NJScout1980

Signing out friends…wish you all the best!  Being censured for opinions based on credible evidence is ridiculous.   I have my opinions of the lawyers; now I will add the moderator.   Someone needs to call out the lawyers; and yeah my words were as kind as they come!   Scout law #6.   Add another point that doesn’t expire 😂 

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Purdue had 120,000 and were able to get 95% on board and the district court rejected the plan.

The question .... can you force someone to eliminate their right to due process against a non bankrupt organization through a bankruptcy ruling?  Many district judges are saying no.  Others say yes ... but only in very unique cases AND it requires overwhelming support.  I've struggled to see many cases approved <90%.

It doesn't matter if they would be better off or not.  It is their right to chose their own path in the legal system.  

I question if district court was going to allow this before seeing the 85%.  That 15% of individuals are rejecting this plan is a major iceberg that could hit in the future.  I understand there is no actual # as this is working in the gray area of law ... but I was hoping to see at least 90% to help improve the chances of approval.

I’m starting to wonder if this 15% is made up of a majority of survivors who have strong claims and come from open states.  They are the ones who would benefit most from a BSA only bankruptcy.  

Thought they were going to report the vote numbers today. Anyone have an idea when they will be released?

On 3/5/2022 at 5:06 PM, DJ72 said:

Attacking a survivor that didn’t have the same experience as you. Wow!  His 1000 posts are much more telling about the BSA than your rant. Leadership is much more effective when one walks the talk. Preaching is just talk if the leader fails to act in a manor reflective of the sermon.  Well over 80,000 souls were lost to  the actions of culpable, negligent and criminal BSA leaders and youth at BSA camps and properties. Just consider yourself lucky you didn’t have the same experience as OP or myself. 

As a survivor I have to say that aside from the abuse my experience in scouting was positive. My abuse happened at the LC level and not my troop.  The council leaders are total pieces of $h!t who cared for nothing except their reputation.  My scoutmaster and all the leadership of my troop lived up to the standards they preached.  They taught me leadership and character, and to always live the life I expect others to live. Through the many mistakes I made as a youth they taught me to accept the consequences of my decisions and guided me on how to make better ones in the future.  
 

My scoutmaster made me the man I am today.  To paint the entire organization with a broad brush is unfair to the many leaders who had a positive impact on many youth.  If he were alive today he would be proud of me standing up for what is right and just, and would be devastated and angry at the LC for what they allowed to happen to me.  He would be the first to scream from the rafters demanding justice for the victims.

I don’t want to see scouting end. I want to see YP improved and I want the ENTIRE leadership to be forced to live by the scout standards they preach! 
 

Each of us had different experiences, each of us have lived different lives.  Regardless of the type of abuse we faced, each of us have been affected in many different ways; some greater than others.  Whatever decisions you make, whatever attitude you have; who am I to judge you?  No one, survivor or non-survivor alike, has any right to judge another. 
 

I hope we all find peace and closure. I highly doubt all will, but please know many are here to help.  We’re all in this together. 

Cannot wait to read the comments about Chp 7 bankruptcy filing from our favorite twitter attorney and his minions.   Survivors being manipulated and victimized again? Geez.   Jim Stang is 100% correct…liquidation will not happen and even if it did it would take years and years, cost a boat load of money, force bankruptcies of LC’s and lead to nothing better than what we have now.  Typing words and statements on twitter doesn’t make them facts!  If an LC files for bankruptcy in a closed state do you honestly think they will pay any claims outside of SOL’s?  They have no morals and won’t do what is fair and just.  Many will lose and it will just be more years and years of terrible suffering.  
 

Vote your conscience!  The only right choice comes from your heart…not your lawyer or anyone else!
 

Unfortunately, truth be told, there is no end in sight. 

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

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. 

As per the DOJ in these cases the % approval is meaningless as it relates to Non Debtor Third Party Releases.   The trustee believes and is challenging the releases on the grounds it violates the due process rights of individuals voting against the plan.  There is no clear law prohibiting releases but many circuits are stopping them.   95% of the Purdue Pharma claimants approved the plan and yet the Circuit Judge tossed it.   
 

