ThenNow

I think you misunderstood what MYCVAStory meant. BSA has “done nothing,” as in produced not even a sentence of revision or commentary about how YPT will be improved in response to the TCC’s non-monetary demand to upgrade the program. “Done nothing” within the context of the bankruptcy negotiations, mediation, conversations, Plan documents and etc. I believe that is what he meant. The town hall statement is another invitation, less gentle, to tell the BSA to get off the dime on this and put forth some detailed commitments.

Which I will be doing as well, both directly and to their attorneys. I’ve already drafted the email. I’m 99% sure I won’t get it, but I’m going on record as having made the request. It may be an “early and often” scenario if they refuse. I can be a very pesky gnat with shape-shifting ability if/when a rhino becomes more appropriate.

We know the insurers only want this so they have to pay less. That's a given. Once they start, how far does it go and by what standards of validity and review? It's supposed to be a somewhat facial review and not the type of deep dive vetting the Trustee will later due, which will be more thorough and substantive. It's the old "slippery slope" problem. Yes, the benefit could be mutual to the parties. Could. As a claimant, the thought of being diluted by fraud is painful. On one had, I don't want valid claims kicked for unsound reasons, caught up in a crusade to "purge the villains." On the other, I don't want invalid ones diluting and degrading the legitimate pool of victim/survivor claimants or impacting voting. I don't have an answer. Looking at the evidence Century is bringing causes me sorrow, if true and proven. Sad for the legal system. Sad for those who would do such things. Sad for the claimants. Sad for the BSA, too, but I feel a lot less sympathy there. 84,000 or 60,000? Know what I mean? Okay. No sympathy if it is ill-intentioned to impact voting.

I'm sure I mentioned the class action I lead against an insurer for wrongful denial of depression treatment claims. That they're MO, as well. Deny the claim until the patient drops it from exhaustion, frustration, ignorance, death or they are forced to pony up after independent reviews, aggregated appeals and, eventually, a law suit if it ever gets to it. That, of course, is rare.

I've had a company, well two, get consumed. One by a true insider snake in the recording and publishing industry, the other the bankruptcy sale I mentioned. The sell-off in bankruptcy was precipitated by a $20M breach of contract award that was later overturned too late for a rescue. Security tied to intellectual property assets, which is a complicated story. Anyway, we owners would never have considered hiding a financial advantage out of embarrassment over unwise decisions or poor financial management. That is, unless there was a legal or IRS problem lurking in the shadows. It's crazy to me, but I suppose this is what some of you have been saying about BSA top brass and the way they roll.

I can't speak to the inner workings of JPM or the facts of this deal, as I've said. As a claimant who wants to get on with it and who wants the BSA to come to the table as they said they would/say they are, something stinks with this persistent non-disclosure. It just does. I guess you can make the case for it being strategic, but what is that strategy if they are simultaneously bleeding themselves dry, being pounded to release documents on a fat calf asset they say is restricted and they have to know it's required of them to retain the alleged restricted status? What am I missing? The BSA says it's restricted but refuses to prove it, which is their burden? Let's say I agree that it isn't fraudulent. Why not prove it? I'm left with the money pit argument, which is classic "cut off your nose to spite your face" behavior. Embarrassment is the motive for failure to carry your own burden of proof to establish a restriction on a major asset in bankruptcy? Okie dokie.

I'm really not understanding your point and looping back to a supposed legal or strategic advice/advantage argument re HABs being restricted (if not a problem showing a cash sinkhole). Here is the simplest way to look at it. BSA: "I told you five times. The door is locked." TCC: "I don't believe you. I believe it's open." BSA: "Locked." TCC: "Open." BSA: "Locked." TCC: "Open." BSA: "Listen carefully! It is locked!" TCC: "Okay. Okay. Let me try the door." BSA: "No freakin way. I told you, it's locked." Hello...???

Yes, of course, you are right. But I hear the sound of, "Objection, your honor. Relevance?" We are in the BSA's Chapter 11, arrived at by force of child sexual abuse claims in, around, while, during, related to...adults in Scouting.

Yup. Apparently so. I am not intending to belittle -- this is my comic relief brain, again -- but I periodically run sketch scenarios built on The Office or GetSmart, as I imagine what in the heck the BSA war room looks and sounds like right now. Or, perhaps, "Who's on first...?"

