Eagle1970

With full respect for all victims/survivors, it would be easy for a scammer to make a claim involving a deceased former leader. I hope the vetting process is thorough. That said, the insurers should be paying more, not less, because the damages per claim far exceed what is on the table.

I'm sure this is too good to be true, but it says it applies retroactively. Question for the legal eagles: Does this change anything or is state law what matters? Does it apply to claims currently out of sol? From Congressional Budget office: S. 3103 would eliminate the statute of limitations—currently set at 10 years—for a minor victim to file a civil action to recover damages for several federal crimes against minors, including sexual abuse, trafficking, exploitation, and pornography. The act would apply prospectively and retroactively, allowing civil suits to be brought agains

Just wondering: Can any of the remaining work, such as vetting claims be done while this is pending in court? In a civil suit, there are settlement-related issues an attorney can address far before settlement (liens and so on). So what about this bankruptcy?

It's a decision I would not want to be in the position of making. Likely, there are totally bogus claims. And just as likely, given the ages of many victims, there will be plenty of memory loss. Just because I remember most details doesn't mean every victim will.

It will be interesting to see where they draw the line on vetting.

Just wondering, with delayed sales of contribution property and future insurance settlements, how long will the trust be distributing money to survivors? Many years?

The summary in this article amazes me. "claims by more than 80,000 men who say they were abused as children by troop leaders." I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only boy abused by a BSA employee at camp (especially since I witnessed him abusing another). And apparently many claims are abuse by other scouts, though I can't really pin down the facts on that. I just wish the media would think, then write.

Got you beat! I was 99% sure about something twice. What's the saying? Fool me once?

What are your thoughts on a timetable going forward?

As I mentioned in my post, this is more a feeling than legal talk. I filed a claim after an internal struggle, as I was concerned about opening old wounds. I had no idea how I had buried my abuse and how it likely contributed to so much struggle in my life.

My reaction is that "funded" appears to be a relative term. It may be technically funded, according to Bates, with the foundation being that claims in time-barred states are virtually worthless. But when some victims (at best) will end up with a few thousand dollars, the term is a misnomer, to me. When I see awards and settlements to victims in other arenas in the tens of millions, calling this "funded" for those who receive a few thousand is an insult. But I'm likely speaking in real life talk, rather than courtroom language. Frankly, the beating we have taken since this case started wil

Thanks for the info. My abuse was in Missouri. With regards to lawyer explanation, I am pro se. With limited legal background, I wish I had an attorney. But with the Grey 3 situation, I can't justify it.

Would someone be kind enough to clarify for me the implications of pre-1976 abuse, as mine was just prior to that period? Are CO's not released due to that timeframe? And, if so, does that become a mitigating factor in the matrix? My CO was a Catholic Church.

Just a couple of things: One, I have been a very generous contributor to Uncle Sam for over 50 years, so no worries there. Second, my abuse was in a time-barred state-no less, on the border of a state that is open. So, absolutely I am looking for deep pockets, or any pockets for that matter. So, the one correction I will make is that I'm not looking for more money. I'm looking for some money.

More than just donations, the Feds promoted the program with enthusiasm. I certainly get your point, and agree with it. Just wondering if the actual lobbying for BSA changes the picture.

With full respect to the gymnast victims of Nassar, in addition to their quite substantial settlements already received, the Federal Government plans to settle with them, again. I have learned that around the time of my abuse, the Federal Government was a significant financial supporter of BSA (per "Leave No Trace"). So couldn't the Fed have some liability (SOL's be damned)? https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/46983869/doj-offers-to-begin-settlement-discussions-with-sexual-assault-victims-of-disgraced-usa-gymnastics-doctor-nassar

I continue to believe there is no shortage of evidence to support a concealment case. At this point, logistically speaking, how does tolling the sol with concealment impact a survivor's case? Under the Trust Agreement, would it require an independent review, along with the $10k to make a case for concealment? Or would the argument simply tilt the sol factor higher under the standard procedure? Or other legal action? In the end, there were multitudes of failures along the way, and some appear to be intentional. That will remain a fact, regardless of the bk settlement or the BSA'

Today I watched the BSA sex abuse documentary "Leave no Trace" on Hulu. While difficult to watch, it is important to do so. In detail, it outlines how, for decades, BSA protected abusers and allowed them to remain in Scouting and perpetrate more abuse. While BSA kept records of perversion for many decades, they were internal and only (finally) released by court order. Abuse claims were almost always settled out of court, to keep the public from knowing. BSA was aware of the abuse and documented it well. Then they allowed it to continue, year after year. And if you have a fond reco

He was an adult BSA employee, who taught a specific merit badge, had his own little compound in the woods where scouts would be "taught". The most egregious abuse was at "private" invitations at said compound, though some was actually rubbing on me in front of other scouts with clothes on. He was out of control in every respect.

I never said I called my abuser a queer or pervert. These days, I'm very aware of LGBTQ+ issues, as one of my children identifies as such. And they are not an abuser in any way. What I said is that other scouts who had already been at camp referred to my abuser as a "pervert" and "queer". In the 60's, queer was defined a little differently, than today. My recollection is that it typically only meant a male who likes males. Let me beam myself back and tell my 13 year-old fellow scouts that they should have actually referred to him as a "serial child sexual predator". Next, t

Really? I bare my soul and you "struggle" with it? I don't come on here to be questioned. But for what it's worth, I have the names and addresses of 2 scouts who told me that. How about you go troll elsewhere?

As I have posted elsewhere, my BSA summer camp abuse occurred after several weeks of prior campers clearly experienced my abuser's tactics. When I arrived and signed up for his merit badge, other scouts (who were attending multiple weeks) told me that he was a pervert and queer. He was quite comfortable at his little hideaway in the woods. If BSA didn't know, they certainly should have known his actions were inappropriate. They did not remove or reassign him. I don't know what that means, legally. But had they not concealed his behavior, I would not have been abused.

The day that insurance carriers compete for writing BSA liability coverage with no sex abuse exclusions, we will know they have done right. Given my diminished faith in BSA and humanity as a whole, I'm not holding my breath.

To me, the money is more with the insurance companies. My career was in that business and back in the 70's, the policies were generally written on an occurrence basis, without an aggregate limit. Since each incidence of abuse is likely a separate occurrence, that would open up those policies like a fire hose.

Sadly, those of us in closed states would be left out to dry. This is the only reason I finally gave my support to the plan. As unfair as the SoL situation is, it only gets worse for us in a liquidation. It took me 50 years to actually want to go to court--and I am prohibited from doing so. Missouri tried since 2012 to open up civil csa SoL, but it was always struck down by the insurance companies and the religious lobby. They don't even introduce the bill anymore. So, good for you. I hope you find justice. That is a justice I will likely never find.