Eagle1970

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 will only be worsened if the press prints the "fully funded" garbage.

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'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.

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, 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.

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.

It is the government pension oversight organization. I'm no expert on this, but I believe the Pension fund would have fairly high priority in a Chapter 7 liquidation.

Would someone please let the judge know that this forum would like a ruling? Would someone please let the judge know that this forum would like a ruling?

Indeed, that is detailed in the TDP, which I have read several times. What I meant to relate is that we don't know much about how the scaling factors will be applied and how much abuse will fit into each category. There are wide ranges for each of the aggravating factors, as well as the SOL factors and we don't know what that will all look like in the final distribution. Granted, we know how many claims are in each SOL range, but we don't know, for instance, if a Grey 3 claimant will receive .10 or .25 factors within the scale. Again, the possible factor for my abuse could be anywhere from 1.0 to 2.0 and theoretically could be even lower or higher. I would have been more comfortable with this if there were no ranges for the individual factors, especially pro se. It begs the question as to whether an attorney might be able to obtain higher factors, with their ability to cite case law on SOL tolling and such. How these factors are applied could be a huge factor in any individual case or the settlement as a whole.

So many variables. 60k sounds reasonable. And give or take 10k, you can probably take it to the bank. But how many take the $3500? If the additional verification process and questionnaire are detailed, I would guess that many will. If 20,000 take it, that only takes $70m from the trust, with minimal administrative costs. However, most are represented, and I can't see a lot of law firms going for the $3500. We also know very little about the scaling factors, other than SOL. With my own abuse claim, I can make a case for 1.0 to 2.0. I will take a wild guess and say it is funded at about 20%. Maybe future insurance settlements will prove that to be too low.

I'm sure it's not the case here, but legal cases have never moved very fast in the Summer, for me. Thanks for the update. As with a few others here, I am pro se, so have nobody to call.

Thanks. I know there are a lot of variables. I was thinking 10% or so. Not really sure why they used such high base amounts, given that probability. Meanwhile, Nassar's victims want another few million more each, from taxpayers.

I have read the TDP and have a pretty good understanding of how it works, if this is approved. What I have little handle on is what the payouts might be. I understand $3500 and done is one option, and I understand the Independent Review Option. The balance are subject to the Matrix, which has Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. If this were fully funded, and claimants received what the Matrix called for, there would still be decent settlements. But the part I cannot grasp is the extent to which claims will be funded. Obviously, this is an unknown that will be based on the number of claims and the final claims factor, and will be applied to the money currently received in the Trust and that to be received in the future. So, with all that said, for the sake of example, if a claimant's abuse was in the top tier ($600,000) and for simplicity has a 1.0 scaling factor then fully-funded he would receive $600,000. It would appear the Trust will be tremendously underfunded. But, to what extent. Will the referenced $600,000 turn into $60,000, $30,000. Thoughts anyone?