ThenNow

Hallelujah! Please don’t shrink the font? Pretty please? I’ll be good. (For a few minutes.) “We can’t tell you how to vote, but we can frankly tell you this plan sucks,” Doug Kennedy, vice chair of the court-appointed tort claimants committee that represents abuse survivors in the bankruptcy, said at a virtual town hall Oct. 7. “That’s not the legal term. That’s the survivor term — it sucks.”

Oops.

My recollection is, the all encompassing numbers tossed about by both AIS and the Consortium that shall not be named have far fewer clients who signed up and gave them powers to act. Anyone know the numbas? I realize the are still seeking POAs, but there were some stats used to refute their previous assertions that they could deliver the votes on a platinum platter.

The Ken Rottweiler of champagne wishes and caviar tears fame? TK, if you’re lurking, please feel free to appropriate that line. In all due disregard for modesty, it’s a beaut! It deserves some legs beyond this forum.

I understand completely if not, but if you would be willing to share any elements of the argument, beneath and between the begging, I would be grateful. I’m grasping to understand how they are building, supporting and sustaining their mantra that this is “the best we can do” and “there’s more to come, pinky swear.” I understand the Consortium that shall not be named is gearing up for an internal dog and pony show. If only I had a ticket. Where is my invisibility cloak when I need it? Meh.

You all know CS and I are pretty much in agreement. When not, I reply. Even I felt buried by the speed, high volume and intensity that was being generated, fostered and perpetuated. And, I noted it and asked for a step back and a deep breath. That said, some of the mostly interpersonal, unresolvable conflicts of opinion between select individuals become a recycling of things already said many times, just with increasing volume. Granted, new people enter the conversation all the time, but I’ve found myself wanting to ask people to go shuffle off to DM or request the moderators designate some discussions UCBP (Unresolvable Conflict Between Posters). I have no clue how they do their task and don’t want to try or learn. I would be known as the Red King, if you get my point, er, blade’s edge.

Please explain. I get the “not [yours] to give,” but your Council is free to release, compare and rebut, no? It’s hard to feel good about refusing disclosure while saying, “They are clearly wrong” without allowing anyone else the ability to see, assess and come to their own conclusion. Simply, it looks like hiding and hiding usually means something is damaging in the report. Just me?

Ok. I slowed down and calmed down in the wake of my insomnia. I was mistaken and have now read back through and got it. Apologies for two misfires. Thanks! Much obliged.

Yeah! Hey! What he said! I’ve been beating this drum for many months. Glad someone found that log I tossed in the woods after my arm gave out.

I know everyone didn’t watch last night. I did. Though gravely disappointed that Dr. Kennedy didn’t give an encore recitation of his feelings on the Hoover Plan, many things were said. John Humphreys, the TCC Chair, made a simple but important point, which goes to my baseball card analogy posted on one of these threads. To paraphrase, “Which one of us goes to by a car and says, ‘Hey! I’ll take it!’ after being shown the sticker price? None of us. We want to reject that ‘offer’ and get to the good old back and forth with the finance manager. That’s what this is, folks.” (John is the guy who says, “folks” and Dr. K the one who says, “gang” just for future reference. This will help you not confuse one with t’other. You’re welcome.) On my class action case, we sat in one court room and the defendants and their battalion of attorneys sat in another. We had a runner going back and forth pretty much for 8 hours as we batted the ball back and forth. We’re looking to counter here, folks. You feel me, gang? Our turn to serve.

I second all of that. Factor in this little story, as well. Add it to the consideration of “who [you] are dealing with” and “Don’t send your Eagle badge back to National. It does not seem to care.” You may or may not have read this post of mine long long ago, but here’s a recap. While in Wilmington applying to be on the TCC, I spoke with a lot of guys. The tension and raw emotion was palpable. Nervous sweat and incredible anticipation. Hopeful, but intensely vulnerable. Attorneys and BSA big-wigs milling about. I connected with one fella who was literally wringing his hands. We got to talking. As I am terrible and chit chat, I invited him to unburden. He shared what he had been through, in a shallow dive, and went on to what was really vexing him (in addition to waiting to be interviewed). He described how he had reported his abuser, an important Council player, while he was Life and finishing his Eagle. The reports weren’t taken seriously and it sort of got swept away. Like me, he continued anyway and filed all his paperwork, project completed yada yada yada. Well, his paper work was “lost.” Chronically. Perennially. He never received his Eagle. I was wearing my pin. I took it off and put it on him, after I dropped it because my hands were shaking. “There. You earned your Eagle and we both know it.” And we cried. Keep it, brother. You earned it and then some.

Sorry to hear about the family emergency. I hope all is and are ok. Here’s where this took hard left turn. We’re in a Chapter 11. Creditors, like us, are called “claimants.” We filed “Proofs of Claim.” You used the word “claim” when talking about allegations of YP standards, not allegations or reports. As written, I interpreted that to mean, I think correctly, that you were speaking with someone who had reviewed “the claims,” as in the POCs in this Chapter 11. I think it’s safe to say I wasn’t the only one who chased the ball into the pond, but perhaps I was. All of questions were driven by that word “claim.” Now I think I follow. If you were talking with someone at National or a LC who is reviewing our claims and giving you some measure of information, that’s another matter and what got my attention. Quick like.

