johnsch322

That is substantial depending on their operational expenses. On the flip side there are LC's with 10M plus who are giving far less a percentage. Take a look at Los Padres with 17M assets and giving 1.7M. At 28% they would be contributing 6M and having 10M plus left.

What does that look like in your eyes? This is a great question and was asked to me by my therapist and honestly I had no real answer. In the context of how this bankruptcy is unfolding I think there will never be enough monetary compensation to make a difference. It appears at this juncture that I as an abused will have no real recourse but just to accept whatever will awarded to me and what that amount will be is anyone's guess. From what I have read and all that I can glean from comments and lawyer statements it looks like I will be asked to vote for something that really prom

Not sure how that pertains to my post. Please explain.

I’m knackered of all of this.

That by itself should be enough to vote no. Why should I share my LC’s contribution with someone who is getting money from the LDS pot that I can’t share in.

Will the amount that is received be dependent on the amount contributed by LC and number of claimants from the LC? I don’t believe that I have seen a definitive answer to this question.

Flattery will get you no where.

Feedback when something is deleted would be welcome. It seems a post or two of mine have mine have been deleted and I am not sure why.

And that will be the responsibility of the trustee and that happens post bankruptcy.

My rebuttal is that this is a bankruptcy issue and one of the responsibilities of the court is to make BSA a viable entity (as a corporation) post bankruptcy. It could not be viable in financial sense if they are left with with potential lawsuits from prebankruptcy in the post bankruptcy period. There was a deadline to file a claim and if you did according to the judge (all claims prima facie) then they have legal standing. If you have legal standing you have the right to vote.

I would also say it would open the door for other arguments such as a claim might be worth more (penetration vs touching fully clothed) so that claim should have a larger say (bigger vote). Or a false claim that is worthless so you would have to investigate every claim. That is a Pandora's Box that I am sure that the court would not want at this juncture.

I may be wrong but I think that one of the outcomes of a bankruptcy is to prevent lawsuits arising from prior bad acts or liabilities before the filing of the bankruptcy. If that is the case then if those who abused and live in states which are closed become open states post bankruptcy would then have the right to litigate if not included. Hence their vote and need to be included in the settlement is necessary. As for those over the age of 3 in Uruguay and getting 10% of a pay raise is totally uncalled for. Those who live in currently closed states are as invested in this case as any

From Congressional testimony concerning USA Gymnastics, "From the very beginning when I was reporting my abuse to Steve Penny … from the very beginning, Steve Penny kept telling my mom and I that the most important thing was to keep things confidential. The most important thing was to give McKayla Maroney breathing room. He was trying to make sure we weren’t talking about it. It seemed like his biggest concern all along was this wasn’t going to get out. It was never ‘How are you feeling, what can we do to help you?’" Raisman said. Doesn't this also sound like the Boy Scouts?

The largest gain as far as my life goes will be the realization thru this process that I am not the only one who was abused and I cannot continue my journey of life without help. I can definitely say I am in a much better space today then I was two years ago. I hope you are seeking the help that we all need and ultimately getting the financial compensation that we all deserve.

When they made this statement in a Town Hall they also mentioned they wanted BSA to survive.