johnsch322

You are correct in saying “BSA/councils are guilty of not describing their finances” but the sad truth is that until they do claimants will have a hard time to vote yes until they do. It will be the claimants who decide if the offer is fair and that will be through the voting process.

If I am not mistaken (legal minds please let me know) the judge would have to put a gag order on all the lawyers not just one.

And where are you getting your information from to be able to state that "other than if they were to liquidate"? Los Padres council has 17 million in assets and offering up 1.7M and so you say any more than that they have to liquidate? They could not continue to operate if they offered up 5.1M or 25% of their assets?

I believe it is a First Amendment Right called free speech. It should still taught in school classrooms.

Kosnoff Law @SexAbuseAttys · Oct 5 To survivors who read my tweets: If you are willing to talk to the media about your reactions to the plan, please text me with yes and your phone/e-mail address at 425-830-8201. You don’t have to be an AIS client but if you are not, you should clear it with your lawyer first. 6 1 6 Kosnoff Law @SexAbuseAttys · 23h Wow. Thanks for all of you who are texting me that you are willing to talk to the media. I need for you to identify in your texts whether you are represented by AIS law firms; a Coalition Law Firm or you are unrepresented. I have a major news organization that wants to talk 2 U.

That is an image without his face. I copy pasted it.

To survivors who read my tweets: If you are willing to talk to the media about your reactions to the plan, please text me with yes and your phone/e-mail address at 425-830-8201. You don’t have to be an AIS client but if you are not, you should clear it with your lawyer first.

I think you are only half correct. The forum has been used as a point for members to state their positions on the proposal from BSA (the RSA). If ones position or view changes a claimants view that is not actually a bad thing. My own personal views have been changed and that is due to facts that have been presented. A big portion of what has been posted is the easier to read recaps and legal views from @CynicalScouterand or @ThenNowand others. Yes their are posts that might influence the voting but in all honesty that is a great thing for victims (maybe not so much for non victims.

It’s a Washington State number at this time of year you might get an Albacore trip out of Westport Wa. Albacore don’t like insurance companies.

Tim Kosnoff is looking for survivors looking to talk to national media. Read his Twitter account.

My fear exactly.

1 Even though I am 67 I feel as if I have plenty of time left. I feel much better about what happened to me now that I have been able to be public about it. 2 I can’t say how much more exactly I can get but I will say that I don’t believe by voting no I will get less. 3 If my no vote helped result in a defeat and only the BSA national was part of the exit my next step will be state court. I am tier one, aggravating factors and in an SOL state.

They would look good with my members only jacket LOL

Is there anyone on this forum that could give me a rational objective reason to vote anything but NO on the current proposal?

It’s not that I care when you down vote me (and you do quite often) I would like you to explain what it is you actually disagree with. Maybe I was wrong so put your down vote thoughts together and explain. Maybe I will change my view or learn something new. If I am down voting I always try to explain why. I might even disagree with a post write out my thoughts and not down vote the original post or I might do both. Or I might disagree and do neither. To me aside from being informative a forum is a place for discussion and debate.

BSA entered Bankruptcy voluntarily and new of this requirement and even knew that more claimants would come forward. They were not forced into bankruptcy hence on their own volition.

Let’s be honest. BSA was afraid it wouldn’t survive if it had to go to court on all of the lawsuits it faced. So they then entered bankruptcy and even on their own volition asked claimants to come forward. That with the help of law firms has resulted in the claims being 82,500 (they were facing less than 300 when this started). The amount that BSA has come forward with though not substantial on its own is a higher percentage of net value than what the LC’s have come up with. The amount the LC’s have put forward is pathetic. What is worse is the amount that they negotiated supposedly for the victims of fractions on the dollar from the insurance companies. The only reason they are doing this is to try to entice uninformed claimants with what sounds like (but isn’t) a substantial sum so they can get out of their obligations to survivors and their own bankruptcy hell. As a survivor in an open state with a tier one abuse to be looking at 57K as the award is pathetic. Shame shame BSA!!

The truth is in front of everyone’s eyes. Some just choose to ignore it. In your view what are the lies?

No the legal case is not about punishing BSA...it is about the BSA looking to survive via bankruptcy by giving the least amount they can legally get away with to survivors.

So I checked out the link and I couldn’t find anything about abuse in the BSA. Where should I look

My hope is for the cram down.

I agree with you to a point but I also see a need for legal representation when it gets to the point of being in front of the trustee. The lawyers who just sat back and did nothing and if they continue to do nothing will find that their clients will get next to nothing. And they will get their cut of next to nothing. I think this is why the TCC is pushing for claimants to have representation. Of course if I was a lawyer I might feel I could represent myself.

First I don’t think you totally understand contingency cases. If there is no award the lawyer gets nothing. Also there are quite a few lawyers with 10 to 20 clients. If 20 clients received 10k each should the lawyer worked for 500 to 1k? Also all claimants signed on their own volition a contract which specifies what portion of any award that they may get in writing or they could have represented themselves. So they had options. You might not like outlandish awards but that is the purpose of insurance. You can criticize the system but it’s a little late to use that excuse when the system is being used by the BSA, LC’s CO’s and insurance companies to limit the payouts to circumvent the state courts by using the bankruptcy. The most outlandish part is that some states have time limits to file claims for Child Sexual Abuse. This is also a loophole that the actual perpetrators have to use in almost all states. As for governments and family members the abuse acts in the BSA were not committed by these entities. Families places the care of their young in the hands of the BSA and the BSA and the LC’s etc etc we’re negligent. No one is trying to rewrite history as fair as abuse victims are concerned. The only entity who tried to rewrite history is the BSA who hid from and fought against, and destroyed some of the files.

When you say balanced and fair who would it be balanced and fair for? Why would it be fair to ask lawyers to take less and not those holding the liabilities to pay more? The current options are currently weighted in balance to BSA, LC’s, CO’s and insurance company’s. A fair amount for victims would be comparable to what the victims of other CSA cases received and the current options are well below that payout. If the BSA ceased to exist (and I am not advocating for that outcome) the only larger effect would be youth would have to find other activities and there are multiple options for them.

I am not a lawyer, only a rational human being with opinions based on longevity and personal experience So how do you propose if not thru the course of this bankruptcy that the CSA victims be compensated? I believe you have been asked this question in several ways and multiple times by many forum members.