Muttsy
-
Content Count
249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by Muttsy
-
-
10 hours ago, ThenNow said:
Consider it worsened. That happened already.
So where is the late great his highness Doug Kennedy or the TCC? Hunkering down in their usual bunkers?
-
On 8/22/2022 at 9:18 AM, BadChannel70 said:
You do not need to respond to me but if you were taken across state lines and sexually abused/assaulted, there is no SOL under the Mann Act. The FBI has begun pursuing cases against individuals including corporate/religious entities under the Mann Act.
The Mann Act is a criminal statute. Do you know whether Congress added a civil remedy to it? If criminal only, the Fed’s are very selective which cases they will indict
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:
Thanks for the info. My abuse was in Missouri. With regards to lawyer explanation, I am pro se. With limited legal background, I wish I had an attorney. But with the Grey 3 situation, I can't justify it.
Agree. Not worth it.
-
According to Kosnoff, these pre-76 cases are live unless the charter is a contributing party. As it stands now, none of the Catholic dioceses or orders are CP’s but they have a year from confirmation to cut a deal with the Settlement Trustee and get released from those pre-76 cases. Your situation is getting dire because the California window closes 12/31. You need to file against the C before then to toll the running of the statute. CA also requires a certification from a psychologist as prerequisite to filing your lawsuit. That takes a little time but is not a big deal. Probably 3-4 thousand to line up. Hasn’t your lawyer explained this to you?
-
1
-
-
More bad publicity helping tube the BSA-LDS 250M deal. https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-church-sexual-abuse-investigation-e0e39cf9aa4fbe0d8c1442033b894660
-
54 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
So ... if I were the LDS lawyer, I would probably say ... pull back the $250M and become the only Opt Out charter org. That could be a fairly significant development and the BSA and supporting entities may need to negotiate something to prevent the LDS from going down that route. (That is how the Catholic Church got a better pre 1976 deal than other COs). Unfortunately that would lead to some delays.
This is no small issue. Start tugging on this little piece of yarn and the entire sweater unravels. It’s likely what happens. Why would LDS stay in for a release of exclusively scouting related abuse only to face an onslaught of lawsuits for abuse not occurring at a camp or activity. Many scenarios involve grooming in scouting leading to abuse outside of scouting, etc. LDS would be better off making a clean break with BSA, becoming an Opt-out charter, keeping its 250M AND its BSA insurance rights.
Now, what do the settling insurers do with their settlements when all current and future claims involving LDS are not fully released and channeled?
LDS is the tail that wags the dog here.
-
1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:
. For example, if a member had a conflict of interest and abstained that member acted properly as a fiduciary and that should not be considered as objecting for purposes of a vote. As well, as he mentioned today, the TCC had a fiduciary duty to ALL Survivors and members found themselves voting against their own self-interests financially at times when it was in the best interest of all survivors. I'd rather have representatives doing that then voting to reject, or even abstain, because they are protecting their own interests.
Are you saying a TCC member was disqualified from voting because he had a conflict of interest. Was that disclosed to the UST or to the survivor body?
-
8 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:
Well....members of the Survivor's Working Group that helped craft the YP changes, Survivors who become part of the Youth Protection Committee, the Survivor who will become part of the BSA Board and serve alone.
So...the answer is yes, people like Dr. Kennedy can be awarded some or all of the 2 million dollar "fine"?
BTW__ Dr. Kennedy answered clearly. The vote on the TCC was NOT unanimous. Your answer above is Orwellian.
-
I wish someone would have asked Dr. Kennedy about this Plan paragraph. Who else could this apply to except TCC members? Smells very fishy.
Section 4.1(c)
(c) Among the Trust Assets are funds contributed from Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (the “PSZJ Contribution”). The Trustee shall have discretion to use such part of the PSZJ Contribution as the Trustee may determine to distribute to holders of Abuse Claims in recognition of their positive contributions made prior to, during or after the Chapter 11 Cases benefiting survivors of childhood sexual abuse and preventing abuse.
-
It was not unanimous. One or more members either voted to reject or abstained from supporting.
Significant. Even the committee members could not agree. That’s not “overwhelming” support.
-
3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:3 hours ago, PACAN said:
Two comments:
@Eagle 1993 80 Councils from 250 now. I'm sure a lot of SEs puckered.
That AND the possibility of freezing of pensions.
Wouldn’t these revelations from yesterday foment rebellion about this plan? Can the Ad Hoc of LC’s hold it together?
-
She is awful. It was a 20 minute cross x that she's dragging out to four hours or longer.
She is rigid in her thinking and demonstrates little understanding of how sexual abuse cases are actually handled in the tort system.
She spent 90 mind-deadening minutes to make the point that the claim review process is not the tort system.. Yes you are right Ms. McNally. Does your client prefer to face 84,000 claims in the tort system? If the claims review process is gong to adopt all of the procedures found in the tort system, then this Plan cannot be confirmed.
