Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[CynicalScouter 1434]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As you know better than I, a classic case of expert backfires. Spectacularly. 

But as the judge noted: even the statistician said that here data could NOT be used to generalize whether any given claim was/was not valid. She was a good statistician: even if I prove 75% of all apples sampled from a bag are rotten, that does NOT mean or prove the NEXT apple you pull from the bag is 100% sure to be rotten. You have to pull it and find out.

[Eagle1993 2160]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That was the judge's point as well: even if it was discovered some arbitrary percent of claims was invalid or fraudulent, how can you have an OMNIBUS motion to reject all 82,500 claims?

The way I'd phrase it was this: if of those 1400 claims you found 1% invalid or fraudulent, does that mean all 82,500 are suspect?

What if of those 1400, 10% were?

20%?

100%?

How does ANY of this impact whether ANY claim selected at random is/is not valid?

If you randomly select those 1,400 claims (by law firm, location, age, etc.) you could predict what % you would expect to see as invalid overall.  I didn't realize the way the broke up the categories and would need to defend that statistical sample.  That seemed pretty questionable and I'm glad the judge rejected it.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I suspect that this is just the start. The entire claims process and aggregators are going to be put under a microscope. I note that while she REJECTED deposing the law firms that were involved in this mess, she's clearing the aggregators now. If fraud gets found, the law firms (including the Coalition) are next under the microscope.

FYI: If/when it turns out the aggregators were cranking out bad/false claims and misusing signatures (and the declaration from the call/claims center worker really makes it appear some of these claims centers were just making things up) the law firms are next.

And the insurers have already listed what attorneys they plan to depose. Check out the list. Kosnoff's already tweet he is just WAITING for the insurers to send him a deposition request.

 

Attorney	Firm
Adam W. Krause	Krause & Kinsman
David H. Stern	Ask LLP
Joshua B. Schwartz	Abused in Scouting
Stewart Eisenberg	Abused in Scouting
Sean T. Higgins	Andrews & Thornton
Deborah Levy	Junell & Associates
Timothy Kosnoff	Abused in Scouting
Steven Babin Jr.	Babin Law, LLC
Rochelle Guiton	D. Miller & Associates
Paul J. Napoli	Napoli Law
Joseph J. Cappelli	Marc Bern & Partners
James Harris	Paglialunga & Harris, PS
Michael S. Werner	Slater, Slater & Schulman
Andrea McGinnis	Bailey Cowan Heckaman
Jonathan Schulman	Slater, Slater & Schulman

 

[Eagle1993 2160]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But as the judge noted: even the statistician said that here data could NOT be used to generalize whether any given claim was/was not valid. She was a good statistician: even if I prove 75% of all apples sampled from a bag are rotten, that does NOT mean or prove the NEXT apple you pull from the bag is 100% sure to be rotten. You have to pull it and find out.

I don't think that was the goal.  Perhaps it was, but if it was, that is crazy.

I thought the point was that if they did a proper sample test, they could determine what % of claims were invalid.  If a large enough were invalid, then perhaps, it would mean more if not all should be reviewed.  So ... it is more like, I have a truck of apples and I randomly pick and audit a sample of those apples.  If I pick a large enough sample and it is truly random, I can predict the % of bad apples in that truck.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

If a large enough were invalid, then perhaps, it would mean more if not all should be reviewed. 

Right, but she kept mentioning that she did NOT think you could do an Omnibus Objection to claims even like that. At least that is how I took it to mean. Your interpretation may be accurate as well.

[Eagle1970 210]

32 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Hartford and Century wanted to seek discovery/documents form 1400 claimants and depose 100 of them. In order to select those 1400, they were going to select from 6 subgroups

1. 200 claims randomly selected from those alleging abuse 1971-1975
2. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Scouting Affiliation
3. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Abuse Identification
4. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Physical Abuse Alleged
5. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating they Sought Counseling
6. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Impact Alleged
7. A seventh group made up of all the above 6 subgroups

 

 

This is interesting.  Are there numbers available for these subgroups?  How large could the group be who indicate "No Impact Alleged" or "No Physical Abuse"?  Certainly I understand emotional abuse, but what kind of claim can be made for No Impact?  