The approval % is what the judge will use to determine whether or not SHE approves of the plan.  The number is irrelevant to the DOJ as they oppose third party releases.  Keeping in mind the Perdue Pharma case it is safe to assume regardless of the approval % the BSA plan receives it will continue to be challenged in court. 

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.

Here are a couple of articles on this issue  

https://www.reuters.com/business/judge-tosses-deal-shielding-purdues-sackler-family-opioid-claims-2021-12-17/

https://wtop.com/national/2022/02/bsa-reaches-deal-with-official-abuse-claimants-committee/

37 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I take no offense. For myself I call them like I see them. I am not always correct. 
The reason I brought up Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers is the third party releases. If the plan is confirmed it appears the DOJ will challenge this upon appeal. So if that happens will the LC’s CO’s and most importantly the insurance companies up their settlement offers?

I think as far as the DOJ is concerned they would not agree to any releases for LC’s and CO’s regardless of whether they up their offers or not.  I think the DOJ attitude is no 3rd party releases ever. I would say the believe of you want protection file bankruptcy yourself.   I totally agree with you that this will drag on in the courts for a long time…perhaps years and years.  

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t doubt it.  I believe many of the firms who encouraged people to first vote REJECT and now ACCEPT had many claims from open states.   This IR component is most likely the way they would get their clients to change their vote.  Let’s be honest, attorneys work for money, and I am sure many were not happy with the fact they were losing money to firms representing victims from closed or limited states.  And let’s be even more honest, I am sure some, definitely not all, victims from open states hate the bankruptcy and the previous plan because it took money from them and gave it to victims, according to ridiculous and unfair state laws, that are not “legally” entitled to it.  Shame on the states who refuse to open the SOL window.  So here we are, this is the compromise, sucks as much as it does. 
 

Any plan will be divisive and there definitely are the haves and have nots.   I am black & white, just like the laws of the various states.   I am sorry if I seem cross, but there is no grey for me.  No plan will be approved giving money to only victims of open states, and no plan will be approved giving it out equally to all; that to me is the sad reality.   This plan, as imperfect as it is, will move enough original REJECT votes to ACCEPT. 
 

Honestly in the end there will be nothing of any real value left, appeals and hearings and more appeals will drag this case on for many years.  In the end most will have done nothing but relived the horrors of their childhood.  
 

Again apologies for my crassness and honesty…Living in black and white has its challenges, but for me it’s an easier way to live.  For now we just need to trudge on and pray this nightmare comes to an end. 

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

You said you’re in an open state. Do you also have a window within which you filed or tried to file, prior to 2.18.2020? It’s not readily apparently, but there are classes within classes. I’m trying to figure out who will be opting for the IR and how many. That goes to the potential rollover of excess awards back into the Settlement Trust. (For reference, there are 27,000 claims in statute, which includes live claims in non-window states.)

PS - Attorneys for the Debtors and TCC said the IR will be limited to those survivor claimants with “the most severe” and “most horrific” cases. This is puzzling to me for multiple reasons, among them the utter vagary of those statements. Who decides that? Are we talking the nature of the abuse incidents or the damages? Two very different things.

My case was filed within the New York SOL open window and months and months before the BSA was reportedly considering a bankruptcy.  Therefor me case is SOL protected.  I was not joking about being OCD with this case.  I had all my information and evidence ready for years and years knowing New York would eventually change the SOL.  After my abuse a portion of what had happened was discovered through no action of my own…I hid the total truth for years.   My parents wanted to take legal action against the BSA and LC and visited many lawyers in New York at the time; unfortunately every lawyer refused the case saying we could not sue a non-profit in NY.  Secretly I was extremely happy; the last thing I wanted was for all the details to come out…both my parents passed away without ever knowing the truth, it would have killed them!

About 10 years ago NY made a basic change to the SOL law and allowed any civil case of child abuse that was dismissed to be reinstated.  By that time I was more than ready to tell my story, but thanks to all those lawyers years earlier, I was denied an opportunity for justice.  I became obsessed with the SOL in NY and followed the legislation sessions for years and years patiently waiting for the state to fully open the SOL for child sexual abuse.  Luckily for me NY granted so many wishes and opened the statute.  The exact day it was signed by the Governor I called a lawyer and discussed my case.  I met him a few days later and brought every piece of evidence I possessed; names, dates, events, etc…my parents saved everything they had gathered for the original case they wished to follow.  Again I was extremely lucky my parents did that, I would have tossed it all at the time.  
 

