Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[PeterHopkins 62]

23 minutes ago, David CO said:

I hope the men didn't review and approve the adult leader applications at these alcohol-fueled Saturday-night poker games.  

I fear that some scout leaders may have been chosen for their ability to socialize with the adults rather than their skill at leading boys.

No, they didn't. That was handled by our COR, a Catholic priest who was later named by multiple victims in multiple parishes as a sexual abuse perpetrator.

As Scouts, we all appreciated the program opportnities the men made available to us. We were also well aware that they enjoyed the social aspect of weekend camping. A Scout in 1978 saw that in a completely dofferent way from how one would see it in 2021. That doesn't make it right, but it was not harmful to us. Had there ever been an emergency requiring adult intervention, that might have been a different story.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Just now, Muttsy said:

Stang and the TCC signed the RSA.

They opposed the notification and solicitation for claimants in 2020. You know, the thing where Stang was supposedly conspiring with BSA about a nation-wide notification and solicitation?

[Muttsy 137]

I want fairness for all bona fide claimants regardless of statutes, absence of insurance or other technical defenses. 
 

only two questions: what did he/they do to you and how did it impact you? 
 

in this case the answers to those questions would play out on a bell curve with 80% of the awards within 5-10% of each other. The other 20% would fall at the ends of the curve. That’s what happens in every sexual abuse bankruptcy. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

58 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

One of the items of their pillow talk was how to ensure BSA et al got nation-wide immunity.

Do you have any proof whatsoever of these conversations?

58 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

It was an agreed order and she signed off on it

Again, as noted, it was opposed by at least 4 different entities/lawfirms, including the TCC which was supposedly part of this pillow-talk conspiracy.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

9 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I want fairness for all bona fide claimants regardless of statutes, absence of insurance or other technical defenses. 

Thank you. Now, how do you expect to get there within the framework of U.S. law? You've still never described any LEGAL mechanism to

1. Remove or disregard all SoLs for at least 58,000 claims
2. How to compel insurance companies to pay money they are not legally required under the terms of the insurance policies to pay OR to somehow conjure up from BSA or the LCs money they literally do not have ("blood out of a turnip").
3. How to address, other than ignoring, any other legal defense.

It's nice to want all these things as "fairness". But you've still not articulated any way in which to accomplish this under state or federal law (or some combination thereof) 82,500 times.

EDIT: You've made the MORAL case for all these three things, but until you can make a LEGAL case for all 3 of these items, all you've got is wishes and desires and that is all.

Edited August 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Muttsy 137]

No. You keep mixing apples and horse pucky. 
 

The agreement was to support a national discharge of all victims knowing survivors in non window states would be forever barred with no chance of getting fair value for their claims. In just eighteen months five more states opened. 
 

im not saying all these survivors would get justice but look what happened for victims who were screwed when NY,NJ, CA, North Carolina, AR, LA, DC. They got lucky, is that your filter of justice? Dumb luck?

Tell me why BSA should continue. If the BSA’s fate was in the hands of a jury on its history, how many jurors would be wanting to be the one to throw the switch?

Scouting began as a movement decades before there was a BSA  Scouting is the accomplishment of tens of thousands of earnest volunteers  It needs to go back to its roots and I believe it will. It doesn’t need a national bureaucracy, at least not this one  

 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

 

5 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

im not saying all these survivors would get justice but look what happened for victims who were screwed when NY,NJ, CA, North Carolina, AR, LA, DC. They got lucky, is that your filter of justice? Dumb luck?

You are right. That is incredibly unfair to those in non-window states. You've made the MORAL case for that.

Now, tell me the LEGAL case for

1. Removing or disregarding all SoLs for at least 58,000 claims
2. How the bankruptcy judge can compel insurance companies to pay money they are not legally required under the terms of the insurance policies to pay OR to somehow conjure up from BSA or the LCs money they literally do not have ("blood out of a turnip").
3. How to address, other than ignoring, any other legal defense.

 

5 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The agreement was to support a national discharge of all victims knowing survivors in non window states would be forever barred with no chance of getting fair value for their claims.

And your proof this agreement/conspiracy between Stang and BSA is...what exactly? Transcript? Email? Letter?

Edited August 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Muttsy 137]

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Thank you. Now, how do you expect to get there within the framework of U.S. law? You've still never described any LEGAL mechanism to

The only legal mechanism in Ch 11 is a consensual plan which includes the insurance carriers. 
 

I believe the carriers want to resolve this case but can’t come to the table because of the counter productive actions of the TCC, FCR and especially the Coalition.

As I stated before the carriers arguments are “mostly” BS but not entirely so. The carriers need “process” and they haven’t gotten enough in their view and that’s the only thing that matters. The judge SHOULD grant their 2004 motion tomorrow at least in a pared down form.

