  Win-win.  It's also a reason an independant Trustee was critical.  I don't see a respected former federal judge getting involved with "fishy."

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

It was not unanimous. One or more members either voted to reject or abstained from supporting. 
 

Significant. Even the committee members could not agree. That’s not “overwhelming” support. 

To be fair, because you have provided a potentially inaccurate accounting of the hearing, he was asked by an objecting attorney if every member of the TCC agreed with the settlement.  His reply was that the TCC stood as one on its votes after the fact.  He then received an awkward follow-up question and stated clearly that NO member of the TCC voted to reject the most recent settlement.  He was not asked if any abstained.  So, a suggestion that a member voted to reject is incorrect.  As well, disagreement is not necessarily a cause for abstention. 

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Almost everyone as needed  (especially including lawyers) will be taking screen shots or recording as needed. 

No argument here.  I just wanted to remind people so they are aware that disseminating screenshots, video, audio might get them in trouble.

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I was thinking of taking screenshots but then thought that may not be allowed.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!  "Recording, photographing, or live streaming of this hearing is prohibited."  And yes, is breaking the law.  BUT...after it's all over you can request an audio recording from the court.  We need one of those cool court artists!

In case anyone wants a scorecard to see who's in the on-deck circle, here's a link to the order of witnesses: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/20a14698-406e-4a81-a6aa-dd7508a5bf2f_9269.pdf

44 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course, we all know the Trust amount of $2.7B (current, assuming no additional money from the non-settling entities). So, it seems reasonable to me that we should assume in the neighborhood of 1/3 of any claim can be paid from the Trust (really, less if we think there will be more than 43,000 paid claims).

We can't be premature.   The settlement could look a lot different IF one is approved.  Regardless, yet to be determined is the expense related to operating the trust (more lawyers and claim review staff) AND the number of claimants that will be "non-responsive."  I know it's hard to believe but in every mass tort case there are those claimants who submit a claim and then just plain disappear.  Given the number who didn't vote in this case, and the fleet of attorneys trying to get them to, it's reasonable to assume that the number of Survivors receiving awards will be less than the number who submitted claims.   Keep your fingers crossed regardless.

10 minutes ago, GHamm said:

I wish all of you nothing but happiness and fulfillment in life. It’s okay to have bad days, as long as there is at least one good one. That day came to me in the form of my wife. I don’t know, without this person’s compassion and understanding I would still be completely broken and lost.

So incredibly true.  The story of Survivors isn't the stories of individuals.  It's the stories of how what happened affected all those around them.  My abuser changed my life AND the lives of my wife, children, friends, co-workers and others.  I'm fighting for them even more than for myself.  Give those people like her an extra long hug.  They deserve it.

18 hours ago, GHamm said:

I’ve emailed my lawyer and even shot the question to Omni, but no response yet.

100% that's who you should be talking to and demanding any action if necessary.  If so, make sure you demand correspondence verifying that action has been taken.  If you ever need to convince the Trust of something "Take my word for it" probably won't fly!

35 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I caught the last 5 mins of the hearing today and it didn't seem like anyone was happy.  Did anyone listen to the hearing?  Votes were due yesterday ... any update?

No voting update.  Judge wasn't happy with delays, missed deadlines, etc.   Commented that she might request a meeting this week to finalize issues but this is squarely on the BSA to choreograph and she isn't satisfied that everyone has ignored deadlines over the last two years.   As she said..."I'll be here Monday."  Buchbinder the US Trustee reminded everyone that this isn't a typical bankruptcy and its about more than debt.  Unfortunately he didn't mention that he meant Survivors or any suggestions for fixing things.  If mods are reading this they might want to consider a  specific "Confirmation Hearing" forum later this week or Monday.  Going to be an interesting three weeks.

12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Ahhh ... I think I get it now.  This is about moving rights to sue from the victim to the trust.  If the case is well proven in an open state, the victim can give their legal rights to sue to the trust and the trust then pays the victim.  The trust then goes after the non-settled insurers.  

Well, it arms the Trust with the ability to apply pressure to non-settling insurers, especially the excess insurers by basically saying "See, you're going to get beaten up if these go to court."  Another issue this addresses is Survivors "competing" against Survivors for limited funds in the trust.  If all "high-dollar" awards, those in excess of 2.7 mil come out of the existing trust then it will deplete available assets dispraportianately.  

