johnsch322

Which brings me back to Los Padres Council. 17 million in assets offered up 10% or 1.7. They are in an open state and I am sure that they are just hoping to get this RSA passed with channeling for them. If not the sky is the limit for their liability. As of now I am inclined to vote no.

Under the current RSA the BSA will not lose billions in fact between local councils and the National it is less than 1 Billion. Yes there will be some camps sold but from what I have gathered most of those have been under utilized. As for plummeting membership that has been going on for quite some time and yet I have already read posts where troops are talking about increased membership. Dues and fees were bound to go up due to inflation and decreased membership. This is where you have to make a personal decision of whether to continue to be a member of BSA and try to make a difference or bow out.

I just read and I do not believe that @Muttsywas referring to @CynicalScouter. I am sure that the majority of those on this forum are well aware of @CynicalScouterpositions and appreciate all of his hard work and his opinions at least I know that I do.

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 promises me nothing. I will say that if to little is awarded then it will feel as if my suffering and my pain will have very little value in the eyes of those who were responsible to keep me safe. That includes the BSA, my LC and the insurance company who theoretically backed them by granting a policy. I think it would also be fair to say that the Judge in this case might also be one to think has no real value for mine and others pain and suffering. First I think she should be telling LC's and CO's that if they want to be channeled in then they need to pony up enough that it actually hurts them financially. Not to the point of putting them out of existence but actual financial pain. I also believe she should have the same attitude towards the insurance company if they want to settle now. Otherwise all of them can take their chance in state court. I would like to add one more thought and that is I believe that no matter what the outcome will be many who are victims are being revictimized and the mental devastation that opening up these old wounds will cost many lives.

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 who are in open states and we are not talking about a pay raise here we are talking about equitable compensation for victims of abuse.

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.

TCC has consistently had the message that they want the BSA to survive.

TCC press release and I agree!! https://www.pszjlaw.com/newsroom-news-boy-scouts-claimants-reject-settlements.html

Welcome back!!

Not quite....50 years.

And then there most likely a cramdown and a rush to courthouses and he can get any of his clients who live in an SOL state their cases in front of a judge and a jury. Then many LC's and CO's whom he believes have much more to give will find themselves giving more than they currently are.

To be fair his tweets may have a negative affect on scouting. It may make parents think twice about having their children part of a scouting organization. But it also may have a positive effect. It may prompt government legislation to oversee and investigate. It might make parents who have children in scouting to be more vigilant and act more proactively about child abuse. If you listen to the interview he gave in which the link was posted in this forum you will hear him talk about the history of the abuse, the effects of the abuse and possible solutions for further abuse and lastly the possibility of the eradication of BSA in the form that it is today. I don't believe he is trying to put the spotlight on himself (ego) but rather on the problem and what he wants for his clients. As a disclaimer he is not my representation in this bankruptcy.

I don't believe he was invited into mediation. His representation in the current RSA would be in front of the trustee for his clients. He has begged to be deposed by the insurers.