I have to honestly say I was sickened and vomited many times while I wrote down all the specific details of my abuse.  I had never once shared every little detail and writing them down  tore open every wound I experienced decades ago.  Telling the story to the lawyer was just as bad.  But I have to say after saying it a few times I began to feel better and better.  I opened up to my family and friends and they were so supportive.  
 

I am lucky to have had a successful life so money was not a motivating factor for me.  I wanted justice and wanted my story to be heard.  I am a retired educator and it was extremely important for me that my students heard my story and learned it was okay to come forward if they were sexually abused. I wanted them to see it doesn’t matter how long ago it happened, they needed to see that coming forward actually helps. I wanted them to see that people that care for you most will not change their opinion of you,   I wish someone I respected early in my life had given me some hope. 
 

I don’t want the BSA to end; that too was never my goal.   It needs to change dramatically and it needs to “own up” and accept responsibility for all the events they did in the past.  Yes own up financially, but also publicly and shamefully.   I never gave up on the BSA and actually my sons were members.  I of course was a leader because I wanted to ensure they received nothing but the positive side of scouting, never the negative.  I said before my experience, outside the sexual abuse, with scouting was positive.  I carry and continue to carry many scars and wounds from scouting, so I am somewhat conflicted.  It took years and years but I finally decided I wanted justice as opposed to revenge.  For some justice and revenge go hand in hand, and I don’t judge or hold any ill will towards anyone who believes that.  But to me a scorched earthed campaign will not make me feel better, it will honestly make it worse. Scouting benefits so many children including my sons and nephews.  Yes it has failed many, it sure has, but in many cases it helps.  I agree with the TCC and want scouting to change.  I am happy they pushed for changes and hopefully every problem will be solved. Yes I am wearing rose colored glasses and may be a hopeless optimist. 
 

As for the seriousness or most horrific question, I don’t think that is a factor. My lawyer told me anyone can go that route. The individual gets to determine what they consider serious or horrific. The difference is the level of evidence, a “hearing” and risk.  I don’t think many will be going this direction, perhaps the ones filed prior to the bankruptcy will.

The last point I wish to make deals with the lawyers and professionals.  I don’t give a crap what they think about anything.  Frankly lawyers saying scouting should be destroyed should just shut the hell up!  They shouldn’t be spewing forth their hatred, it’s we survivors, not the lawyers,  who have a legitimate right to express our thoughts.  Same goes for the ones pushing for the ACCEPT or REJECT vote.  Just give us the info and let us make up our own minds.  I have no problem with survivors sharing their opinions and making strong statements of support or opposition, we have that right.  We are the victims, not the lawyers or professionals!  We share a bond, unfortunate as it is, and we should be respected.  The Coalition, AIS, and others should say here is the info, and then let us vote our conscience without pressure.  But no, they won’t because to them money is justice.   Think what you want of the TCC, but at least they are family to us, 9 fellow survivors. They have earned their right to express their opinions and encourage us to vote a certain way.  I believe what they believe and see a genuineness in what Doug stands for as it relates to YP.  

In the end each of us have to make our own decisions.  Each of us has to use our own idea of justice and make a decision we believe would be best for us and others.   

27 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I was speaking from a perspective of myself.  I do not have to be a sheep and I would personally feel that way if I now voted yes.  I can stand up for what I believe, and I do not believe in the settlement for the stated reason and my only voice is my vote. Obviously, you have the same choices that I do, and I respect that.

Again you are a stickler for words, and as your say words matter.  Ok, you would say you would feel like a sheep, I get that. My question is whether you think anyone who changes their vote is a sheep.  Am I a sheep?  You certainly implied that and because words matter, you should probably choose them better.  I certainly am not a sheep, and would never imply others who keep their votes are sheep either.   
 

I accept and understand why people think survivors like us have won the lottery.  You were offended and called the poster out.  I didn’t like being called a sheep, and accept and understand why you might believe that, but I am calling you out for the same reason.

