Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Was the statement something to the effect of, “Everyone will receive an award regardless of the state where their abuse occurred”?

I contacted them before filing a claim since I've known for 40 years I was SOL on the SoL.  I was told SoL didn't apply because it was a bankruptcy claim.  And that's what I thought for the first 9 months or so.  Then came the Grey Scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is Doug Kennedy, a member of the TCC.  First, I want to thank all of you for your comments over the past 18 months.  Your comments and those in other forums, whether I disagree with them or not,

Scouter.com is not well liked by National and believe me, while we are all scouters, we have various opinions of BSA.  I think if BSA fails, we will help build up a new scouting organization. If you w

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, Cyni

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Eagle1970 said:

I contacted them before filing a claim since I've known for 40 years I was SOL on the SoL.  I was told SoL didn't apply because it was a bankruptcy claim.  And that's what I thought for the first 9 months or so. 

I contacted them before I filed, as well. Multiple times. It may well be that’s where I got the notion. I wonder if I have an email chain that involved that statement or if it was over the blower. Hm. I will delve into this further....

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

I must disagree on all counts.  If we grant him his sincerity, there is still no way he can protect more than his immediate patrol/troop.  If he maintained his presence in BSA to guard scouts, he proves the point that no protection is enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival.  Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

Sounds like I have been drinking the BSA Kool Ade for so long I can no longer think for myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival.  Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?  

I’m touching my nose right now. (NOT to be confused with picking, before I hear that. I am not nasal spelunking.)

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

I must disagree on all counts.  If we grant him his sincerity, there is still no way he can protect more than his immediate patrol/troop.  If he maintained his presence in BSA to guard scouts, he proves the point that no protection is enough. 

 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival.  Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?  

 

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Sounds like I have been drinking the BSA Kool Ade for so long I can no longer think for myself.

Whew. Good. It’s not just my tormented, jaded and befuddled self who sees it this way. Again, flabbergasted at the error in judgement to prioritize this testimony. I can’t remember when I was taught this, but probably in middle school: know your audience and tailor your message accordingly. Someone doesn’t get this at all. I go back to my weeping, wailing and definitely flailing impression following the first infomercial. T-minus 13 minutes and counting...

Anyone else going to watch? I’m not a very good stenographer, as you’ve no doubt noticed.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

These people believe one survivor on the BSA board is the Second Coming. 

Ken does a lot of squeezing of people. For the record. Keep your distance. In fact, he squeezes day and night, night and day, and twice on Sundays. They even do it while flying all over the country.

And, there would be no money, but for the Coalition. I think they forgot the TCC was a primary negotiator. 

Oo. He’s guaranteeing more money. It’s fisticuffs, as far as I can tell. My Gramps was a bare fist boxer. I would love to see that bout, I tell you what.

News Flash: Tort Claimants Committee has done nothing. Zip. Zero. No, no, no.

Wait! “Coalition HAS PUT IN $1.8 BILLION!!!!” I wish...

Oh, my word. I can’t wait for The Stang to get another run at this man. Yikes. 

“This is the last time anyone ever hears about sexual abuse in the BSA...because we have a voice on the Board!!!” WHAT?

He’s angry tonight. Pray for his blood pressure. 

“Vote YES and everyone will get money.” And more more more...remember, I’m squeezing and punching everyone in sight, “all day and all of the night.” (Thank you to The Kinks.)

”Vote NO, litigation for 5-10 years...All the cash goes away...!”

Okay. He is a bald faced, unabashed, highly skilled liar. I’m sorry, but that is the absolute truth. I’m going to kick something...brb.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

I contacted them before filing a claim since I've known for 40 years I was SOL on the SoL.  I was told SoL didn't apply because it was a bankruptcy claim.  And that's what I thought for the first 9 months or so.  Then came the Grey Scale.

Whomever advised you advised "poorly."

Bankruptcy addresses legally enforceable claims.  It must. 

Why?

Good question.

So, Sears files bankruptcy October 2018.

Sears was founded in 1893.

A claimant from 1897, Grover Cleveland was president-remember him-files a claim in 2018 against Sears.  "I did not get my-whatever-from the Wish Book which I still have!

Well, the bankruptcy court is charged (has legal authority and legal responsibility) to collect the assets of the bankrupt, determine legally enforceable liabilities (bills and debts), and distribute the assets to those who have valid claims.

Folks whose claims are barred in any fashion are simply not entitled to any recovery whatsoever.

 

(And I remind folks, this is an analysis of the legal rules, and I am a rabid supporter of maximum compensation to survivors.  I am not a survivor.  My best friend is/was (now deceased) who struggled all his life with his abuse.)

SO, the $64,000 QUESTION is WHY did National include time-barred claimants in its bankruptcy?

Surely, National's attorneys understand that those folks have no legal claim.

"Jack, the Ruskies don't don't do *** without a plan."  --Admiral Painter, Hunt for Red October

 

National HAS a plan.

 


We only need to figure out National's plan.

 

And, I think that scheme is:

 

1.  If the Plan allows EVERYONE who has any claim, barred or not, to VOTE to approve the Plan.  Well, won't folks with NO legally enforceable claim vote YES, and thereby "stack the deck" against Survivors with legally enforceable claims?  Certainly.  Wouldn't everyone in Paraguay vote to approve the Plan if they were to get $3,500?  (Never having any connection whatsoever to National?)  National WANTS the Plan to be approved.  And the Survivors who hold the claims most damaging to National to be cut off at the knees.

