Eagle1970
-
Content Count
293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by Eagle1970
-
-
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 against entities for actions committed more than 10 years ago. As a result of the changes, CBO expects that individuals would bring additional suits in federal courts.
-
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?
-
1 minute ago, ThenNow said:
I mean no one ill in this process, but I do hope there is a reasonable separation of chaff and grain. It's worth noting (again) that JLSS not only directed Judge Houser to craft the processes and metrics for investigation but ALSO said she (JLSS) wants to see and approve them once JH drafts them. That says huge ton.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:
As well as the number of claims left standing after the JLSS-mandated investigation, ferreting and vetting.
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?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ThenNow said:
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.
-
19 hours ago, ThenNow said:
I was 99% sure about something once. That being, I'm wrong about 99% of the time.
Got you beat! I was 99% sure about something twice. What's the saying? Fool me once?
-
17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
Hearing has started and ongoing. It seems clear the plan will be approved; however, some minor changes will be required (at least so far). It could take a few days as they need to notify some other parties of changes.
This will not go into effect until post appeal approval (so even after the plan is approved, BSA and others agreed it isn't effective immediately). That also means BSA cannot say appeals are moot as they already implemented th plan.
What are your thoughts on a timetable going forward?
-
3 hours ago, fred8033 said:
IMHO, the press repeating "fully funded" would be a continuation of the press loosely and sloppily using words to make interesting a relatively boring story about small steps in a long-running court case. We've seen that repeatedly in this case (and really most news events). I always fear press interpretations and prefer using it to get the facts. The story is the potential settlement took a small step forward, but also faced a few objections that need resolution.
In this case, I see no reason why insurers would contribute if they can't get protection from future settlements / demands. Saying it's fully funded in a way to protect insurers seems very important.
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.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:
It appears the fight is really about Dr. Bates and his estimate. Essential the BSA, TCC and Coalition are attempting to say Dr. Bates is correct to allow plan confirmation but we expect he will be wrong so we want the court to confirm the plan saying it is 100% funded but also confirm the plan saying the trust isn't bound to that amount. Certain insurers are basically laying the groundwork to say the plan is funded so leave us alone. They call out the TCC a bit as the TCC didn't object to Bates.
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 will only be worsened if the press prints the "fully funded" garbage.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Muttsy said:
According to Kosnoff, these pre-76 cases are live unless the charter is a contributing party. As it stands now, none of the Catholic dioceses or orders are CP’s but they have a year from confirmation to cut a deal with the Settlement Trustee and get released from those pre-76 cases. Your situation is getting dire because the California window closes 12/31. You need to file against the C before then to toll the running of the statute. CA also requires a certification from a psychologist as prerequisite to filing your lawsuit. That takes a little time but is not a big deal. Probably 3-4 thousand to line up. Hasn’t your lawyer explained this to you?
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.
-
9 minutes ago, skeptic said:
And, being a Skeptic, I find myself feeling that the idea that somehow the Government can be dragged into the lawsuit and bankruptcy, due to perceived deep pockets I fear, is just that; an effort to find more money at the expense of others, the tax payers. JMHO of course.
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.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:
If the Feds providing money to the BSA alone was enough to make them liable, extrapolating that principle would mean all of the folks/ orgs who were donors to the BSA during the time period of your abuse would be also liable.
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)?
-
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's future.
-
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 recollection of all those paintings, Norman Rockwell had numerous works rejected by BSA because they didn't fit the BSA narrative.
Of interest legally was that in the time I was involved, BSA was heavily subsidized by the federal government. That being the case, it would seem there would be federal jurisdiction. But I'm no attorney.
This is just a sampling of what the program reveals. Be ready to shout at your tv.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:
This is what he was told by other Scouts. That's what he said. I can't speak for my fellow, but the subject "accused" is/was an adult BSA volunteer who abused a young boy.
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.
-
1
-
-
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, there were no "streets" in the world of my abuse. There were trails and encampments that turned out to be perfect for my abuser. The couple of times I saw him with other leaders, he appeared to blend in just fine. The one time I called him by his first name, in front of other leaders, he grabbed me aside and threatened me. So, he did not go around parading that he was a predator. He tried to hide it and blend in. But he failed to fool other scouts, who were onto him. I was young and in need of attention, and clearly did not understand the gravity of the situation or I would have run the other way.
Lost in all of this is that BSA should have done something, and didn't, which was actually my only point. I hope you are done, because I am.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:
Were it only so that that National had taken the initiative and proposed Plan(s) took the high ground and itself proposed meaningful Youth Protection reforms, and thereby commenced its effort to restore its reputation and instill confidence in its customers (parents), insurers, CO's, LC's, just everyone it deals with.
So, what price to National to implement meaningful, independent Youth Protection measures? A billion dollars? National spent that already, in addition to its reputation. National put its very existence at risk historically on the altar of the Bottom Line-a version of "let's bet the farm." It is essentially a "what we have or nothing" bet.
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.
-
2
-
-
Just now, johnsch322 said:
I was not advocating for a BSA National Chapter 7 only trying to shed light on the "nobody gets nothing" idea.
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.
2 minutes ago, Tron said:Are those outright owned assets or assets leverages with mortgages and inversions? There are 2 sides to every balance sheet.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
I may be mistaken but the entities that should be praying are the LC's, CO's and insurance companies. Those of us in open states will soon have cases filed in State court (California by end of the year). A BSA Chapter 7 does not include anyone but National.
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.
Chapter 11 announced - Part 12 - District Court
in Issues & Politics
Posted
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.