If you don’t understand why someone would be offended by the word sheep than maybe you shouldn’t be offended when someone uses the words “lottery winner.”   That is their opinion and you were offended, sheep is your opinion and others could be offended   You should really think about what you expect of others, and what others should expect of you.  

Again words matter.  If I don’t live by mine I would hope someone would call me out!   You and I will never agree…sadly for others I really am a “lottery winner” and fortunately for me I am not a sheep.  
 

I am done with this issue. You can have the last word.  Either you know what you should do or you don’t.  

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Anyone know if the Independent Reviewer is to be paid on top of the $10,000-$20,000 per claimant who selects Door #3 (where Carol Merrill is standing)? I assume so. If so, how much?

I personally spoke with my attorney last week and he basically stated the $10,000 fee is to start the Independent review and the other $10,000 is to finish it.  Being that the  reasoning behind this fee is for the individual claimant, as opposed to the settlement trust,  to pay for this review; I would assume nothing from the settlement trust will be used to pay for the judge or these reviews.  I would hope she would be paid for from the $20,000.  As someone who is considering this route I don’t think it would be fair for everyone else to pay for independent reviews, why should the entire trust pay for me or others to take a risk?  
 

I was also told my law firm will pay the $20,000 and assume the risk. If I lose I owe nothing, but if I win the $20,000 fee will be paid by me.  I am not sure how other firms will handle this.  

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

It’s funny how I do not feel like I won the lottery just because I am in an open state (California). I also do not feel like I have to accept something just because I am told it is the best as it will be after being told there will be more from LC’s, CO’s and insurance companies. But that is not the reason I will not be changing my vote and maybe not changing it probably won’t change anything. I am not changing it because it isn’t fair to those in closed states. 

I respect your decision and I never stated you won the lottery…both of us can be accused of that because I too come from an open state.  I also agree with all receiving something…what that is is different for us.  I am a total “black & white” type of person so we disagree which is ok. 
 

I am wondering why, if words are so important and you don’t want divisiveness,  you would refer to people changing their vote as SHEEP.   You were offended by the “lottery” comment and I am offended by your reference of sheep. Are you saying that me and other survivors who change our votes are stupid, blind or gullible?    Again, like you said, words are important.   

6 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

For anyone who may be interested I am not going to change my vote from reject to yes. We may be pawns in this bankruptcy, but we do not have to act like sheep.

We were told "fair and equitable" and in this plan we are far from fair and there is no equality.

I need to call you out.  You were offended by the “lottery” comment and expressed how important words were.  You also expressed how concerned your are that comments will lead to divisiveness between survivors.  Are you seriously calling survivors who changed their vote, sheep?

Those of us changing our vote to ACCEPT are stupid and blindly following our lawyers and the TCC?  We somehow have no clue as to what should be important to us, and are unable to look at all the info and make a decision as we see best?    Is that what you are saying?   We are stupid and blind and gullible?
 

We totally disagree on our votes, that is perfectly acceptable and understandable.  We are all victims but we are all extremely different from each other.  Each of us have had different experiences in life and each has been impacted in a variety of ways.   Perhaps you were offended by my previous words, but I was critical of myself, which I have every right to do. 
 

I respect everyone’s right to vote in any manner they see fit.  I don’t judge them nor will I refer to them in a negative light.  Words do matter!   Yours and mine. 

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

My bad! That’s what happens when I lazily read tiny print on my phone while trying to use chopsticks at my favorite hole in the wall Chinese restaurant! Ya miss stuff! 🤦🏼‍♂️

I vote for her. Oh, yeah. We don’t get to vote…

I’m seriously OCD and have to read and reread everything.  Maybe a visit to my local Chinese restaurant will do me some good.  Chopsticks and OCD would be a sight to see…after all the BS of this case we could all use a laugh.  Hopefully the cookie at the end offered you a great fortune. 
 

Trying to keep the faith.  

48 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

No child sexual abuse noted:

• Personal Injury: Successfully mediated cases involving complex catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death, workplace injuries, nursing home negligence, product liability (including multiple defective medical device claims), motor vehicle, toxic torts, municipal and governmental tort liability, Dram shop/liquor liability, and premises liability

“Complex catastrophic”  might do the trick. 

