Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 11 - Judge's Opinion


Recommended Posts

Would someone be kind enough to clarify for me the implications of pre-1976 abuse, as mine was just prior to that period?  Are CO's not released due to that timeframe?  And, if so, does that become a mitigating factor in the matrix?  My CO was a Catholic Church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have nothing to say that is worthy of much attention, other than I am SOOO VERY grateful for Eagle1993 and his excellent reverse engineering of this opinion, and other such. I, for one, am indebted

Final plan & exhibits were uploaded last night.  Century supports the updates; however, we may see some fireworks with Guam and possibly the judge.   3b0d7c7a-ca0e-4eab-ad84-f43950dc2b65_1029

A flurry of action today: - The Judge approved the BSA/GSUSA agreement to stop suing each other: cd5eb23c-6a2c-4c70-a015-dc989fbfd257_10193.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - The US Trustee/DOJ

Posted Images

According to Kosnoff, these pre-76 cases are live unless the charter is a contributing party. As it stands now, none of the Catholic dioceses or orders are CP’s but they have a year from confirmation to cut a deal with the Settlement Trustee and get released from those pre-76 cases. Your situation is getting dire because the California window closes 12/31. You need to file against the C before then to toll the running of the statute. CA also requires a certification from a psychologist as prerequisite to filing your lawsuit. That takes a little time but is not a big deal. Probably 3-4 thousand to line up. Hasn’t your lawyer explained this to you?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Would someone be kind enough to clarify for me the implications of pre-1976 abuse, as mine was just prior to that period?  Are CO's not released due to that timeframe?  And, if so, does that become a mitigating factor in the matrix?  My CO was a Catholic Church.

I'll add that I do not believe having a non contributing CO negatively impacts you in the matrix.  However, I expect we will learn more once the trust is officially setup and starts processing claims. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Muttsy said:

According to Kosnoff, these pre-76 cases are live unless the charter is a contributing party. As it stands now, none of the Catholic dioceses or orders are CP’s but they have a year from confirmation to cut a deal with the Settlement Trustee and get released from those pre-76 cases. Your situation is getting dire because the California window closes 12/31. You need to file against the C before then to toll the running of the statute. CA also requires a certification from a psychologist as prerequisite to filing your lawsuit. That takes a little time but is not a big deal. Probably 3-4 thousand to line up. Hasn’t your lawyer explained this to you?

Thanks for the info.  My abuse was in Missouri.  With regards to lawyer explanation, I am pro se.   With limited legal background, I wish I had an attorney.  But with the Grey 3 situation, I can't justify it.

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

Thanks for the info.  My abuse was in Missouri.  With regards to lawyer explanation, I am pro se.   With limited legal background, I wish I had an attorney.  But with the Grey 3 situation, I can't justify it.

Agree. Not worth it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2022 at 10:34 PM, Eagle1970 said:

Thanks for the info.  My abuse was in Missouri.  With regards to lawyer explanation, I am pro se.   With limited legal background, I wish I had an attorney.  But with the Grey 3 situation, I can't justify it.

You do not need to respond to me but if you were taken across state lines and sexually abused/assaulted, there is no SOL under the Mann Act. The FBI has begun pursuing cases against individuals including corporate/religious entities under the Mann Act. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for our faithful and vigilant fee checker: What be the current damages from professional fees billed to the Estate? As always, I am grateful.

/s/ Iman Arithmaticfailure

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2022 at 2:55 PM, Eagle1993 said:

6) She also exlcuded Pachulski Stang's contribution of 10% of fees.

She only deferred to a future motion and hearing, having preserved any objections. If the plan is finally blessed, that money will land in the Settlement Trust. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2022 at 9:18 AM, BadChannel70 said:

You do not need to respond to me but if you were taken across state lines and sexually abused/assaulted, there is no SOL under the Mann Act. The FBI has begun pursuing cases against individuals including corporate/religious entities under the Mann Act. 

The Mann Act is a criminal statute. Do you know whether Congress added a civil remedy to it? If criminal only, the Fed’s are very selective which cases they will indict 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Several claimant representatives and certain insurers filed objections to the revised plan.  The certain insurers had the most comprehensive set of objections and included recommended revised language.  

It appears the fight is really about Dr. Bates and his estimate.  Essential the BSA, TCC and Coalition are attempting to say Dr. Bates is correct to allow plan confirmation but we expect he will be wrong so we want the court to confirm the plan saying it is 100% funded but also confirm the plan saying the trust isn't bound to that amount.  Certain insurers are basically laying the groundwork to say the plan is funded so leave us alone. They call out the TCC a bit as the TCC didn't object to Bates.

The other points are around language that was changed that goes beyond the opinion and language that wasn't changed that must be.

Hearing Sept 1.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

It appears the fight is really about Dr. Bates and his estimate.  Essential the BSA, TCC and Coalition are attempting to say Dr. Bates is correct to allow plan confirmation but we expect he will be wrong so we want the court to confirm the plan saying it is 100% funded but also confirm the plan saying the trust isn't bound to that amount.  Certain insurers are basically laying the groundwork to say the plan is funded so leave us alone. They call out the TCC a bit as the TCC didn't object to Bates.

My reaction is that "funded" appears to be a relative term.  It may be technically funded, according to Bates, with the foundation being that claims in time-barred states are virtually worthless.  But when some victims (at best) will end up with a few thousand dollars, the term is a misnomer, to me.  When I see awards and settlements to victims in other arenas in the tens of millions, calling this "funded" for those who receive a few thousand is an insult.  But I'm likely speaking in real life talk, rather than courtroom language.  Frankly, the beating we have taken since this case started will only be worsened if the press prints the "fully funded" garbage.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Frankly, the beating we have taken since this case started will only be worsened if the press prints the "fully funded" garbage.

Consider it worsened. That happened already.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Consider it worsened. That happened already.

So where is the late great his highness Doug Kennedy or the TCC? Hunkering down in their usual bunkers?

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

So where is the late great his highness Doug Kennedy or the TCC? Hunkering down in their usual bunkers?

The TCC, among all the players in this drama, having NO apparent financial interest, should be last on the list for opprobrium.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

... Certain insurers are basically laying the groundwork to say the plan is funded so leave us alone. ...

21 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

My reaction is that "funded" appears to be a relative term. ...  Frankly, the beating we have taken since this case started will only be worsened if the press prints the "fully funded" garbage.

IMHO, the press repeating "fully funded" would be a continuation of the press loosely and sloppily using words to make interesting a relatively boring story about small steps in a long-running court case.  We've seen that repeatedly in this case (and really most news events).   I always fear press interpretations and prefer using it to get the facts.  The story is the potential settlement took a small step forward, but also faced a few objections that need resolution.

In this case, I see no reason why insurers would contribute if they can't get protection from future settlements / demands.  Saying it's fully funded in a way to protect insurers seems very important.  

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