ThenNow

As one of the guilty, I love this line of friendly jesting and mockery. Regardless the historic basis and reasons, our use of language can be absurd in its lack of clarity and accessibility. I believe that was the initial poke, as well as an admission of a lack of patience and understanding of legal gibberish. It was a poke at us and himself. Jolly good humor, I say. While working in legal affairs for an entertainment company, I got in trouble for redrafting a series of agreements to make them understandable to the artists forced to sign them. It was one of my proudest moments as an attorney.

As you say further in your post, I agree that magnitude took the BSA by surprise. Other factors, too, but I won't reiterate what I've already said. For many on the victim/claimant side, it was less shocking and some publicly predicted an enormous number of claims. I can't quite imagine the shock and stunned silence in the BSA board room when the finally tally came in following the Bar Date. I have little knowledge of the BSA's decisions and decision-making processes prior to the Chapter 11 filing, but since it does seem like a fair measure of weak "game" and "clock management." To me, that's what looks like incompetence. Not so much a lack of inherent skill or ability among the leadership or counsel, but the unwillingness or inability to pivot, throw out the old playbook, change cleats and personnel (if needed) and adapt to the field of play before them. As I've said before, it looks like a canned approach that was meant to work with a max claimant pool of 8,000-12,000. Continuing to behave in a way that may have worked in that context when the stakes are 10x that, looks like either: (a) stupidity, which we all agree is not the case; singular motive and not one that favors "equitably compensating" abuse victims; or (c) stark denial. Yes, we practiced for playing a high school team, but don't worry. I know we know take the field against the All Blacks, but it'll be fine. We have a game plan plan. We stick to it and we can do this. It is more than they can pay. There is insurance and they definitely can and are obligated to pay a big ol' chunk. Can they pay the full amount(s) that may fall to them? I don't know. Hartford's joy at the settlement and statements/inferences from executives about dodging the bullet of potentially enormous liability under the outmoded policies and weak "coverage defenses" said it all. If we had an agreed upon estimation of value, it would go a LONG way to knowing what, who and how much by each. I, for one, agree with you. I don't know what that looks like, but I hope so too. For my selfish healing, I would like to be in Scouting with my grandkids, provided equity is done here and the YPT gaps are tightened.

Indeed. Shame is an insidious and deadly malady for many. For others, it introduces us to all manner of additional psychological and physical harm and destruction.

Not sure what this means. I didn’t file suit. Not ever. Not still. I filed a claim in a Chapter 11 as a prompt and polite RSVP to a gilded invitation. An invitation sprinkled with fairy dust and promises of “understanding, equitable compensation” and great “outrage” at my suffering. So, whatchu mean and what’s the relevance? No comment on the universal invitation to contemplate being among the victims, in person or through a child? No need. No one has so I have my answer. I don’t mean this as directed to you, necessarily.

I occasionally relay small bits of these interchanges to my therapist. She is a specialist in child sexual abuse and, during her PhD, did her practicum treating convicted sex abusers. Her father was a prison chaplain and I find her a fascinating and incredibly good therapist and person. Anyway...she muses out loud about how those who think the victim/survivors and vampire attorneys are unjustly trying to victimize Scouts and Scouting would feel if they or their boys were among the 84,000. I know, I know. People say, "It wouldn't make any difference. I would still feel the same," but that is utterly disingenuous. You don't know it - CAN'T KNOW IT - because you've not lived it. You don't know what a "disease of the soul" is if you or someone you know didn't or doesn't have one. I do recommend you think about the abuse scenario I mentioned, though. Really, really, really think about it.