Per the website Judge Welsh does have experience with child & child sexual abuse.  Per the site:

• Civil Rights: High profile case on behalf of severely abused child against private foster care placement agency and government agencies; claim against school district on behalf of special education student raped by their students in classroom supervised by a substitute teacher; cases involving alleged hazing, harassment and sexual misconduct on a University sports team; multiple Title IX and Tort cases including claims of sexual abuse involving faculty, clergy and students in colleges, universities, primary and secondary schools, boarding schools and foster care
• Sexual Abuse: Successfully mediated settlements in numerous cases involving highly sensitive claims of sexual and physical abuse concerning adult and minor children and group/class action plaintiffs. Disputes included matters involving: alleged abuse at a prestigious boarding school; sex abuse leading to suicide of a college student; allegations of sexually charged hazing and misconduct in connection with university-sponsored sports teams; numerous cases involving sexual abuse claims against Archdioceses, Catholic and other religious schools, and nonsectarian private and public schools; disputes involving victims of incest and church officials; and matters regarding sex trafficking allegations against a major hotel chain

Hopefully her experience benefits all survivors.  

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Was there mention that this amount was being used to fund something specifically? I don't recall offhand. Thanks.

$1.25 million is going to fund a YP program. 

You know what I find so disheartening in this whole process?  $.  This is all about $ and not true justice.  
 

Yes this is easy for me to say, my abuse happened in an open state.  Yes, I did “Win the Lottery” and this plan benefits me.  I get that and understand any animosity sent my way. 
 

I have lost so much faith in myself as time passed.  In the beginning my case was never about money.  You may not believe me but it is true. Then, gradually as I read some of the Insurance Companies claims in court documents and saw the actions of the mass tort lawyers/aggregators I became angry and then it started to be about money.   Hell, if all anyone wants is money then I will hop on board that gravy train.  Then the true selfishness I had within, something of which I am so ashamed, seeped to the surface.   Once money began to be driven to the forefront of this case, I decided to abandon what I truly wanted and said, hey give ME what I deserve and screw everyone else.   It became me vs any other survivor.  
 

This was the monster I became…
My state was open, pay me.  I had concrete proof and witnesses, pay me!  I suffered, pay me!   Your state is closed, piss off.  You have little evidence and witnesses, piss off.  You suffered, too bad, the law helps me and hurts you.  Not my problem.  

i became angry and greed consumed me; I actually started to believe money would make all my pain go away.  Little did I realize that it was only making it worse.  I actually became angry at what I was becoming, angry at what the BSA was once again doing to me. 
 

I took a long hard look in the mirror and was not happy at the person I saw staring back at me.   He was a disgusting selfish uncaring human being. I was ashamed at what I became and decided to change.  It took me a long time to change back to my true self.  
 

This plan sucks!  Totally sucks.  It’s unfair.  I get it.  This plan is all about who gets $ and how much. Who “Wins the lottery” and who gets booted from the island.  It’s true!  And as a “lottery winner” I am not offended at the these words because I understand your use of them and you have every right to feel the way you do.  I originally voted REJECT because I wanted more.  I voted REJECT because I wanted to ignore your justice and solve only mine.  

I live in reality.  While this plan is garbage, unfortunately I believe it is the best we as a “whole” can get.  I could easily vote reject because that would benefit me…ME.  That will increase the pool of available “Lottery” money for the Open State victims to win.   I won’t because why should I receive something, if not most, and others receive nothing?   I honestly believe the 52,000 or so survivors from closed states will receive nothing, and the added two years of suffering through this bankruptcy will bring even more weight upon their shoulders   I read somewhere that there are only around 12,000 to 13,000 cases that could survive any legal challenge in court concerning SOL’s or other proceedings, so I often wonder how these survivors feel.  I am one and I know the horrible person I became, I hope the others have not.   I would hope that these men want everyone to receive some form of justice.  
 

Like all of us on this forum I respect your right to vote any way you way you see appropriate.  All of our decisions are based on our personal experiences and beliefs, and none should question the other.  I can only be the judge of myself.   For those who continue to vote REJECT, I hope in the end I am dead wrong and you are right, and that we all reap the rewards.  I however am now voting to ACCEPT because I believe that benefits the most.  REJECT would certainly benefit me more, but doing so, personally for me, would destroy the person I was when this all started. 

