Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think we may see a split in survivors.  Those with strong cases (or the abuse was already front & center in their life) and good law firms ready to go after LCs and COs in state court vs those who, like you, are ready to be done and are ready to move on. 

Or, there may be survivors who themselves are split in two, like moi. Assuming the TCC and other objectors have extracted extra cash and concessions from BSA and the Coalition folk, and the SWG and TCC have made significant gains on YP, I think I can let this move forward in my heart and mind. However, I am close to signing with state court counsel to hedge my bet in the event either LCs or COs don't make it across the finish line. I'm too deep into this with too much knowledge about BSA's history (not to mention a 140+/- page POC file) to walk away and let a possible case die. How will it play out? Let's send an envelope to Carnac the Magnificent. (Nod to Johnny C.)  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As the time that a vote total approaches, I encourage everyone to repeat the Scout Oath and Law several times to remind us how to treat one another.  There are victims here who wish for the plan

I just finished reading Bates' report.  Now I have a headache.  It's well-written, but a bunch of spin.  So we're too old to deserve a decent settlement?  While I get the sol issue, if a suit is valid

66% is the threshold for a bankruptcy.  However, WSJ was reporting even BSA admitted they needed 75% which they didn't reach.  There are two issues that the 73% causes. One will be with Silverste

Posted Images

Quick update on schedule

  • Dec 29       Deadline to serve discovery on voting, settlements
  • Jan 4           Preliminary voting report
  • Jan 5          Rebuttal expert reports due
  • Jan 7           Deadline to serve responses/objections to voting/settlement discovery
  • Jan 14         Document production regarding voting/settlement due
  • Jan 17         Final voting report deadline
  • Jan 28         Deposition of expert witness & fact witnesses due
  • Jan 31         Deadline to identify trial witnesses
  • Feb 4          Plan objection deadline
  • Feb 10         Deadline to exchange depositions designations and file motions
    • Feb 11   Status Hearing (added recently)
  • Feb 14        Confirmation brief/plan reply deadline
  • Feb 15        Deadline to exchange deposition couter-designations
  • Feb 17        Deadline to submit joint pretial order, witness/exhibit lists, options to motions, etc
  • Feb 18        Final pretrial conference
  • Feb 22        Confirmation hearing (will likely take into early March)
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Or, there may be survivors who themselves are split in two, like moi. Assuming the TCC and other objectors have extracted extra cash and concessions from BSA and the Coalition folk, and the SWG and TCC have made significant gains on YP, I think I can let this move forward in my heart and mind. However, I am close to signing with state court counsel to hedge my bet in the event either LCs or COs don't make it across the finish line. I'm too deep into this with too much knowledge about BSA's history (not to mention a 140+/- page POC file) to walk away and let a possible case die. How will it play out? Let's send an envelope to Carnac the Magnificent. (Nod to Johnny C.)  

Part of my acceptance is driven by the fact that Missouri is unlikely to offer much haven for a civil claim.  Though the state did remove the SoL for criminal csa, there is no possibility I am going through the pain so the state can possibly have its way with my abuser, while I cannot.  And with just my word and some 50-year-old 3rd party testimony from old men, it's quite possible he would still skate.  How hopeless would I feel then?  And the years it can take to weave a case through state court, which is possibly moved to federal court, with my most personal details for all to see--my heartbeat is rising just thinking about it.

So for me, it's nearly over.  I look forward to one more event: my personal interview before they slash my claim by 90% for SoL.  In that moment, I will receive my only justice in 50 years of living with this.  Once and for all, he will not have gotten away with it.  And finally, whatever check I receive, be it $50 I will use it meaningfully.

For you and others in a similar position, I wish all the best.  Hopefully your legislature is more concerned with victimized citizens, rather than profits of insurers or protecting the Parishes against former alter boys.  Stay strong and don't let them destroy you.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Part of my acceptance is driven by the fact that Missouri is unlikely to offer much haven for a civil claim.  Though the state did remove the SoL for criminal csa, there is no possibility I am going through the pain so the state can possibly have its way with my abuser, while I cannot.  And with just my word and some 50-year-old 3rd party testimony from old men, it's quite possible he would still skate.  How hopeless would I feel then?  And the years it can take to weave a case through state court, which is possibly moved to federal court, with my most personal details for all to see--my heartbeat is rising just thinking about it.

