clbkbx

Agreed! And that’s one of the things I’ve really enjoyed about this forum. You might have made a correct assumption about my politics but I’ll endeavor to not let that be confirmed here. I’m not technically adept enough to quote two posts but to @skeptic, there is a documented partisanship to many media outlets. Sure, in a perfect world there wouldn’t be, but that’s why I thought it was important to note the source… we’re living in a world where provided information is not benign and it’s better to know than not. One of my last responses to one of your posts was about an analysis by

Ouch… I would also be too embarrassed to link to that partisan source (Jonathan Turley of The Hill). Integrity and ethics are very, very important but some hide behind the veneer of the institution. How does a victim of abuse in the BSA think when they hear trustworthy, loyal… ? I know it makes my stomach turn even as I try to follow the same principles in my life. We need to track ethics and integrity by actions not words. SCOTUS has ideals of non-partisanship but politicians fight for the appointments… so the ideal is laughable. Same for BSA in my mind, better to prove it than s

Per the press release, we’re part of an “illustrious list of people who have given noteworthy and extraordinary service to youth.” Gross.

Here’s an extremely over the top hypothetical question: how can anyone be against the Weinstein Organization? They enabled great art to be made and donated a lot of their profits to so many worthy causes! There are always powerful men in society that rape women… it’s just a statistic. One-in-a-million, what’re you going to do? Here’s another: who can be anti-the Cosby Show? They made us laugh, focused on family structures and the lead actor donated a lot of money to charity. About that lead actor, probably the same as it always was in Hollywood… we just know about it because of the media.

Not sure if I understand correctly but this reads as you saying there’s no scenario one can be anti-BSA that you would understand. I mean this specific portion of the forum is about kids that were sexually abused within the structure set up by BSA. I can think of several other reasons someone could be anti-BSA that I might not agree with but at least makes sense.

Do you have a reference for this? I can’t seem to find anything online. My current theory is that CSA has not been well researched (not to say there’s not been a lot of effort in some studies) and that that is purposeful.

https://onmyhonormovie.com/experts

Glad we agree on that point, but that's exactly what the report does.

The Warren report relied on the IV files and estimated there were 12,254 victims between 1944 and 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/nyregion/boy-scouts-sex-abuse.amp.html That the analysis was based on the provided files is a huge caveat throughout the report. This is the sentence before the claim that the rate was lower in the Boy Scouts: In making these comparisons, it is important to note that the two “prevalence studies” are different in intent and thoroughness and many factors can help explain the different rates of child sexual abuse including social class, family cohes

My recollection is that insurers asked to further investigate some claims earlier in the process but it was not allowed. That act could have other effects but for the insurers it would be difficult to show proof if not allowed to look for evidence.

If helpful: There's also section indicating you "declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct."

Thanks! Do you have concerns with the validation process? I haven't read the TDP completely but assumed this was part of choosing a competent person to administer the trust.

Has anyone heard a good estimate of the number of fraudulent claims? An expert this week said her experience was something a bit over 40% but I don't know if it was a comparable group. More importantly, at least to me, is the breakdown by class. If all/most fraudulent claims are for the expedited distribution, that would be annoying to me and it's likely illegal, but ultimately wouldn't affect other outcomes to any great degree (my calculation is less than 1% of $2.7B). If there are fraudulent claims in different classes, they will need to provide more information for review.

For sure. I should have been more clear that it is a guess based on the current plan under consideration and using the voting tallies from the recent vote. Both of those major items can change.

How underfunded is the TDP? That's a question I have had and with the provided excel sheet, I tried to make an educated guess. This includes: all non-rejected claims and all claims with a council listed (i.e., if no LC was listed, it's not included)... this is somewhere around 43,000 claims. The basis is $3,500 for all who selected the expedited distribution and the base matrix value with no scaling factors except the mid-point of the different SOL scaling factors for all others. As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course