-
Thank you. I hope that puts to rest the absolutist non-sense spouted for years on this forum about statute of limitations. Fraudulent concealment tolling is most likely viable in almost every state. It is thermonuclear for the defense which is why he testified that BSA settled cases it believed ought to be barred because it could not take the chance. In Hacker case in Illinois, that blast resulted in an 89M dollar hit.
This alone demonstrates the appalling inadequacy of the settlements in this Plan. Anybody want a re-vote now that you understand?
-
3 hours ago, ThenNow said:
Also, Jacobs noted that NC's "reviver" was found unconstitutional. To wit, open (window) state claims could later be un-opened by virtue of the laws being unconstitutional. As in, openness might be in flux.
Intermediate appellate panel. 2-1. Appeal to NC Supreme Court. Only instance I can think of where an appellate court ruled that a revival statute violated the state constitution. SCOTUS has ruled in other contexts that civil statutes of limitations are matters of "legislative grace" i.e. what the legislature giveth it can take away. No federal constitutional right in a statute of limitation defense.
-
An early tell could be her rulings on Objectors evidentiary objections to Whitman and Griggs testimony in their recently filed declarations.
-
What if the plan fails to get confirmed? Or it is a toggle only? I think the chance of it getting confirmed with the releases is under 25%. Even BSA says a BSA only cram down is not realistically viable.
so….what does the day after plan denial look like and how will you feel about that result?
-
21 hours ago, fred8033 said:
Is "independent review" a euphanism for the victim's right to bring their case to court? It's infering a settlement agreement enables a special independent review as a benefit of the current negotiated settlement. It sounds like that "independent review" is there against non-participating insurance companies whether or not the victims settle with the other debtors.
"The Independent Review Option is illusory."
--From the United States Trustee's Supplemental Objection to Plan.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:
Again the approval % is irrelevant for the DOJ, they are seeking an end once and for all to third party releases And in all reality they are right to; why should someone else take away my right to sue a non-debtor third party? If a third party wants protection it should do it itself. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
In Millenium, LSS held that non-consensual third party releases do not violate Due Process. Sackler judge ruled on the absence of authority in the bankruptcy code.
This case is a long death march to nowhere. If she confirms it, it just prolongs the agony. If she denies confirmation, that is not appealable and the parties go back to the drawing board., BSA converts to toggle plan, Ch. 7 or a new plan. I dunno.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:
I think the DOJ attitude is no 3rd party releases ever. I would say the believe of you want protection file bankruptcy yourself.
This is incorrect. Third part releases are permissible in consensual plans. The Justice Department objection is its application in non-consensual plans. 73.5% accept is not consensual.
-
From TCC Expert McNally, Claro Consulting.
Tier Nature of Abuse Claro Mid Base Claim Value Number of Valued BSA Sexual Abuse Claims Total Estimated Damages
1 Penetration $2,641,865 14,936 $39,458,891,957
2 Oral Sex $1,981,399 12,225 $24,222,597,458
3 Masturbation / Groping $1,320,932 17,868 $23,602,419,707
4 Touching-Unclothed $660,466 $653,861,526 990
5 Touching-Clothed / Photography $330,233 $296,219,085 897
6 No Touching $15,411 - $0 Total $1,880,680 $88,233,989,733
Despite its “intention,” the methodology contained therein renders it inappropriate as a source for reasonable valuations for BSA Sexual Abuse Claims for the following reasons: • The TDP Base Matrix Value and Maximum Matrix Value are less than the Historical BSA Settlements; • The application of discounts for legal defenses is inappropriate when using settlement figures as Base Matrix Values; Average Bates White Low Estimate: $2.4B Average Bates White High Estimate: $7.1B Average Historical BSA Settlement. It inconsistently applies discounts for BSA Sexual Abuse Claims alleging abuse by a minor; and • The discounts applied related to the statute of limitations are not supported by Historical BSA Settlements.
Is the TCC planning on throwing their own expert under the wheels of the bus, too?
-
Hiring an adjudicator and Trustee 10% of the 2.7 =270M? What for? The amounts are too minimal to waste any more money. This is just terrible.
-
5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:
I'll be watching for TCC, DOJ and Zalkin ... those were the big groups holding back support.
No objections filed by them. 9:52 pm eastern.
Handwriting on the wall.
-
Fair enough TN but I DO think this discussion belongs here because I'm not asking about YP generally. I'm asking about what is needed to be put in this Plan in black letter language that would actually make a meaningful difference. We are way past "trust us."
-
There is a LOT of talk on this forum about YP. I’d like the most cynical yet knowledgeable on this forum to outline in summary measures that could make scouting meaningfully safe? Isn’t it inherently risky given it’s demonstrated flaws? What should the reforms include?
-
1
-
Chapter 11 announced - Part 11 - Judge's Opinion
in Issues & Politics
Posted
You do understand what it means for the TCC and it’s counsel to have a fiduciary duty to 84,000 claimants, correct? And you are aware of how it cut a deal with BSA in exchange for inclusion in the exculpation section of the Plan? No financial interest? Hardly.