johnsch322

Yes the perversion files stated that individuals with names were abusers. Some were labeled homosexual especially in earlier years. In my case a government document says that he admitted to homosexuality but we all know that he was a pedophile. He was suspected of abusing 11 to 13 boys in my troop. The file is made up of numerous letters between the national and local council.

Yes 85,000 is a big number but in my opinion that number is way higher. 30% of men die between the ages of 50 to 80 years old. There was 53,619 claims in the years between 1954 and 1984 (if average age of abuse was 13 these victims would be between the ages of 50 to 80 now). If the 30% were still alive and were to claim that would be an additional 16,086 claims. That does not take take into account those who may still be alive suffering from dementia and or mental illness who cannot because of their conditions make a claim. Look at it a different way...what was the number of abuse i

I learned while serving in the military you can only sue the government if the give you permission. There will be no permission granted.

I concur.

When the insurance company's first came up with their idea of rooting out false claims I thought it was a good idea. I figured there will be more money in the pot for myself. I talked to a lawyer whom I trust and he told me that that was a delaying tactic and that the actual cost of investigation, interrogation etc. etc. would cost far more than paying out on those claims. Seeing how much has been paid so far in legal fees I tend to agree with him. That being said if a smaller amount was offered up to all for dropping out with the possibility of more vetting of the claims I think a lot of

How about how much time has past from the abuse, trying to keep it out of your mind for 40 to 50 years and now you are 70 or 80 years old and memories are not what they used to be. Good enough?

My take for what is worth is that the National and the LC's have sweetened their offer but TCC is holding out for a bit more. The insurance company's (except Hartford) won't be included nor the CO's. Hartford wants to be part of the settlement and maybe has guaranteed the 650 million with no caveats and possibly increased the amount (insurance company's have been part of the mediation). If this is what is presented it will pass the vote (at least I would vote for it). Then the lawsuits can be filed against the insurers and the CO's.

I think the word "appropriate" should be used as: is it appropriate for me to be asking in this forum about what one might get personally in a settlement. You know how you were abused and you can go to https://www.pszjlaw.com/creditor-125.html and look at the table posted and what the TCC believes is a appropriate. You can do a little research for number of cases and degree abuse and try to make a wild guess like the rest of us about how much total monies might come in. But the truth is until the end of the day when money gets paid out no one really knows. I wouldn't make l

Kosnoff Law @SexAbuseAttys Ltr to DiMemmo PA Ins Commissioner but no response. What is the Commissioner hiding? https://yumpu.com/en/document/view/65700116/ltr-to-dimemmo-pa-ins-comm… via @yumpu_com

You are correct. This lull in posting has given me a chance to read postings on other topics. I have gotten the distinct impression that the average scouter/leader really wants all of this to be resolved. Between the bankruptcy and Covid BSA as a whole has had a very rough year.

The silence on this topic right now is deafening.

One reason I see every LC signing (especially those with look back windows) is the cost of litigation. If BSA has no skin in the game will they contribute to an LC's legal costs....I d not think so. Of course I am sure that those LC's might have the ability to pay in later. Most likely before the approval of a plan.

That is just the cram down plan and why would the the TCC approve it. They would be way better off waiting for the exclusivity to end. Also some councils have sold off assets and sent letters to their members stating the money is going to the settlement.

So if your claim falls into scenario #3 would you vote yes? What about the 10's of thousands of claims that named no local council....how would you vote then? Still needs to be enough votes.

Kosnoff Law @SexAbuseAttys BSA and the Survivors Representatives apparently close to a deal. Agreed request for continuance of tomorrow's hearing. Stay tuned. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e97b2e05-5d1f-47ac-a4e2-541eb269322c_5219.pdf… 2:20 PM · Jun 3, 2021·Twitter Web App

Still not sure how it could work without all of the LC's contributing from the get go.

I completely agree. Especially if the LC's assets are reverted back to the National upon termination of the charter. LC's are not franchises.

The question will be are LC's the "alter ego" of the national.

In the corporate world you basically have the same situation. Corporate veils are pierced quite often. When push comes to shove so will this one.

I believe they should be allowed to exist and they should get another chance to prove that they are able to not make the past mistakes but victims should come first. Victims should be adequately, fairly and justly compensated. BSA should be actively going after the insurance company's (not just making meager agreements with back doors for them) and compelling the LC's to put up as much as possible not allowing them to be hiding behind a veil (BSA should come out and say we have control of the LC's because they do). Not just trying to give the least possible in effort and monetary compensati

Either. What do you as an individual feel? Is 2.3 or 2.7 million for the upper end meet what you would call adequate/equitable or do you think it is high or low?

Yes that is what the BSA says and the TCC has a much larger figure. Not so interested in the legal stances I wonder more about what individuals feel.

So all of the phrasing is basically the same. BSA and the TCC has put forward a Matrix. BSA says as of now there there is not enough assets to meet the matrix payouts. But there might be in the future. My question is and I am putting it to the forum do you think that the matrix is fair and adequate? Do you think 50% is or is it low when you add in say 50 years of suffering?

I keep hearing and heard in the NAM presentation the words "adequate compensation" yet what gets put on the table seems to me to be far less than adequate. So I pose this to the forum...What does "adequate compensation" equate to you? I am very curious what those who were not abused have to say and how that would be compared to a survivors perspective.

Moved to Bankruptcy topic