I know he has responded, but I will give my take. In addition to his engaged involvement as a Scouter and dad, I've read many of his posts on other threads. I didn't seek them out, they were just part of topical threads that interest me. (I have too much time on my hands.) Other than on the Grooming/Psychobabble thread, his demeanor is much different and his contributions clearly evince his love of and commitment to Scouting. I read he is frustrated to the point of personal dismay (he took time off to get his "head straight," I believe it was) and I believe longstanding frustration has morphed into anger at inaction, inconsistency, lack of honorable behavior and excess. I may be wrong. Sometimes, his anger and frustration are very front and center, especially since the First Amended Plan dropped. It's worth noting the sheer volume of information he has culled through and absorbed in order to be able to present things as he does. I don't think someone who hates Scouting would invest that much time. Like me, I think, he needs information to feel in control of things that are out of my control. Unless he's writing a book about the demise of Scouting from a one time Scouter turned V for Vendetta, he must care about the present and future of Scouting. Think about what he pours out here. Seriously. As for me, I appreciate you saying that. CS often says things (before) I do more and, then, more eloquently and with much more information and background. I don't have any Scouting context that's not "Then," as in 1972-1979. After being assailed a on this forum a number of times, I tend to hold back because I really don't want to attack. I'll defend myself and my fellows, however. It's curious to me that some who accuse of less than scout-like behavior display the same in their reactions, on occasion. Oh, well. We're humans. As I've said, I'm not the enemy and most don't know what I've done for Scouting as a relative outsider since I departed. I do value my time in as a Scout and pulled out my pins and cufflinks and started wearing them in late 2019. I'm looking at my framed Eagle certificate out of the corner of my eye. Blame it for any and all typos. My goal in coming here and speaking up was to gain and give perspective. Many who've DM'd with me know more about my story and what I mean by that. For me, when I saw what the TN LC did in the summer of 2020, that's when my antennae sparked and I started to question motives, sincerity and whether this might actually provide some recompense to the victims/ survivors. That fear of funny business is being reinforced monthly, if not weekly. It makes me sad. My family who know SOME of my story want the BSA nuked. They don't understand what appears to them to be akin to Stockholm Syndrome or some such. As with CS, my feelings and relationship to Scouting Then/Now is complicated. I don't care for the implication that we've hijacked the thread. The moderators have kindly body checked me several times, and I appreciate it. They break off threads that wander too far or shut down other topics that got to the whipping post stage. If CS has taken the engine and I'm shoveling coal on a runaway train, that speaks ill of them. I've seen anything BUT lack of proper moderation and healthy facilitation. Personally, this is a great outlet to learn and express my view and, maybe, that of other victim/survivors. I continue because I have been repeatedly invited to continue, publicly and privately. PS - I do love that "Skeptic" is dogging "Cynical." I think I'll write a short story. It's too perfect, in an ironic and philosophical way.

I have a little bank account among our others that's titled, "Misc. Stuff" in our online lineup of accounts. I made the mistake of letting the paper statement get into my wife's hands a few months ago. Thank you, Covid. She never got the mail before this. Some things should be sacred. Anyway, she looked at the list of smallish charges. Nothing big, some gun stuff, something for the cabin, something for one of my siblings, a book, some workout bands, and, etc. "What's this?" says she, holding up the few pages. "Why aren't WE using a card toward AmEx, American, Marriott, Hilton...points?" "I've always had this as just a little squirrel away money for small stuff," I defend. Poorly. "So, you're using this account as a slush fund," the rebuff comes. "No. it's just my little side stuff. Nothing big." Again, weak. Now fading. "It's your slush fund. Don't deny it." "Give me that and stop getting the mail, woman..." "I'm watching you, mister..." Case closed.

As I've watched the back and forth on this - and I do believe it is a hinky deal or they wouldn't be so coy - I was thinking about the broader context of a case like this. Companies that go into Chapter 11 because of mass tort liability, and not basic financial and economic stress 101, have a dual dilemma. They have to fend off and financially respond to the mounting tort liability AND they have to show their books. Books that may be wonky, but no one really knew about it because they were bumping along down the road in a relatively stable condition. Now, they are forced to undress the financials in public, along with stand in the heat of the tort liability. The exposure of questionable financial management alone is very humbling. Reading the court documents surrounding this issue, it's clear to me the undercurrent of the TCC's niggling over the BSA's asset disclosures includes commingling, failure to sequester and repeated self-designation of "restricted" assets not backed up by legal and accounting reality. This is part of a larger picture. Summit is just the current focus.