Why would one preserve fatted calfs, eat the seed corn and starve oneself out of existence?

How about we demonstrate great unity and magnanimity by seeing how many upvotes we can get on this one single solitary sentence? Or not. I just thought this is a flag worth saluting, but then again I have a tendency to humor myself with visual images of calming conflict through simultaneous salutes via digital button pushing and other such borderline nonsense.

An Adversary Proceeding is Different From the Main Bankruptcy Case - The main bankruptcy case involves a debtor and the creditors of that debtor, and the main bankruptcy case has its own separate electronic docket and case number. An "Adversary Proceeding" in bankruptcy court has the same meaning as a lawsuit in other courts. This means that one or more "plaintiff(s)" file a "complaint" against one or more "defendant(s)." In many situations an adversary proceeding is required if a plaintiff wants to obtain a particular type of relief. Consult Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 7001 to determine if a particular type of relief requires an adversary proceeding. When an adversary proceeding is commenced, the clerk's office starts a separate electronic docket to record all activity in the adversary proceeding. Each adversary proceeding has its own "adversary number" which can be found on the first page of the complaint, right below the main bankruptcy case number. An example is 2:AP:12-01501-VZ. This means an adversary proceeding (AP) filed in the Los Angeles division in calendar year 2012 and assigned to the Judge Vincent Zurzolo. After an adversary complaint is filed, the defendant has a specific deadline to file and serve a written response to the complaint, and then a series of pre-trial hearings/conferences take place until the lawsuit is settled, dismissed, or goes to trial. https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/faq/bankruptcy-case-vs-adversary-proceeding-what-difference

I can't take this response seriously when two of the points have already been supported by Moderators, one has been (apparently) managed though internal self-government or some invisible, magical restraint and two others are completely neutral, to play your us vs. them game. I should've just DMd them to MattR and not further bread (sic) your hate.

Thank you for posting and staying strong. This reiterates what I have said. It exploded in our laps afresh and ablaze in our hearts and minds. Hang in there and thanks, again.

If mine is a worthy voice, I would be happy to contribute my thoughts and suggestions on a separate thread. From the jump, and a couple of these are things I've previously posted and few have proven successful as I've begged for a "back off," I would start with: 1) Request a reduction or elimination of all caps and/or repeated bold font statements when the post is emotionally charged (or maybe always?). I have fallen into part of that and could've adequately made my point(s) with underline or italics. This is a visual medium and what we see, not only read, has a HUGE impact. (Did that on purpose. See what I mean?) 2) Continue to stay the hand of lawyer bashing, other than to note particular communications or report what's going on with attorneys involved in the case. (Well done us, so far. I'm grateful. Thanks, Moderators.); 3) Continue to stay the hand of using "abuse/abused" and "victim/victimized" to describe the impact of program reductions and increased fees on Scouts and Scouters. (Again, thanks for the respect shown since my plea); 4) Stay the hand of direct juxtaposition of the emotional impacts of the bankruptcy on Scouts and Scouters with the emotional and psychological damage of sexual abuse survivors. I do not want to minimize. Please trust me. I had a breakdown when my son's wanted to join Scouts and lost my company in a bankruptcy sale two years later (as I bounced around in treatment and hospitals). I get it. I really do and I hate to see anyone lose what they love and built; and 5) If a poster has already made a specific point, instead of reposting or further extrapolating and going off about having to repeat oneself, just link to the post. Not sure how to do that, but it would allow me/us/one to go back, find the conversation where the points were being discussed, educate myself on what I missed and then fast forward back to the current stream of post. Just my thoughts.

Ditto. I'm there. Shoulder to shoulder on this one.

Agreed, and that was my point. However, I just now used the word "intentionally" intentionally, trying to give all involved the benefit of the doubt. I mean that sincerely and not as snark.

For my part to be fair and accurate, I have not suggested anyone was intentionally making light of what happened to me or others, other than by implication through inaccurate comparisons, juxtaposition and use of common descriptors.

