ThenNow

Thank you. I'll receive that on behalf of the others here. The issue is, in part, many of us had settled in with our life of therapy (or not) and managing our lives as best we could. This came out of nowhere and sent some of us back to square one or two...others had not reached that point and had to ramp up and face it out of the blue. Very tricky and I don't think many understand that, maybe especially the judge, given her passivity. Being "equitably compensated," as promised is as much about money as it is honoring the pain and fallout, as it is a number. Low numbers feels less so. My wife has spent her carrier in the high levels of insurance. When I told her I hoped this could be basically a wrap and handed over to the Trustee in a year, she looked at me and shook her head. "Not a chance." (Add) I suppose it will be handed over, but the insurance "battle" has yet to be waged. Dunno. I think key COs (and not so key) may be whistling in the dark and playing pin the liability on the CO, as applicable. So far, it doesn't appear they were invited to the party. Yes. At least we have a step, at long last.

You may not be rid of me for a while. I may linger and cause trouble.

As I've said, I have great confidence in the guys on the TCC and their professionals. I'm more looking at my broken expectations since 2.18.20, which is not entirely aggregate numbers driven. An enormous amount of turmoil and anguish has been endured over these many month. It will continue. I hear you. I do. Those who have followed me know I am not about obliteration. In that light, I should've clarified. I agree the BSA has stepped up. It was clearly the right thing to do. I wish it hadn't taken so long or required so much pressure and contention. I will wait to see more from the LCs. I know what my LC has and I doubt it will slow their roll whatsoever. I'm also very keen to learn about the direct abuse claims. If they fall under the channeling injunction, I think that will be terribly unjust.

I don't know all of those answers, but remember this is a statewide, AG-driven investigation, not a prosecution. As others have said, the similar RCC probe in PA resulted in a report. The one in MI one imprisonment, I believe. Big difference. The criminal SoL's we've talked about in the past where about law enforcement and DAs prosecuting abusers. I believe this is an entirely different animal. I'm sure @CynicalScouter and @Mutsy can flesh this out far better. I am not doing well today. Trying to adjust my thinking, get my head around this and accept how this has played out. "Acceptance is key," as the say in 12 Steps. I haven't checked, but I assumed BSA will be able to pull in the direct abuse claims and get released from them, as well. Any one see that. A sad day for me all around. I'm glad you guys are, to one degree or another, heartened. I feel sick,

I don't know about my fellows, but I felt pretty darn gut punched when I got up this morning. Not what I had hoped for or expected. More to be reveal, I suppose and then the insurance circus. I don't feel like the LC contribution is adequate. Not at all. The breakdown/breakout, if we see it, will be telling. I doubt more comforting, but informative.

Simply, yes. The criminal investigation into the organization is not bound by the channeling injunction coming out of the bankruptcy. That bar is all about civil suits. I've heard from friends and family in other states who will be taking the MI investigation example to their representatives and contacting their AG's to encourage similar investigations. I think so. You didn't get full access?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-boy-scouts-near-civil-settlement-criminal-probe-looms-11624014001?page=1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-near-bankruptcy-deal-with-largest-victim-group-11623949286?page=1

Did anyone happen to see or calculate an average of the per LC net assets from the BSA summary statements? Very curious how the averages compare. The contribution side is going to be very small in comparison, me thinks. And then, those asset numbers are from the BSA and not BRG. (The contribution side is about $1.8M, yes?)

This comes up as a restricted or not secure doc. Am I doing something wrong? I used two different browsers, both had the same result. Also, is it brief or do I need a page reference? Many thanks.

So, it looks like they will make it out alive, but limping. Are you guys in any way surprised and/or heartened? Some were 99.99% certain total annihilation was drawing nigh.