Asking for clarification.  I'll post my understanding to see if it's right.   

Civil and criminal SOL changes are very different.  US Supreme Court decisions establish a line saying that civil SOLs can be retroactive; thus BSA's situation.  At the same time, the US supreme court says removing criminal SOLs is blocked by U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.  Essentially, civil SOL changes can be retroactive, but criminal can't be.  

So, Missouri can't prosecute your abuser unless the abuse happened after the SOL removal or within the previously standing SOL time frame.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Asking for clarification.  I'll post my understanding to see if it's right.   

Civil and criminal SOL changes are very different.  US Supreme Court decisions establish a line saying that civil SOLs can be retroactive; thus BSA's situation.  At the same time, the US supreme court says removing criminal SOLs is blocked by U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.  Essentially, civil SOL changes can be retroactive, but criminal can't be.  

So, Missouri can't prosecute your abuser unless the abuse happened after the SOL removal or within the previously standing SOL time frame.  

 

It is my understanding that they took the action of eliminating the criminal sol due to dna testing and that old cases can now be prosecuted.  If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to hand over my law license (which I never had).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is my understanding that they took the action of eliminating the criminal sol due to dna testing and that old cases can now be prosecuted.  If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to hand over my law license (which I never had).

There goes my license....

"While legal experts don’t think the new law would apply to past crimes, they believe this change is a move in the right direction and should even go one step further."

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I am close to signing with state court counsel to hedge my bet in the event either LCs or COs don't make it across the finish line.

News Update: The attorney who seemed very keen to take my case last Wednesday just shot me an email. He and his firm are a hard pass on the incredible opportunity to fight for me. I have requested a detail set of reasons. Lay odds I get a good response? I rank them SoL/don't want to try to prove fraudulent concealment, staleness of testimony and evidence, and variability and undetermined status of the Chapter 11. Okay. Maybe that should be #1. If all that remains is a little Catholic Church and the responsible Diocese, meh. They don't have big assets. YeeHaw!  

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

More details from the Guam objectors from a specific law firm.

c86cabc6-3501-4653-aea5-9892d2260ed3_8708.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

 72 of the 73 voted against the plan.  Their issue isn't national.  Their concern is the release of non debtors.  I found their objection interesting as it uses the BSA, LDS, Roman Catholic Church and other's statements that the toggle plan is feasible.  

This objection was pretty clear and I struggle to see, under the current plan, how it could be ignored.  TCC indicated that the current plan isn't legal due to its releases.  I'll be interested to see how those change.

Now we have the updated DOJ objection.

987f6a0f-1219-4878-b63e-817da6c58f3b_8710.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Ah ... clarity. 

Um, if you would be so kind, please package some of that neatly and send a double portion my way. Throw in some cookies and toffee, while you're at it. My crystal ball looks a lot like Kane's snow globe and I am trying not to mutter, "Rosebud."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

TCC was granted an extension until Feb 9th.

Ah ha!

That explains a lot.

I cannot imagine any attorney, at any time, under any conditions, recommending that a client not file an objection by the due date unless the "deal is inked."

For if the perceived deal falls through, the time to object has passed and client has lost its right to object.

I can not imagine that any attorney in this particular case would consider the "deal inked" unless it is the Judge's ink on an Order confirming the Plan, or whatever Plan comes out of mediation.

I would expect the TCC to file an objection simply to preserve its ability to object if things fall through. The TCC can always withdraw its objection if things work out to its satisfaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Ah ... clarity.  The deadline was extended now until Feb 7 at 4PM for some parties.

TCC was granted an extension until Feb 9th.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Um, if you would be so kind, please package some of that neatly and send a double portion my way. Throw in some cookies and toffee, while you're at it. My crystal ball looks a lot like Kane's snow globe and I am trying not to mutter, "Rosebud."

In Zukerman's objection they state the BSA gave email permission to submit objections until Feb 7 at 4pm.  They also state the TCC has been given permission to submit their objection as late as Feb 9.  They said the delay is due to updates to the plan that should capture more claimants including possibly the TCC.  Zuckerman isn't included in mediation so they said they have no idea what the changes are and put in the objection as a placeholder.  

Edited by Eagle1993
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...