ThenNow

Yes. I've been through it, in fact.

FYI, in the event it wasn't accessible. Reprinted with permission. Peg Brickley WSJ 4.21.2021.pdf

Are the substantive docs expected to land in the docket? I'm not sure if they're sealed behind the mediation wall or what.

As we both said several times, they almost literally invited this. Several ways and several times. Maybe this pulls the wagon out of the ditch, at long last.

I’m sorry. That’s terrible and one reason I’ve eschewed all social media, other than this forum.

This is the example I referenced. The points allocation system starts at Exhibit A, page 67 of the pdf. 662378991_RCCofNewMexicoClaimPointsSys.pdf

Welcome. As you've read, you're not alone here. It was brave to speak up. Thank you for doing so.

Just a footnote. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that this claims valuation matrix is not the one used, given the effort of the TCC, FCR and Coalition to lift the exclusivity and file a separate Plan. In that event, it would still have these tiers and multipliers, but may look more like the one in the New Mexico Catholic Church Chapter 11. It is built on the same concept, but quite different.

Does anyone have any historic or contextual experience with how something like this actually works, in practical terms? I recognize it would be cross-referencing with a different type of mass tort claim, so not a direct comparison. CSA cases like this one have different variables, indicia of veracity and quantifiers, of course, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how a Trustee is going to cull, review, assess and grade/rank this many claims with so many of the aged variety. I know the BSA CSA Proofs of Claim range from those with nothing but the form completed (basic data entered or not, and boxes checked) to a select few that are voluminous with exhibits, photos and other elements of proof.

I understand. The BSA is compounding its dilemma by being less than forthcoming and through poor timing. I don't know if it's a negotiating tactic or what, but it looks ham-fisted. From an observer's standpoint, when you read that "more than half of the amount the BSA has offered consists of the estimated value of [their] art collection," it don't look so good. "Not the Renoir! Take the Rothko. I always hated that thing." From everyman's viewpoint, this is what really rich people do when they need to get some cash. They liquidate some of the peripheral niceties so they can protect the real assets. Early in my career I practiced real estate law. I worked with restricted properties, unwinding the restrictions so we could develop. As to Summit anyway, that is smoke and mirrors. I'm telling you, it definitely is.

Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. Not so sure about that. “Most” and “would” are squishy, but perhaps “many” and “might” are more apt. Regardless, all who have good counsel and/or good sense, which is most (to use your word) will not do anything like that before seeing the real cards on the table. Fortunately for survivor claimants, the TCC, FCR and Coalition may have been galvanized by the ill-advised and very badly timed deal with Hartford, creating an impenetrable wall sealing off the path for the BSA’s Plan. Stay tuned. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel. (Old guys, I gotchu.) PS - They/we already think something fishy is going on with the insurance company contributions, so that “unless” trigger has already flipped.

Agreed. The BSA did not offer me justice, they invited me here to receive “equitable compensation.” I gave up on justice long ago and no have absolutely zero delusion about finding it. I’ll take the money. As to your lawyer friends, I’ve heard that. I was told to “wash everything in the cynical acid of the law and truth.” I went to a Jesuit law school, though. My belief is that my calling is to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly...” I see almost no other profession, other than law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs like yours. Completely different. One is about life or death in the moment and going forward. They are simply worlds apart. Attorneys are more like brokers than they are physicians. Yes. You’ve said this before and I appreciate your experience. What this wreckage has cost me and my family can’t be repaid. I agree on that and see my first answer above. I’ll take some money just the same, thank you very much.

I’m not quite sure what this entire line of objection is really about. A moral objection to making money from doing “nothing,” like investing in Amazon when it went public? A moral, cultural and economic objection that teachers work hard and get paid too little? I know high level brokers and commercial real estate people who do pocket deals that reap huge rewards with little time invested. Other deals, just the opposite. It’s fine to indict the system of contingent fee (legal) representation, as opposed to calling professionals who utilize it “vultures,” but include all who utilize it and recognize a very valuable service goes away if it does. Namely, taking on cases/deals that won’t otherwise be advanced under a time and expense structure.