I’ll join in if someone will guarantee me that Dr. Kennedy will reiterate that succinct, three-word summary of his thoughts and feelings on the Plan. I found it concurrently refreshing, illuminating, motivating, captivating and sleek. Efficiency of language. Perfect phrasing. Emphatic vocalization and enunciation. No words minced. No breath wasted. I mused on my first exposure to Hemingway. I’ll tune it just to see if we hear it again.

Gah! Sorry for that sloppy post. Was doing three things at once, per usual.

Roger that, but the original post to which I posed questions was only about those accused of abuse. Someone 1 spoke to Someone 2 who told Someone of the first part that Someone of the second part they had reviewed POCs submitted by parties of the third part who had filed claims accusing parties of the fourth part of child sexual abuse. I was wondering if said Someone 2, aka, the party of the second part, indicated if said parties of the fourth part’s immediate addition to the list was accompanied by a simultaneous report to law enforcement. That’s what they’ve been telling us. I do recognize and acknowledge the slimy incline about which you spake. The insider information is what is intriguing and there is shadow cast upon my ponderer by the discussion surrounding this clandestine exchange of potentially confidential information. I found my Cub Scout flashlight so I will be okay in the relative darkness until the 52 year old battery is sapped of its life force.

I didn’t forget. From what comment of mine are you jumping off and into this post?

Please define, identify, explain and/or comment on: 1) “for the most part;” 2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?; 2)“told” and “by individuals reviewing the claims,” as in who, what, how, why, and under what degree of authority, confidentiality and right to disclose?” 3) on what basis are they (those individuals who did the telling) determining “without any review or vetting?”and 4) how are they defining and or determining failure to state an “apparent act of abuse of violation of a youth protection guidelines.” Please and thank you. As to reporting to law enforcement, what follow up there and are the names abusers aware of whether they have been reported? Ditto the issue re law enforcement, which create and entirely different issue.

Couple of youz here already know my home LC. Just received a donation solicitation with a very large “up to” match cap. It begins. “Our contribution commitments have been made and locked in (or so we think), now let the donations resume!” None too subtle, says I.

I don’t think you’re dense and I get it. My example was the best I could do for oversimplification. The message he’s trying to communicate is: “This isn’t good enough and we can do better. See what they’ve gotten?” Also, when we’re told upfront that we all will be “equitably compensated” - though that was made in complete darkness, ignorance, as well as ill-advised from a PR and legal standpoint - they said it. Loud and clear. It was the clarion call for us to file claims. If we point to larger settlements to get the “RETURN TO SENDER” message out, I don’t think anyone is thinking that’s what I’ll get. Honestly, will most people (reasonable or not) think BSA is gonna come up with $1M per after offering $57,000? If so, they’ve been listening to Coalition Radio, PL5.0 on their AM dial too much. “Spinning lollipop dreams and speculation 24/7. And, remember kids in Radioland: When you say, ‘Yes!’ we say ‘Cha-Ching!’.”

I think I’m know to be a person faithful to acknowledge and recognize statements, like yours, that are (to use a terribly diluted word that needs to be reclaimed) precious. This is one of the huge missing components of BSA’s approach to this matter and us. I know. I know. I’ve yammered as much as anyone about imaging and wordsmithing before making statements, but a tear or three wouldn’t have done anyone additional “damage” to reputation or exacerbated already obvious culpability and liability. That is one reason we wept during Mr. Johnson’s statement. A tough, battle-tested former police officer was not only willing but did publicly exhibit sorrow, remorse, regret, empathy and vulnerability. That is the very first time I’ve seen, heard or read anything remotely resembling that posture, delivery and affect from anyone affiliated with Scouts, save some present company. So, thanks, even though you were affirming an unpleasant and, to some, deniable reality.

I don’t read a settlement number from another sexual abuse case as telling anyone “it’ll be like” that amount. I understand you’re (likely) saying it will be misinterpreted. Perhaps. Perhaps people are not as dense as assumed. (Not saying that you are.) If my son was selling his baseball cards and I know one is worth $20, and we could trade it for $18, if another boy offered him $4, I’d say “You know, Jimmy got $24 for his in worse shape, with the right buyer on a good day. I recommend you reject and counter offer.” I think that is all brother John is saying. “Look at that value (as perceived and as established by the comp’s) and ponder what’s being offered. It ain’t enough. Let’s make them come back to the table and we’re going to set the menu this time.”

Clarify, “the dirty laundry” of “scammers and victims...,” please? Especially interested in the latter. Thank you.

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $65,000 or $80,000 or whatever, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

In the ZoomZoomZoom (sorry, Mazda) era, why so long? Internal noticing requirements with LCs, etc.?

I was disappointed it didn’t say, “This Plan sucks,” in the banner nor was Dr. Kennedy’s footnote included, “And, by the way, this Plan sucks.” It was good, though. Just coulda used that little punch up, ya know?