[CynicalScouter 1434]

45 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

2) Deposition of lawfirms and aggregators. Permitted. Aggregators will be deposed. There is evidence that raises concerns about how these claims were generated. And the recent declaration of Kosnoff adds to that concern. So, discovery and depositions of aggregators will move forward. I think that discovery COULD be relevant to voting and we need to get that underway regardless of the plan in front of me.

Motion granted.

This voting element is critical. Oh, so critical.

If it can be shown that he aggregators were inducing fraudulent claims (not just invalid) or misusing attorney signatures to mass-generate claims, the judge herself is saying that "could be relevant to voting."

What does that mean? It means that any claims that came in via those aggregators (read: the Coalition) are going to potentially have to be examined before they cast a vote.

That means this takes months upon months. Mid-2022.

[vol_scouter 365]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think that was the goal.  Perhaps it was, but if it was, that is crazy.

I thought the point was that if they did a proper sample test, they could determine what % of claims were invalid.  If a large enough were invalid, then perhaps, it would mean more if not all should be reviewed.  So ... it is more like, I have a truck of apples and I randomly pick and audit a sample of those apples.  If I pick a large enough sample and it is truly random, I can predict the % of bad apples in that truck.

That is correct.  1,400 would seem to be an adequate sample size.  Then all claims would need to be assigned an identification number (1 to 82,500).  Then a pseudo-random number generator will select the 1,400.  Whatever percentage of claims are found to be invalid will indicate the likely percentage of the entire group.

[yknot 1338]

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Agreed, not a lot known. 
 

I am very sure 4H and Girl Scouts would have at least 2 orders of magnitude less camping then BSA. 

Exactly. Does camping with unrelated male adults in remote locations in a program that requires youth/adult interaction and limits parental involvement increase the risk of predation significantly?  That's one of the questions.

 

[David CO 1783]

11 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

This is interesting.  Are there numbers available for these subgroups?  How large could the group be who indicate "No Impact Alleged" or "No Physical Abuse"?  Certainly I understand emotional abuse, but what kind of claim can be made for No Impact?  

I don't know for sure, but I can speculate.

Take a situation where an adult takes covert nude photos of a scout in the locker room.  The scout is unaware of the photos.  The police later search the adult's home and find the photos.  

Even though the scout was unaware of the nude photos, and the existence of the nude photos had no impact on the scout, the scout was a still a victim of the adult.

  

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is the fig leaf for TCC/Coalition/FCR to hide under: $650 million Hartford wasn't good enough, we got another $150 million, that's good enough to move ahead with the RSA/Plan 4.0

I'm not so sure I would lump those three together.  The TCC is FAR less motivated to settle for a fraction of what the Hartford owes.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

8 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I'm not so sure I would lump those three together.  The TCC is FAR less motivated to settle for a fraction of what the Hartford owes.

That’s why I later posted after I had time to think about it it might be BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR(?)

Edited August 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MYCVAStory 687]

EVERY victim should be a proponent of a robust method of validating claims and weeding out any that were generated fraudulently or exaggerated.  Yes, there are people in this world who go from one class action to the next, fill out a form, and take their chances.  Check this: https://topclassactions.com/category/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/

But consider something else, lets make believe you have a large number of clients and then some other attorneys show up and through marketing put together their own large number or amass a larger number than yours.  All of a sudden your position is diminished.  While I appreciate any attorney wanting to weed out fraud lets remember that while victims are aided so too is that attorney when his/her position is enhanced.

Today was another day.  Points were made and negotiations will continue.  The BSA will probably file another plan Wednesday or Thursday.  Then, let's see who supports it and whether any group is willing to take the money and move on to the detriment of victims.  Oh, and don't forget, the BSA is VERY motivated to settle with the Hartford because if they don't they'll be the subject of an administrative claim because they backed out of the original deal.

 

[MYCVAStory 687]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That’s why I later posted after I had time to think about it it might be BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR(?)

Apologies....playing catch-up on a busy day!

[ThenNow 1373]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

But as the judge noted: even the statistician said that here data could NOT be used to generalize whether any given claim was/was not valid. She was a good statistician: even if I prove 75% of all apples sampled from a bag are rotten, that does NOT mean or prove the NEXT apple you pull from the bag is 100% sure to be rotten. You have to pull it and find out.

Right. I wasn't questioning method, skill or precision, just that what they sought to achieve through the expert is kaput. It was ill-conceived, as you've stated.