God speed John Glenn…God speed to us all.  

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I also have lived for over 50 years with the scars of my abuse. In a perfect world there would be no open or closed states we all would be able to receive the value of our abuse. I wasn't trying to scold or chastise you.  I do not feel lucky in any of this and honestly wish none of it happened to any of us, but I cannot rewrite history.  The only equity I see for those in closed states is a BSA National bankruptcy only and for that reason I will not be changing my vote.  That might make it more difficult for me but would leave doors open for people like yourself and @ThenNowif your states changed their laws. 

I respectfully have to disagree with your statement about people from closed states having a better chance with justice via a National BSA only bankruptcy.  Under the current plan survivors receive some form of compensation.  That fact it is different for different states is disgusting, and hopefully more states begin to change their SOL laws.  
 

My belief is Local Councils and Chartered Organizations from closed or limited states will simply go to court and have the cases against them dismissed due to time bars.  Let’s be honest, how many LC’s or CO’s would be willing to pay a dime to a survivor when the law protects them?   We cannot expect morality from them; they are not moral!  In a BSA only bankruptcy fortunate survivors (myself included) would benefit while unfortunate others will receive nothing, and the last two years will have done nothing but ripped open old wounds.    This whole process is terribly unfair and frankly disheartening, it pits survivors v survivors which only benefits the BSA and creates even deeper wounds that people will have to live with.  
 

We all need to stick together!  Hope, while a good thing, can also be extremely harmful.  To put hope in your state legislatures to change the SOL laws is a gamble, looking at the games being played in the closed states I am not sure I would take the risks.   The choice certainly is not mine to make, each of us has to do what we believe is best for us; each of us has to determine what is the highest form of justice we are willing to accept.   I judge no one by their decisions, we all do what we believe to be best.  

I want this whole thing to be behind me   I want to awake someday and not feel the need to read every single document on Omni.   I want to awake not being reminded of the man who took my innocence.  I want to awake and see that brighter days are ahead.   That is the only hope I am willing to take risks for.  

6 hours ago, NJScout1980 said:

I have been reading this blog for months and finally decided to express how I feel about this plan.  I have always and continue to believe there are thousands of fraudulent sexual abuse claims filed in this bankruptcy.  I also believe there are thousand of legitimate abuse claims that have not been filed.  I am frankly disgusted by the lawyers of the Coalition and more specifically those of AIS.  The coalition and the “supposed non organization” (AIS) actively recruited “victims” without, in my opinion, any legitimate vetting.  My attorneys required a vast amount of evidence, which I provided, to ensure my claim was vetted and valid. 
 

I was sexually assaulted by a volunteer scouter in New York, which fortunately for me is an open state.  I waited years and years for NY to finally open the SOL so I could seek justice.  I waited and accepted the fact I would not be able to seek justice unless NY acted and I am happy they finally did.  
 
While I voted REJECT on the original plan, I am now voting to ACCEPT.  My reasoning is simple:  

1.  A tougher level of proof is required and many, if not most, of the fraudulent claims will be paid out at a lower rate.  

2. People from closed states will receive some form of justice and payment even though, sadly in all legal reality, are entitled to nothing 

3. Someone like me who has indisputable and clear evidence will be able to have his case heard before a judge and receive full compensation.  Yes the $20,000 fee is ridiculous, but for some of us it is worth the risk.   
 

I agree survivor v. survivor may not be appropriate, but unfortunately it is a reality.   Laws sometimes hurt certain groups of people and those from open states should not be punished because others are from states with closed-minded ignorant and uncaring legislatures.   This plan, while imperfect, is the best possible solution as it benefits most, maybe not in a perfect way, but certainly in some way.  