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. We all have to admit this is a funny word. Experts like to coin stuff when they don't like what else is available to them, Cronbach or no Cronbach. I'm teasing, but use it in a sentence this week and see the reaction you get (unless you work in quantitative analysis, mathematics or the like). 

Funny?  HAH!  It's music to researchers' ears.  Before Cronbach gets worked up with reliability we can geek out over who the results will apply to!  Enjoy....  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3369519/

🙂

I would place a VERY big caution on the interpretation and use of this.  Before I go further, let me say I have the highest admiration for ChildUSA and its work.  The issue though is one of external validity or "generalizability" as it is commonly known.  The data came from a questionnaire that was completed by AIS ("Abused in Scouting") clients.   Regardless of how you feel about the methods used to gain those clients, and I'm making no judgement about that, they are a specific group, that chose a specific firm or group of firms, and that raises questions.  For example, at the time of the questionnaire were predominantly Survivors in "open States" coming forward?  If so, is that group representative of all States?  Were Survivors of the worst forms of abuse coming forward more than others?   This is what we call a convenience sampling method.  It's convenient because the researchers had access to it but it is NOT a randomized sample representative in a systematic way of a larger population.  This does NOT mean that the results should be ignored.  Rather, they should be understood for what they are and until data is collected in a manner that is designed to be widely generalizable this "study" shouldn't be used to explain phenomena beyond the participants who completed the questionnaire.

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

First off, in your 1000 or so posts, I can’t recall you saying one positive thing about the BSA. Second, if you don’t preach it, you don’t teach it. The BSA vision is building character. That’s what the organization preaches, and that is what they teach. Not everyone is in it for the vision, but most are. The moral standards of character is still noble.

Therein lies the problem.  For 82,500 claimants they can't and won't accept an organization that "preaches" character when past behavior runs counter to that.  The BSA has said sorry and wants to make up for the past.  It had its attorney, and not any employee of the BSA apologize to Survivors who met in Delaware when some stepped forward to be considered for the TCC.  It mortgaged the hell out of Philmont so that it could owe JP Morgan and effectively put that out of reach for Survivors.  It has done little to address release of the IV files, kicking that to a Trustee and in two years waited for the TCC and Coalition Survivors Group to take the lead on Youth Protection changes.  Character?  That's what you do when you don't think anyone is looking.  Only problem for the BSA is that everyone is looking and its actions have not matched its words or mission.

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

In the meantime, maybe we can try to focus on the overwhelmingly positive offerings of Scouting.  

Uh, maybe that needs to be a separate forum.  Going to be a tough lift right now for many of the 82,500 discussing the bankruptcy.

33 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Of course, you might also ask why all this only comes up after he is out of a job? 

Uhhhh..... As he stated:

1.  He tried when he was employed and was prevented from the change he sought.

2.  In order to create change while employed, he had to to stay employed.  Public comment would prevent that.  "Hey everybody, half the youth protection reports I'm seeing involve youth on youth abuse" isn't a headline the Boy Scouts would have appreciated.

Remember, he turned down a financial bonus to sign an NDA.  I'm willing to buy into his sincerity.

So...Future Claims representative....  this person represents the interests of claimants that have not already come forward but have legal recourse to do so at a later date.  Yes, it's one of those bankruptcy things that make you say "So he's billing on behalf of clients he doesn't have yet?"  Yes.  In the case of this bankruptcy an example would be claimants who at a later date will claim that they were suffering from repressed memory and now that they are conscious of their abuse they want to file a claim.  That is a legal argument that is accepted in some States but must be proven and can't just be a doodge because you missed a deadline.  So, the FCR attends all mediation, files motions and objections, and just basically representes the interests of yet-to-be identified Survivors.  As well, the Trust will have to hold back some money for a period of time "just in case" and yes, the FCR gets to keep billing until that period runs out.  At that point it goes back into the trust  Don't shoot the messenger.  I've added FCR to my career choices when I'm reincarnated.  You get to be a lawyer, and bill, without all those pesky clients to deal with.   Unbelievable.  There has to be a better way.

From my attorney:

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Oh, wait! I think that first sentence was lifted from my job description when I was raising teenagers. I knew it looked strangely familiar.

Where was I on career day in high school when the "Bankruptcy Consultant" discussed that career path?