I heard in one of the carrier’s arguments an opening. He mentioned in frustration the TCC’s 110B demand. Stang and the TCC were foolish to talk publicly about that kind of number. 
 

if you want the dog to jump, you have to lower the hot dog to a spot the dog thinks he could jump and reach.  That’s not 110B  

The lawyer mentioned above probably thinks the carriers could get closure in the 9-12B range. Just my guess. 
 

The problem is that the RSA is a loser for everyone. It seeks to deprive the carriers of their contract rights in violation of Due Process. It is a naked power grab that won’t work and will only serve to delay until BSA dies of natural causes. 
 

The plaintiffs have not been well served by their bankruptcy professionals  

 

 

[Muttsy 137]

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

You are right. That is incredibly unfair to those in non-window states. You've made the MORAL case for that.

Now, tell me the LEGAL case for

1. Removing or disregarding all SoLs for at least 58,000 claims
2. How the bankruptcy judge can compel insurance companies to pay money they are not legally required under the terms of the insurance policies to pay OR to somehow conjure up from BSA or the LCs money they literally do not have ("blood out of a turnip").
3. How to address, other than ignoring, any other legal defense.

 

And your proof this agreement/conspiracy between Stang and BSA is...what exactly? Transcript? Email? Letter?

That’s exactly what happened, didn’t it? 
 

In my world I don’t reveal sources and methods. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

8 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

That’s exactly what happened, didn’t it? 

There is no evidence Stang and BSA struck any kind of deal. None.

And your allusions to some proof you supposedly have of such an agreement, you cannot (or will not) reveal.

Ok then.

Edited August 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

The solicitation to all survivors in all states was cooked up long before Feb 2020. Stang was talking with Andolina for more than a year prior AND getting paid by BSA, to boot. I recall in an early filing BSA reported having paid Stang several hundred thousand dollars pre-filing.

Context is needed.  The BSA called up Stang and several attorneys pre-bankruptcy to see if any agreement could be reached.  He was paid esentially as a mediator and someone with the kind of experience to make realistic what the BSA would be facing.  It went nowhere fast.  If he were biased then he would ave pushed for a bad settlement.  He did not.  As well, I spoke to someone in the TCC.  BEFORE he was retained he made clear his previous involvement and that it was as an adversary to the BSA and supporter of victims.

[gpurlee 247]

Dear Forum Members:

We are having a  discussion among the moderators and your input would be appreciated.

(1) We want to maintain topics and thread that are specifically focused on issues of the bankruptcy. We recognize that this is a very valuable source of information for many persons.

(2) We want to maintain a positive and safe environment for persons to express feelings, concerns and hopes.

(3) We want to ensure a respectful environment, recognizing that these are emotional issues for many of us.

(4) And we want to avoid constantly "cat-herding" to avoid numerous tangents that go off topic.

This is your forum. We need your ideas how can we provide the best possible forum experience for all of us. 

So, our question to you is:

How can we do this better? 

 

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE FORUM TOPIC STARTED ON THIS ISSUE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO THAT TOPIC 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by gpurlee

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Stang was fully in bed with BSA staring lovingly in to each other’s eyes. One of the items of their pillow talk was how to ensure BSA et al got nation-wide immunity.

Your comments border on the disgusting.  The BSA from the beginning wanted blanket immunity and it was the TCC that objected to that for LCs.

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Doubt me? Ask Stang at the next Town Hall assuming there ever is one again  

Andolina/Laurie thought Stang’s connections to some of the lawyers representing clients with pending lawsuits or claims would enable them to do a pre-packaged bankruptcy with maybe 500 claims, a super short bar date, modest advertising budget, quick and dirty, in and out. But then out of nowhere came this tsunami which called itself AIS with thousands of clients and wrecked the party. 

What's your problem?  There was a Town Hall recently AND another one is advertised for 9/9.  They are postponed when it makes more sense but check www.tccbsa.com for the next one.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The only legal mechanism in Ch 11 is a consensual plan which includes the insurance carriers. 

Yes, but that still won't achieve your goal of 100% of abuse victim claim value, for the very reason you mention.

4 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The lawyer mentioned above probably thinks the carriers could get closure in the 9-12B range. Just my guess

The TCC's valuation of ALL abuse claims was AT MINIMUM $102,716,619,500

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf

And the BSA considered adequate compensation looks like: $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf

Again, your avowed end goal is "fairness"

55 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I want fairness for all bona fide claimants regardless of statutes, absence of insurance or other technical defenses.

But even by your own terms, 9-12B is not "fair", is it?

12 billion / 82,500 claims = $145,454

Toss in what BSA and the LCs will bring ($850 million / 82,500 claims = $10,303) and victims, on average, will get just over $155,000 each.

And that is IF you can convince the insurers to pay out on claims they have no legal obligation to pay out on because of insurance caps and limits.

So, do you believe $155,000 per victim is "fair"?