johnsch322

The coalitions Good question and I am sure it will be brought up.

And that is why I would recommend everyone to understand the lifelong effects of being a child sexual abuse survivor entails. If research is done then most people might understand mine and multiple others position on the current settlement offer. A good place to start would be this topic: It goes right to the heart of why the BSA is in bankruptcy and that is because of the lifelong effects of the trauma of sexual abuse. If it did not have such an impact on ones life then yes 100K might be appropriate.

I think the biggest stink will come from the e-ballots. All the feedback from the survivors that received them said it was a disaster.

I am always amazed when I read stories such as Peters about how much I can relate. Not every detail not every word but there are constant themes that I can see that happened in my life. I know that you and I and other survivors have tried to paint a picture of what life has been like for us and I think it is a shame when sometimes we are relegated to the back of the room. I cannot expect a nonsurvivor to understand what we are constantly living with but here are two quotes from this article that I think pretty much sums it up. "Sexual victimization is a betrayal. It's a betrayal of our belief that the world is a just place and a betrayal of our trust in the people who are supposed to keep us safe. It's a betrayal of our own bodies." "Norman took something from me that was the most intense violation of my life: He took my ability to love," Peter said.

I read that and to me it appears once again the BSA wants to tarnish the TCC and downplay the amount of award that a survivor deserves.

I can understand your frustration. I have never seen a post that talked about the lifelong benefits of scouting, the joy of scouting or anything of that ilk that was posted in a bankruptcy topic removed and relegated to its own topic.

TK has his opinions and his reasons for stating them but is not retained by the TCC or part of the TCC's legal team. If the LC's, CO's and insurance company's are to be part of the bankruptcy I believe they are also part of victims must do as well in Chapter 11 as they would in Chapter 7. hence that is where the wording substantial contribution comes into play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow6hTpV_y4g This was the latest one.

Because of my hectic work week I only just now watched the TCC's Town Hall from last week. I would recommend you take 20 minutes and watch it. I also recommend it for all those who are not survivors as it will gives good information about where the Bankruptcy is sitting, why, and what the next steps are.

More than ready to wait another year if it means getting an equitable settlement.

66% was mentioned but emphasis was placed on the 75% figure.

Only getting a handful of beans now under current plan.

I know that none of the nine are members of the are members of the firm working the case and have never heard that any of the nine are Lawyers.

My understanding is that 2% more accept voters will not make a difference. Maybe 22% but even then it may not get it thru the court system

The actual TCC is the nine members and just like they hired them they could fire them also.

It only supported the first RSA and only if the Hartford deal was not part of the settlement. They did not sign on to the last RSA.

I wonder if they are now referring to the TCC who they essentially have ignored for the past 6 months?

I wonder how the insurance companies are feeling this morning? The TCC has made it known they do not want the insurance companies to be part of the settlement unless they come up with a much more substantial offer. Tomorrows TCC Town Hall is going to be must see TV (Zoom).

TCC has withdrawn notice of deposition to Omni. Any thoughts? and now they want to depose the BSA.

Looked at the Coalition’s website no announcement of a Town Hall tonight. Wonder why?

I would like to be the fly on the wall when the coalitions bankers start asking for the repayment on the loans.

California requires it for a drivers license application.

ID's in all forms can be copied so if you have set of fingerprints on file the fingerprints you give when renewing will give verification....correct?

So if you apply for something new or renew and you don't give a fingerprint set for identification how does anyone know it was you applying or renewing?

Not sure what the big deal here is. You give a fingerprint when you get a drivers license, when you go into the military all kinds of situations. You may even be asked to give a thumbprint when you purchase a car. Who cares I have nothing to hide fingerprint me all you want.