That's not a forum, just a cork board in the cyber hallway. It's also the easy way out of this conversation. The anger isn't being bred by this interaction with me or by the bankruptcy itself, but coaxed out into the open. It's already there. I did not arrive at this forum angry with you or Scouting, per se. I have become angry at what appears to be gross insensitivity in the use of language and comparisons, as well as blame cast where none should be cast. Thanks, again, to SilverPalm for eloquently "defending" what are in many instances the "defenseless." I tremendously appreciate his saying what he did. The fact that his post was down-voted by someone -- who was that again? -- says it all. What is the purpose of down-voting, anyway? Attempted public invalidation of someone's opinion or just a push button disagreement not requiring an articulate rebuttal? Hm... I will do as the moderators suggest or direct, but unless and until I am told to do so, I am not going to step back from correcting errant and inappropriate comparisons of pain, victimization, abuse, "hell" or otherwise. I am not belittling someone else's legitimate struggles by pointing out that their battle is of lesser intensity and impact than someone else's. Or 84,000 someone else's. There is a quantitative and qualitative chasm. One is entered into by choice, based on goals, purpose, passion, love, dedication and mission. All good things. Very good things. The "frustration" and "disappointment" at hopes and investments dashed are very real. On the other side of the ledger is pain imposed against one's will with soul-crushing malice and self-gratifying darkness. The resulting devastation is almost indescribable, for some ending in death, and the pain is incomparable to frustration or disappointment or even anger. Dashed hope is defined by the psyche of a child sexual abuse victim. I really suggest that those who say, "my pain is just as bad as yours" read as many of the letters from the abused as they can. That may be what it takes. Unfortunately, details have to be redacted tamping down the reality in some case. I'm happy to stop this conversation, but unless we leave it alone like the lawyer bashing and "We're all abuse victims now," topics, I will defend myself, my point and the victim perspective.

Didn't say that. Didn't imply it. Didn't claim it. Not once. Not ever. I haven't lost site of anything. I don't know that you've found a clear-eyed vision of victim suffering. We've been down this road before and I affirmed my sympathies multiple times. No diminishment from this guy. It's the juxtaposition and in any way equating the two "hells." As I've said before, show me your receipts and I'll show you mine. Add them all up and we'll add up 84,000 lives to put on the other side of the scale. Been to a psyche ward for two weeks, several times? Been in residential Eating Disorder Treatment for 5 weeks? Multiple times in others? Any suicide attempts in the mix? Self-injury? Complete emotional shutdown and unavailability for your wives and children for years, not out of volition, but rather damage caused by a volunteer Scouter? How many depression, anxiety and nightmare reduction sleep meds have you been through in the last 20 years? Should I go on? I can. This is our world. As I said when the words "abuse" and "victim" are being used to describe Scouts and Scouters impacted by program reductions and increased fees, please stop painting this parallel comparison. It's neither accurate nor at all merciful. I'm not being "kind"? Wow.

Yeah. Uh, huh. Cry me a river. "Living hell" is relative, I suppose, but puh-lease. Thanks, again, for diminishing the ongoing horrors of BSA rape victims. It's a bright, shiny, beautiful thing that you can so flippantly put your "pain" on equal footing. You really have no bloody idea what in the world you are doing or talking about. Can you look in the mirror and tell yourself you feel like we do with a straight face and without shame or remorse? Get a grip. Unbelievable.

You're not alone, my friend. This has been and continues to be absolutely brutal for many, many of us abuse survivor claimants. Absolutely and unequivocally. I don't know how much you know about PTSD/CPTSD, triggering events, flashbacks, dissociation, mania, hypo-mania, depression, suicidality, self injury, eating disorders and all the other co-morbidities that track with PTSD/CPTSD, but I can tell you from daily personal experience, the has been hell.

Ain't one. You didn't read or follow what I wrote. We can drop it. The iron's done white hot and the mark is in place. Reality bites, but there it is. I didn't wield the iron nor did I tear open the uniform to reveal the chest on which it was placed. That was self-inflicted. I understand your defense, but it simply denies what's right here before us on the table in black, white and dollar signs. I do not like broad brushes or guilt by association myself, but this is not morality play or an ethics exam at this point. It is 84,000 sexual abuse claims against the BSA, the application of accounting after asset and claims valuations all in the full view of the laws of liability based on negligence, in particular.

Okay. Now it's "right education." Got it. Say wha? Did you read that the BSA Executive who handled that case "on the ground" was aware of the drinking and pornography in my Unit? Huh. "100% focused on doing the right thing by the youth"? Okie dokie. Whatever. You and I are "never the twain shall meet" on this score...

Is this so? If so, what exactly is the application to pre-1979 cases outside of NY/NJ? I've not heard this before.