johnsch322

Let me be realistic to you. I live and have lived for 54 years with the abuse upon my body and soul. I told not one person for 52 of those years what happened to me. I had fistulas next to my anus which started in my 20’s. My doctor said it was from anal penetration and was surprised when I said I wasn’t gay. Till this day stool leaks thru as my sphincter had to be cut. The Boy Scout files have 5 documents relating to my perpetrator and one of them says that they suspected he abused 11 to 13 others in my troop. Not once did they reach out to me to find out if I had been abused and if they coul

I am appalled at the tenor of this post. It smacks of victim blaming “if the victim reported anything” if we haven’t learned anything we should know the victims/survivors as a whole told no one. “Wider context of the time”? How is that really relevant in the context of what took place? My personal story which I have told is one which is so similar to so many that I have read. The pattern of abuse reporting was set and used for over 50 years by the BSA.

Hypothetically what if Kosnoff legally represents no one? Could he just have been used as a figurehead for AIS and the actual representation is Eisenberg? It appears that he was trying to avoid paying his ex-wife alimony. Could he just have had a verbal agreement for monies?

I don’t see my law firm on the list and they are supposedly representing 1600 claimants.

My money is on the TCC.

From where I sit that there would be a lot of lawyers making a mad dash to the court houses. Most likely may not be the best for the insurers would it? If hypothetically 10,000 lawsuits were filed that would be a lot of litigation with jury trials.

Welcome to the club @life. Please don't feel like you need to wait for another calm before you chime in. I believe next week from the filings I read yesterday there will be another storm brewing this coming week. When the storms from the bankruptcy and the storms in my head are raging is when I feel the most need to reach out here. I have not written much this past couple of weeks but I guess it is because my Prozac seems to be doing its job. @ThenNowsays it well

There does seem to be a few clowns but they are not very funny.

I feel like I am watching a 3 ring circus as all of this unfolds.

Kosnoff is going after Century on Twitter. Here is the latest and there is much more. He is calling them out any idea for his motive? I’m still waiting for a reply to my letter. Did he allow Century/Chubb to bury hundreds of billions of dollars in coverage liabilities in this run-off scheme that threatens tens of thousands of sex abuse victims? Why would he do that? Quote Tweet

I would have agreed previously that it is premature and the rooting out should be done by the trustee however this appears to more an issue about controlling the RSA/Bankruptcy/Settlement. Will the lawyers who appear to have rubber stamped the POC's also be able to do the same with the voting? Is this why the opt out money is now $3500? "The stated objective of those behind the Coalition was to generate a supermajority of claims and thus control the bankruptcy, as revealed in an email that the TCC turned over to the U.S. Trustee. And the Coalition did just that." is this why Kosnoff has it

If I read the filing correctly the firms that are mentioned represent 65,554 claims. Not all were signed by the lawyers but it doesn't put the rest of their claims in a good light.

I just read this document and it is appalling what is alleged. Previously I have been opposed to rooting out false claims at this stage but I have now changed my mind. if this process takes a little longer I am personally OK with it. The unfortunate aspect of this may be that some legitimate claims may be lost because of unscrupulous practices. My lawyer did sign my final claim (he is not on the lists in the filing) but that was with my blessing and after multiple phone calls developing my claim.

Can someone help me out understanding what the ramifications would be if true that AIS and other lawyers may have been funded by Wall Street and that the loans are due? If those lawyers pushed thru a settlement that wasn't good for their clients but mostly based on the need to pay back loans would that leave them open to malpractice claims?

I have been sitting back for the past week or so reading everyone's comments and trying to assess my own feelings. I was appalled when I read attacks against the TCC members who I have felt have given their all to what has been going on. I have thought about the first Town Hall where they all said that this was a steep learning curve for themselves and I have wondered how they feel at this point. My conclusion is they must feel a lot like most of the rest of us.....hurt, confused, and wondering what will happen next. I also recalled the night before the last Town Hall when the word was tha

You are correct. At minimum you could get $3500 if you don’t want to pursue further.

But if there is no way to recover from the insurance company's under this plan since there some thoughts that one can no longer sue than what would be defending. In other words I believe they will defend/defend and eventually pay because they are still liable and they know they are. I think my question was what might be called rhetorical? Maybe that's the wrong word.

So the question I will ask is: if there is no way that the insurance company's can be sued then why aren't all the insurance company's endorsing the plan?

I'm sorry Muttsy I didn't know it was you I sold that car to. But you really liked it when you bought it.

I am sure that the insurance carrier would be able to defend in court and these would be jury trials. The slam dunks would be cases where the preponderance of evidence would be pretty overwhelming. It would be explained to the jury that the fact that BSA has BK’ed but that fact has no meaning to the facts. If found liable the court/jury would assign damages and whatever portion would be the insurance carriers would have to be paid by them. That is a bit of simplification but it would be a fair process. It is basically what would have happened if BSA did not enter bankruptcy.

I believe that the lawsuits can be filed against BSA and LC’s but only the insurers would have to actually pay. One of the more knowledgeable members would know more than myself.

From my understanding and what some others here have said is that there will be attempts at settlements with the carriers (I.e. Hartford Settlement but for larger amounts) and if that doesn’t succeed there will be individual lawsuits filed in state courts to bring pressure. If a settlement can accomplished between the trustee and carrier’s that money will be awarded thru the settlement trust.

That is the 100 Billion dollar question. Someone said that the survivors on this forum are not representative of the average survivors knowledge of what is transpiring so it will depend on how informed other survivors become. The lawyers involved are the key here as they seem to hold a lot of influence with their clients (Kosnoff and letter writing to the judge). My legal team has come out and publicly supported this outline of a settlement. I believe that the lawyers who are voicing public opposition are trying to get a little more. Maybe not more in the total figure but maybe in the no

Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you clarify please?