The last point I wish to make deals with Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  This choice is completely ignorant and self serving to a certain lawyer and a group of his minions who, in my opinion, do not represent the beliefs and attitudes of most survivors.  Under no circumstances do I believe scouting should cease to exist.  Scouting had a tremendous positive influence on my life.  Aside from the sexual abuse, I was happy with my experience and so proud to have achieved the rank of Eagle.  My scoutmaster, who did not sexually abuse me, was a stern and strict leader who instilled in me the idea of being responsible for my decisions and how to be a good leader.  His teachings instilled in me values that make me the man I am today and I have nothing but fond memories of him.  Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.  Yes scouting has ruined many, but that does not mean the entire organization is rotten.  The TCC’s push for better YP is a step in the right direction. 
 

I am sorry for the length of this post but I needed to express my opinion. Agree or disagree is ok, criticism of me is ok; my scoutmaster taught me to always stand up for what I believe to be fair and just, and accept the criticism for what comes with it.  That is an important value scouting taught me.  It is a main reason why I could NEVER support the end of scouting as it is today.  It is the reason I now support this plan.  

After receiving some advice I decided I need to clarify some points.  My statement is an opinion.  
 

There is absolutely no concrete or clear or legal evidence that suggests any lawyer or law firms did not properly vett the claims they represent.  I am not stating, nor did I state as a fact any did.   I want to be clear that my opinion, what I believe,  is based on documents I read on Omni, specifically the statements made by Century Insurance and their expert’s testimony.  I also base my opinion on the testimony provided in a deposition of an attorney.  I totally believe him and take him at his word. While I may not agree with him on some things I do not question his motives.   I have been following the case closely and have read almost all of the Omni documents, so I believe I am entitled to share my opinion. 
 

Bearing in mind these things, I think it is fair to question the validity of some claims and the actions of some law firms.   Also, according to Century and others, some claims were filed with vast amounts of missing information and names and all sorts of other things.  I don’t buy the argument of time sensitivity, all information is necessary. Because of these things I have come up with an opinion concerning the vetting of claims  

Again I am not stating as a FACT any attorney or law firm did anything illegal, unethical or unprofessional; I am simply stating my opinion based on what info I saw and read.  
 

It is sad that I need to clarify this but suggestions have been made that I do so  

I apologize for any confusion or misinterpretation of my post, and hope this clarifies the matter. Maybe I should have kept my thoughts and opinions to myself. 

3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is difficult to separate the reality of law from the reality of abuse.  When I say "morally wrong", I mean just that.  In an equitable world, BSA should vet the cases, throw them out or pay the $3500, and exit bankruptcy with a trust that equitably compensates victims based on its moral duty.  Paying some victims millions and some nearly nothing, then exiting bankruptcy like "ok, we took care of that" will never show BSA in a good light again.  Open state victims hit the lottery.  Those of us subjected to multiple or ongoing abuse, and in my case by a real actual BSA employee who had a "reputation" (who happen to be in closed states) will see little justice.  So, while I realize this settlement may be in line with the "Law", it is surely not in line with the moral obligation the BSA has to victims.

Totally agree!  Unfortunately there is no morality when it concerns the law and getting off the hook on legal technicalities.   There should be no SOL for child abuse in any state!   Not one!!!  Sadly insurance companies and various organizations wield a tremendous amount of power over certain state legislatures.  
 

Sadly and unfortunately for many there is no morality from the BSA because, as we now know, they never once had an ounce of morality.  Sadly they are a business only interested in profit and money talks. They honestly could care less about the victims and used their apologetic words as nothing more than a PR stunt.  It is a shame they could never live by the standards they expect the scouts to live by!  Sadly to them the Scout Law  is only words with no true meaning. 
 

To the previous poster with the bath and bath water comment…hopefully the TCC’s push for a better YP policy which will prevent future abuse and will force the culture of the BSA to change.  Honestly though, my beef is with the LC’s and not the BSA.  While the BSA is ultimately responsible, in my opinion it is the LC’s who failed most of us.   The BSA needs to change dramatically and if they don’t I would agree they should be disbanded.  But the LC’s need to change also.  My hope and desire is that change occurs and Scouting continues.  There needs to be some type of structure that allows scouting to continue, what that is I don’t know.   I think the TCC’s push for a better and more open YP program is a step in the right direction. I believe the scouts and all of its programs should be open to a legally required annual independent review and necessary changes should be legally required to take place.  They have proven they are incapable to address and solve the problems so they should have no say in the solutions.   No say whatsoever!  
 

Sorry if I post too much.