ThenNow

I understand that decision, but for us as claimants, this issue of confidentiality, disclosure and access to our Proofs of Claims is directly related to and driven by the bankruptcy. This particular instance of reporting to law enforcement was not generated out of whole cloth or a recent, random occurrence, like the Shower Stall Creeper. This investigation is the direct result of a Proof of Claim filed by a victim who was likely unaware the case would be turned over to law enforcement. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but we sort of deserve to be talking about this. It goes to the essence of BSA’s dealing with child sexual abuse (preferential “Oh, crap!” reporting for SilverWeasel?), the bait and switch (for some) as to anonymity/confidentiality and the major issue of what happens after the case to ensure investigations, prosecutions where possible and disclosure to the fullest extent allowable. That’s my reaction to you putting this in the basement with the sump pump, a rickety old card table and a single bulb dangling from the ceiling. (I’m playing with word pictures, not impugning you. You are my Spartacus and I will NEVER forget it!!)

That’s what I thought you meant. Likely true and that’s a problem in itself, isn’t it? “Oh, crap! Ol’ SilverWeasel is in this Proof of Claim! Better get this out there now.” That’s a bit of a problem if the action taken is in any way driven by an element of notoriety, LC exposure or lack thereof, as opposed to the substance of the claim and the alleged abuse, yes? I know we’re off into the field of whine and supposes, at this point.

Please clarify what you’re implying by this. It could go in several directions and I don’t want to assume what you mean.

Not sure if this was posted. So, in terms of confidentiality, “anonymity” of claimants and BSA’s liberty to submit Proofs of Claim to law enforcement, does this apply only to claims not time-barred? Is it a free for all? Who is reviewing the claims to this degree, other than entering data into the data fields, as I was told was pretty much the extent of it? Who then makes the judgement call to send it to law enforcement? Very keen to know. Good result in this case, regardless. But still... https://oanow.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/probable-cause-found-in-child-pornography-case-of-former-auburn-city-schools-employee-and-boy/article_efeefea8-0077-11ec-a406-3f36e734de5c.html

Thanks. Pin the tail on abuse victim and let’s say it’s $15M. $3M makes me angry. Logic is sitting on the stoop eating a Tootsie Pop watching the world go by while the rest of me is scrawling bad words on the sidewalk with red chalk.

I know. That’s what I said. And same about their Shade of Gray. Again, 5 guys, not counting all other valid among the 150. Say an average of $500,000 settlement value (not jury award) for each of the 5. $2.5M for them, which they more than deserve. The $500,000 balance is spilt 150 ways for a whopper of $3,333.33 per man. YeeHaw, y’all. I know there’s other money, of course, but that feels absurd to me. This is exactly what I expected to see and exactly how I expected to feel. Chip off a lean $3 mill from the stock portfolio, Jeeves, and bring me another single malt and a cigar. Velvet slippers while you’re at it. PS - This doesn’t press them in the least. What they did and didn’t do isn’t costing them nearly enough, IMNSHO.

That’s because I make my own! Sorry. Unrestricted. Restricted. Long-term. Don’t care what the designation...they’re loaded.

UR. R. LT. DC. (“Don’t Care”) Loaded. 5 victims could sue them tomorrow and some time-barred may win on other grounds, like fraudulent concealment. They’re out cheap in my book.

Based on my quick check of the financial and claims statements, this seems like a pretty sweet deal for them. They have roughly 10x that amount, right? I guess because they are Gray 3? They have well north of 100 claims and 5 that could be litigated in a quick minute. Is this illustrative of the percentages being contributed? Dunno.

Is this the part of bankruptcy where we wait? Oh. Never mind. That’s what we have been doing. You’d think I’d be pretty darn good at by now. Well, I’m not. I will try harder.

This is Andrew Scurria at WSJ? I think he’s the top reporter of the lot, honestly. He’s the Deputy Chief of the Bk Division, I believe. Recently promoted. All of them are solid, though.

I hereby file a joinder to your guess.

Oh, my yes. Maria Chutchian is typically more precise. She wanted to be first to “print.”

Someone who’s a Tweeter, please post Mr. K’s declarations, when they land.

As a “law firm” of one retired attorney and one freeloading client, I am glad the Coalition deal was ditched on principal. As to it’s impact on this process, I have to assess my thoughts and feelings. Let’s see how they react. Regarding the Hartford deal, if I get a $1 vote and it remains part of the deal, I can’t in good conscience vote for such a plan. However, I will wait for words from the TCC and, maybe, the Coalition to further inform me.

To add my color commentary, that is the first and only moment in all the appearances that I saw Jessica Lauria rattled. She took in a huge breath and you could see her pulse.

Coalition fees nixed…your feed is faster than mine!

“Presented,” was accurate since Mr. Ryan was precise, emphatic, well dressed and had a nice part in his hair, but I meant “represented.” /s/ I.M.A. Dork

So, can I get in on this with the DraftKings app?

Every Troop in my town was sponsored by a Catholic Parish. To my recollection, 4. As I’ve said, our Pastor stopped at a Monday night meeting on a rare occasion and attended my Court of Honor. I doubt they had any knowledge of what they signed. The Parish community however, especially in the immediate proximity to our CO location, was very familiar and very supportive of us. At first, all of the boys in my cohort could walk to the meetings. There were barely a handful of exceptions over my 7 year tenure. Yup. To my knowledge, which is based on personal experience, the work done by the County Sheriff’s Department’s lead investigator (high school friend) thirty years later, and the AIS abuse map, that one CO has a minimum of five claims against it. I would bet more. I know AIS doesn’t represent me and the Troop is on their map. Locally, there is probably not too much money. On the Diocesan level? Probably a fair chunk. Also, our LC has almost a hun’ert and a half claims with roughly $35M in unrestricted assets. Just thought I’d throw that in for whatever it may be worth to the discussion.

Does Draft Kings cover this? Asking for a buddy of mine.

Gonna admit, 3:00PM ET can’t come soon enough. I might eat all the snacks in the house and be so caffeinated by then that I’ll have to go jogging while I watch my Zoom screen. Ok. I can’t jog after knee surgeries, a replacement and 10 other orthopedic surgeries. Welcome to premature physical breakdown at the hands of a lifetime of PTSD’s fight/flight/freeze and the resulting perpetual allostatic load/overload.

Though there only 5000+/- of us lone wolf pro se claimants, some here have mentioned allowing the so-called Coalition and TCC to carry the water unless/until it becomes clear they want/need to lawyer up. Perhaps those not included under the CM cover or Ad Hoc Committee of Catholic and Methodist COs are doing the same. Get free direction from a powerful, well presented entity or entities.

For example, it appears my Diocese is not insured by Catholic Mutual. In fact, I contacted them to confirm, but have yet to receive a response. Since I didn’t receive the filed notice of CM being granted “permitted party” access to POCs that implicate Catholic COs, I assume it is not. If my Diocese is insured by CM, I want to be on their radar and know they’re digging around in my POC.

I’ve not seen the breakdown in their objections, and etc. May have missed it, though. I just see counsel to the respective committees and to the combined Ad Hoc Committee, Potter, Anderson & Carroon in Wilmington, DE.