Same. This concerns me. I don’t see how this number is in any way an adequate representation of LC exposure or ability to pony up for it. How is this acceptable to the Coalition and will some LCs still resist and take their chances? So many questions. I wonder if this deal allows BSA to sneak the direct abuse claims (since 2.18.20) under the channeling injunction binkie. I’m also very curious to learn the TCC’s view, since they have not yet signed on. At these numbers, if this is global, we’ve gone from $6100 to about $9000. WooHoo. Phhhtttt. I believe in our TCC and pray for a better outcome than this.

(Thanks for setting me straight.) That one sentence boils it down to gravy.

This mirrors my secondhand 4-H experience. No sleeping in the woods apart from parents. Most all activities in public and with groups of kids and parents. If I were to simplify and use the same activity, camping, this is how I would compare Scouting and 4-H: * Scouting (pre-serious/recent YPT) --> Men and boys hiking, swimming and tent camping in the woods for weekends and even weeks. * 4-H --> Overnight camping in a family's backyard with a fire pit and s'mores.

To append, she was also told BSA was excluding mediation parties in favor of others. So much so that the TCC was told to go home from one of them, not contacted in several cases while "mediation was progressing nicely" and Chubb was not included at all in others or for extended periods. All of that should have gotten her off her duff, in my humble view.

I'll give my favorite caveat right upfront: I'm asking, not poking. Are you a 4-Her? As I've said before, I'm not but experienced it through my sister for about six years. We are very close, as I am with her daughter. That's not first hand, but I was at events, their farm, talked with my niece a great deal...

Same. I was naive in not at all expecting this dirge and shamble.

If they're being truthful about August as the trigger point for "headlong into poverty," BSA certainly does. Insurers? Definitely not. Survivors with substantial claims and/or those not wanting an early exit? We can and will be as patient as necessary.

Definitely not just you. I'm twisting in the wind and heat over here. Finally drafting my letter to the judge and touch on what this horrible attenuation is doing to me and other survivors. Recounting the abuse is not so much my thing. I prefer to talk about impacts. I'm pretty sure she doesn't get the psychological explosion the filing alone was to many of us, let alone the Proof of Claim process, the claims aggregating and mining, the fee drain, droning he said/she said in the hearings, and her consistent failure to rule on motions and resulting delay. My daily prayer (I'm short on hope) is that some happy news will drop from the mediation limbo any day.

Anyone have any 'what's the skinny' mediation info on the down low?

I'd be careful how you phrase this and attempt to make a distinction. In the midst of my abuse during the 70's, when BSA was fully aware of what was going on, the marketing was pretty hot and heavy. I'm not saying the two contexts are exactly parallel, but a clear comparison is easy. (As to Big Tobacco, fill in any product liability debacle. Let's toss that one if you'd like.) The comparison trips out like this: 1) Defect - broad opportunities for access to boys --> predation and abuse; 2) Knowledge and recording of incidents of abuse impacts arising from defect; 3) Failure to adequately protect and disclose risks; 4) Ongoing marketing and sales, continued broad access and opportunities for abuse; 5) More abuse; 6) Abuse/injuries known and recorded; 7) Still no disclosure; 8) Failure to adequately address defect/modify access, implement safety measures and report/warn of abuse risks...more abuse; 9) CSA lawsuits based on negligence and failure of duty of care, etc.; 9) Reluctant and meager disclosure, but only when forced; 10) Legislation to open avenues for direct accountability to victims (civil lawsuits); and 10) Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