"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."

Read: "Yippee! Great for us. Great for BSA (though we don't really care about that.) We're getting out of this for a song and a prayer. Our butts are so far exposed on these ill-advised policies it's not even funny. Well, maybe it is. Jokes on you, BSA CSA victims..." "Prudent defenses" and "legal postures." Ha. Read: "Yes, we have coverage defenses, but we are by no means confident in the strength or weight of those defenses. This is a happy exit for Hartford!"

Now that you mention it, this scenario brings to front of mind the effort my "drowning swimmer" put into taking me down with him during lifesaving.

Yes and double for footnotes, triple for terms of art and quadruple for Latin.

They do enjoy a friendly game of poke the bear, don't they? It is either a case of utter incompetence or a self-inflicted dissociative state. So, heck freezes over, Styx is impassable due to ice shoves, Cerberus rolls over and plays dead, and the TCC, FCR and Coalition suffer a simultaneous, protracted brain freeze. Got it. I'm going with D, "None of the Above," for the win. Ain't gonna happen. Boy howdy! That gets me 285.71 Limited Edition Starbuck's Salted Caramel Mochas, pre-tax. I'm so excited. Jk. I don't like caramel, mochas, Starbucks or being insulted to my face. (I did research for this joke.)

An unfortunate fraternity, but better than being alone.

That's what I thought I recalled. All my years, tip to tail.

Is anyone aware of the coverage years? The TCC has obviously pegged the number of relevant claims according to those years, as well as indicated there may be more since some claims omitted the year(s).

I both stand corrected and beat to the punch, again!

You keep saying that. Are you certain? Have you reviewed all 870 cases and the criminal statutes of limitations in each respective states? It’s the law, like it or not. You’re “kicking agains the goads,” as the Bible says. Too late now. I do think we did break off a discussion along these lines. Do you really want to be sued for real, and not just metaphorically or by implication based on your contributions, dues, time invested and, etc.? The cost of that will be much, much greater. Again, this hyperbole about concomitant “abuse” of the current and future Scouts/Scouters and being sued in proxy does not advance the conversation about this Chapter 11. Just my opinion, of course.

We went there when it happened, so I pretty much agree, from the BSA’s perspective. From my perspective as a victim/survivor BSA CSA claimant, it revealed much and flipped the switch. For that, I’m perfectly content. Maybe it’s worth noting that when Ms. Lauria changed firms there was a vociferous objection to her and her partners continuing to represent the BSA, due to potential “confidential information” they had previously acquired in dealings with Century. As I’ve said before, and I’m certain she’s a top notch bk attorney, there has been a demeanor and approach I felt was incompatible with this case since I heard her speak at the TCC selection meeting in Delaware. I do believe they chose poorly and it is showing. My take. I think it’s too late. The cow has left the barn and said cattle keeper is well ablaze. Correct. Contrary to what the Coalition has projected, the TCC is the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE representative of ALL victim/survivor BSA CSA claimants. (Sorry. I keep using “CSA.” Is stands for Child Sexual Abuse.)

You beat me to it!

Oversight. Negligent. Stewardship. Negligence. Entrusted into the care. Negligence. Implied duty of care. Negligence. Badge on the uniform says BSA (Trustworthy, loyal...). Affiliate, associate, agent, sanctioned and approved volunteer, employee...liable.

PERSONAL OPINION: There are significant differences between the facts of the RCC cases that distinguish them from the BSA CSA liability scenario. I believe those differences are critical and place insurers in the direct line of fire to pay on the historic policies.

I’d call it a litigation pivot. Different team for a different strategy, as well as a signal of the level of seriousness. Free agent acquisitions and substitutions mid-season recognizing you have a chance to win or lose the title based on key talent.

I'm thinking incidental claims between $45 and $8000 will have little bearing on the substantive discussion, precedent (express or implied) or court's ruling on 84,000 individual abuse claims valued at not less than between $2,450,000 and $50,000. Just my guess.

$102.716B+, but what's another $700,619,500 between friends?