johnsch322

My hope is that BSA has hitched their horses to the wrong wagon.

The original RSA was endorsed by the TCC if the Hartford deal was left out. The latest is not endorsed by TCC with the revised Hartford deal. Hartford deal is a "Hoover".

Then why cut deals with them? Why not leave them out of the plan (Hartford) assign the policies to the trust and let the trustee deal with them? That is what the TCC wants or wanted.

Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies? Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

CSA generated lawsuits. Lawsuits created a perceived financial issue. Perceived financial issue caused the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy brought in more claimants. Yes the goal of victims is to get a sufficient of cash and assets into a trust. The only goal of BSA is to get out of the bankruptcy and at this point to bring the LC's CO's and insurance companies along with them for pennies on the dollar. If BSA had not cut deals with LDS and Hartford they would be that much closer to exiting bankruptcy. If 6 more months of spending cash is not what BSA wants then they should have never cut deals with the parties that they have.

AS a survivor I would like to say that in my opinion the abused to the BSA are like a swarm of gnats that they just want to get rid of. There can be no clearer evidence of this than the fact that they struck a deal with the coalition lawyers rather than with actual survivors the TCC. They would rather pay the coalition 15 million plus than treat abusers in a fair and equitable manner.

It can not be any worse than what is on the table now.

It will be interesting to see how many of the yes votes also take the quick $3500. If a large proportion of yes's take the $3500 I think their votes will be set aside.

Isn't this quite misleading? Isn't this a coalition of lawyers?

I believe if you don't look closely at the motivation of individual lawyers their experience in this arena that you are not doing anyone any good. I do not know who your lawyers are but maybe you should consider changing representation.

You pay a lawyer a contingency fee to fight to get you the best deal possible for you. The Coalition (mass tort) lawyers are fighting now for a settlement that is best for them. Kudos to Tim Kosnoff for coming out so strongly for voting no and a big shout out to him for supporting the TCC members.

And Tim Kosnoff one of the original AIS lawyers says “ I don’t know what to say, really, about AIS joint venture partner Ken Rothweiler’s statements about this plan. I want you to understand that I repudiate them for being false and misleading. I can’t control what he says but he not being truthful w anybody.”

No not just you.

I love it when a customer takes the first pencil.

They are to be mailed by the 15th. Then it is up to USPS as to when you receive.

Is that not really the same thing that would have happened if a police report was made out? Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting. In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.

That is not what I say. And if someone does not want to use the wording that I have they can use their own. The point is to get the TCC view out to those who may not have another oppurtunity to see it

As was fair and equitable in the beginning. All I am saying is if MSU settlement is 1M why settle for 57K. What is on the table is definitely more dissappointing.

My intent is to get the word out there to reject. Facebook and other social media was used to gather claimants and I am hoping that maybe some of the same who might not otherwise see the letter from TCC will read it. I only used the MSU as a reference.

I posted the following on Facebook please feel free to copy and post on your own Facebook, Twitter or any social media you may use. If everyone could please do me a favor and share this file BSA TCC Rejects BSA's proposed settlement plan. https://www.pszjlaw.com/.../BSA%20TCC%20letter%20re... As many of you may or not know the Boy Scouts of America are in Bankruptcy. They have proposed to give the Child Sexual Victims which are victims of their programs just pennies on the dollar for the value of the claims. While it may seem like a lot of money there are over 82,000 victims who have come forward. If you had been raped as a child, gone thru a life of mental torture under this plan you would only receive $57,000. Victims of Larry Nasser and USA Gymnastics received $1,000,000. The BSA Torts Claimant Committee (TCC) is made up of victims of Child Sexual Abuse while with the BSA by BSA volunteers, professionals and older scouts. Unfortunately this story has not gotten the press coverage that it deserves. PSZJLAW.COM www.pszjlaw.com

Copied From @CynicalScouter Post I posted about this in June. There is still some confusion. The official name was the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF). A person could be added to the IVF for a variety of reasons, https://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/ There were six categories Perversion Morals Financial Leadership Theft Criminal Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files. Edited August 11 by CynicalScouter

Does anyone have or have seen any letter from a coalition lawyer giving an argument to vote on the plan?

If 10 year old Johnny showed 10 year old John a porn mag that he stole from his father that is not child abuse. If twenty year old Johnny showed thirteen year old John a porn magazine and wanted to see his reaction to it (physical reaction) that is child abuse. I would like to add though that the behavior of a 10 year old showing another 10 year old a porn mag is not behavior to be tolerated.

That is exactly what I am saying. this would be behavior that would have to be addressed especially to the owner of the material. It is still not sexual abuse. That would have to be explained to parents.

I think that if behavior occurred within the parameters of what I outlined I am pretty sure the parent would agree that it was abuse.