So National's strategy, in my humble opinion, is that National is proposing a Plan which provides minimal,  inadequate (pathetic and insulting) compensation to Survivors with legally enforceable claims, and hope to carry that Plan through to approval by the Court by offering a bribe of $3,500 to those who would, in a proper bankruptcy proceeding, have NO VOTE.

In plain English, assume there are only 4 claimants with legally enforceable claims, and those claims were worth millions and that they'd likely recover 1/2 their claim from the bankruptcy if only their votes and claims were considered but N.ational's Plan only pays those mega- claimants $50,000.  Assume further that National's bankruptcy Plan not only allowed those 4 mega-claimants to vote, but also every Scout who ever earned First Class was allowed to vote, and that they'd get $3,500 IF they voted YES.  AND IF the Plan is approved by the First Class Scouts, National saves MILLIONS.

THAT, I think is National's Plan.

 

The PLAN is nothing less than a dereliction of duty by National.

 

Trustworthy.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He answered my question in a self congratulatory way. I shouldn’t have fed him that. BUT he did not answer how this person is going to have a voice in a sea of BSA people. Reason? They simply won’t.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

These people believe one survivor on the BSA board is the Second Coming. 

Ken does a lot of squeezing of people. For the record. Keep your distance. In fact, he squeezes day and night, night and day, and twice on Sundays. They even do it while flying all over the country.

And, there would be no money, but for the Coalition. I think they forgot the TCC was a primary negotiator. 

Oo. He’s guaranteeing more money. It’s fisticuffs, as far as I can tell. My Gramps was a bare fist boxer. I would love to see that bout, I tell you what.

News Flash: Tort Claimants Committee has done nothing. Zip. Zero. No, no, no.

Wait! “Coalition HAS PUT IN $1.8 BILLION!!!!” I wish...

Oh, my word. I can’t wait for The Stang to get another run at this man. Yikes. 

“This is the last time anyone ever hears about sexual abuse in the BSA...because we have a voice on the Board!!!” WHAT?

He’s angry tonight. Pray for his blood pressure. 

“Vote YES and everyone will get money.” And more more more...remember, I’m squeezing and punching everyone in sight, “all day and all of the night.” (Thank you to The Kinks.)

”Vote NO, litigation for 5-10 years...All the cash goes away...!”

Okay. He is a bald faced, unabashed, highly skilled liar. I’m sorry, but that is the absolute truth. I’m going to kick something...brb.

Kosnoff has just posted this post to his Twitter LOL

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Kosnoff has just posted this post to his Twitter LOL

I’m assuming it’s good for the cause if it is getting retweeted, whatever that means. Yes? It was another exercise is grandiose self-affirmation, fabricated TCC renunciation and Coalition canonization. 

Edited by ThenNow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

But after waiting decades for most we ALL have to think about the day after a bankruptcy is resolved or a check comes in the mail.  Then what?  How much "moving on" will there be?

I asked this question many moons ago on this forum (it seems many moons, but maybe not that many).

Of  a survivor, I asked, "What are your expectations of this bankruptcy?"  (Or nearly that was what was asked.)

 

In my experience I have NEVER seen an alleged wrongdoer, in any legal setting, admit doing wrong, even with a Full Release in hand protecting them from any admission.  An admission that might lessen the damage done.

NEVER.

 

From the movie Amistad, Cinque, an alleged slave is relating the facts of his life and the capture of he and his cohorts.

John Adams interrupts him, and says, "No, what is your STORY?" 

My interpretation is that the facts don't "carry the case."

Cases are won by the Plaintiff's "story."

 

The converse is that Plaintiff's will accept less of a settlement if the Defendant admits to the damage caused.

 

That is, Apologizes.

 

The offended tend to accept apologies.

 

Offender humans nearly 100% of the time REFUSE to apologize, even though paying millions for the damages that they caused..

It is a "human thing" to apologize, and corporations are not human even though all the corporation's actions are conducted by humans.  Corporations don't apologize.

A conundrum and an enigma.

 

An apology goes a long way to remedy wrongs.

But the downside for corporations-NATIONAL-is that if it DOES NOT APOLOGIZE, Survivors will and should demand greater payment to make up for the lack of an apology.

 

So, as to the "Then What?"
 

Without an apology, there is a bank deposit.  In person with a clerk who knows nothing, a mailed-in deposit, or by some sort of scams-the-check process.

Sterile.

No letter of apology, or condolences.  You are left to the condolences of your close friends who you have let into the loop.  And what will you tell them of the settlement you received?

My best friend from high school, who moved away to college thereafter, never confided in me until about 5 years ago.  I had seen a number of times in the interim.  When he told me of this abuse, he said that he felt that I best understood him and that I was his best friend.

His trusted siblings knew.

And his pattern of abuse was simply horrific.

AND EVEN YET, he told me he did not want any compensation, ONLY AN APOLOGY.

He held a Phd.

(And not to make this too dramatic, his pattern of abuse, confirmed by an educated sibling, spanned scoutmaster abuse, cleric abuse, Christian Brothers abuse, and abuse by the staff at the facility that was to counsel him about his abuse.)

And the alleged scoutmaster abuser is NOT listed on any IV files now available, though I understand that N National has not released them all..  Though, in my contacts in my council, it has been confirmed that the alleged abusing Scoutmaster was a known/suspected child abuser.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...