I'm sorry, but those analogies do not fly in this context. Did these guys really have to be "determined," at least prior to when YPT began to more effectively implemented, as in not too long ago? No argument that they did can be made with a straight face. The yarn about the bad guys can always find the secret door and slip in the back way is simply nonsense here. The front door was unlocked, open and had a sign out front. Yes, Scouting was attractive to boys and families for it's adventure, but that doesn't mean it was wise to put boys in the woods and homes and private places with men like they/we did. And, it's not like the hatches were battened once the breaking and entering was a cognizable and recorded pattern. Were they? How long did it take? Thank you. Sincerely. Me too. One question: Did lawyers smelling money and people with cancer precipitate the inquiry and lawsuits against Big Tobacco or any of the other contexts where a product was defective and the manufacturer blew the chance to disclose, while continuing to market their product? I don't think you see this clearly at all. I don't say things like "rape culture" or "the largest pedophile ring in history," but I do try to look at this objectively. The BSA produced this, plain and simple. But for the perpetuation of the context and opportunity for CSA and the negligence that allowed it to continue, the target wouldn't have been on BSA's back. They hung it there. As I've said before, lawyers aren't suing BSA and the related parties because they don't like the bowline knot or long shorts and funny socks or neckerchiefs or skill awards. (Ok. Somebody should've sued over skill awards. I had a recurrent fear of being pushed in the water while wearing that divers belt. [glug * glug] Glad they're gone!) Seriously. The abuse, the pattern, the lack of supervision...the failure to disclose and warn are the threads that wove this target.

I hear you, but maybe something else to consider. The files are evidence of a deeper, and I think insidious, motivation. The IVF existed for a long time before BSA was forced to produce them. And, as they admitted, represented nowhere near the number of IVs that would have been in the files had they not "purged" records. The existence of the IVF, the failure to proactively disclose them (and the incidents in real time) with the full knowledge of the historic pattern of abuse built the case for their own liability. In the moment, it may have seemed like a reasonable thing to do, but if you know your cig's are causing cancer and you don't disclose it, you're gonna be held to account. If you have an airbag that explodes and you don't recall it and warn people, you're gonna be held to account. Scouting was and is, in a very real sense, a product. It was being "sold" to an unsuspecting public with an inherent design defect. The context of sending boys into virtual seclusion with adult men in innumerable settings without stringent protective measures was a recipe for CSA disaster. There are no two ways about it and not a single way around it. They discovered it, they tracked it, they wrote it down, they stored records, they purged records, they settled lawsuits, they defended themselves at trial, they opposed Child Victims Acts with paid lobbyists and all the while chose not to warn the current and prospective Scouting public. That don't smell so good. It was self-serving and that's what precipitated and perpetuated this crisis.

I had a lingering ambivalence about pursuing my CO, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it if my future attorney deems it both appropriate and necessary. (At this point, that scenario is hypothetical.) I have two reasons. One, the thought of hurting the parish my mom still attends is unpleasant. And, two, the explanation you guys have given about the almost universal low expectation of CO involvement at the Unit-level. I get that doesn't include the LDS church. That ambivalence is now balanced by the idea shared that Scouting was used an integrated/integral part of a "packaged offering" by the parish. Benign neglect and ignorance are one thing. Utilizing the status as a Chartered Organization to expand the brand is another. Without active involvement, per the Agreement, they received a benefit and gave no consideration. That benefit was at my expense, since their consideration was supposed to be oversight and "management." In effect, they were promising to watch over ME, specifically, and abdicated their duty. They hung the BSA shingle and got the good PR, but didn't live up to their bargain. I think I get it. A sticky wicket.

Mine has more than 3x that amount in net assets and just a handful or so of claims that aren't time-barred. Overall, they have upwards of 200. I'm very curious to see how they participate in a global resolution or not, both from an academic and legal/risk management strategy standpoint and personally (of course). As has been discussed and debated, if litigated, those several claims could be disastrous for them depending on their insurance coverage.

If I had a role in my former diocese, I would have been on the phone with SEs and searching the Omni Agent site for the number of claims against the LCs included within my turf. That would provide some sense of the magnitude, especially in a highly Catholic-based CO region. Problem is, are they really paying attention to available sources of information and do they have any inkling of the potential poop storm rising that could motivate inquiry? Who’s providing them with info? Even assuming every diocese is truly as involved as has been said, what do they really know? I’m still a tad dubious. For example, I highly doubt the parishes who did and do sponsor troops have the details of what’s brewing. Am I totally missing something?