You’re condemning anyone who works on commission. My real estate agent represent me, but she’s not doing it for free. She’s doing it to make a living and a good one, at that. The commission you’re poking at just happens to be potentially huge. Not saying I agree with or completely condone it. Watch Erin Brockovich (or many other books and films) to get a feel for what it takes to bring large cases on contingency. “Choose wrong” and you could go out of business unless you get help from a more flush firm or, as today, an investor. You’re talking about a business model, not one profession, per se.

With complete respect and with several doctors in the family, the “function” of a physician charged with treating patients cannot be compared apples to apples with an attorney who’s responsibility it is to advocate for her client. One seeks to make whole or well, and minimize pain and maximize quality of life. The other, seeks to maximize the benefit to their client. The law and society set the boundaries for fees and any good advocate will push to the boundary on behalf of the client. You’re attempting to compare two different universes. That said, I agree 100% the tort system has fallen into the muck. Regrettably, it may be irretrievably so unless Congress acts.

As a retired attorney, this is a blast. Better than a high level ping pong match. Let me posit an idea that is in fact true across the practice of representing child sexual abuse victims. Many such good and moral attorneys are deeply and passionately involved in this case. You start out as a small practitioner and take on a case of child sexual abuse. It’s an awful story with a very broken family and utterly destroyed client. You slog through discovery, depositions, interrogatories, trail prep, witnesses...and you win a good award for your client. The case takes a toll on you and your family. You have recurrent nightmares. You begin to build a reputation and take on more child sexual abuse cases. More darkness and devastation. Black hole darkness. Massive devastation. More nightmares. Fast forward 20 years and you’ve repeated the representation scenario 100’s of times. Now, men start calling you and you notice a pattern. They were abused in the Boy Scouts of America. Next thing you know, this very organization has thousands and thousands of viable claims of child sexual abuse against them, regardless their shiny history or years of positive impact. Might you become a crusader? Might you be a white knight and not a vulture? Some of you really would do yourself a favor to face reality and stop acting like this is a John Grisham novel or Guy Ritchie movie. I am one victim/survivor. If I had represented 100 people like me my hackles would be so far up and my saber so sharp I would stop at nothing. This case is about boys being abused. And, math. Before you pounce, I do not condone claims mining or false or misleading advertising or machine signatures on Proofs of Claim or any of that other shenanigans. Think about one lawyer and how he or she would feel representing these men. Please. PS - As to the contingency fees when someone represents a large number of sexual abuse victims in a Chapter 11 like this, I take issue with an unlimited, uncapped fee.

Don’t be. They were. It took them years to figure it out.

Welcome and thanks very much for adding your voice. I’m here with you. Stay strong.

I’m not sure where you heard that. Certainly not from me. Some fractional measure of compensation is pretty much all I have left to hope for out of the disaster this created for my family and me.

Quite a powerful letter.

Um, I responded to and echoed the post (below) by yknot. You just don’t like what I have to say and represent, leading you to conclude and regurgitate your mantra that I shouldn’t be “here,” whether overtly or by inference. Have at it. This was not as attacking as the past, but still not accurately reflecting my post and context. Many things I say are meant to illustrate the survivor experience and perspective. It was not aggressive, tearing down the BSA or out of bounds. Maybe harkening to a previous post, but I didn’t initiate the boundary. “A scout is trustworthy but that lesson starts with the adults who are there to guide him or her and teach them what that means. If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. And we failed.”

I really respect you and always appreciate your posts, even about cooking with or without tinfoil. But, this “drop in the bucket” and “not even a blip” language is simply offensive and denies that this is a discussion about the BSA and its Chapter driven by sexual abuse in Scouting. Let’s start another cultural, historic, contextual and academic discussion, maybe?

So, I had two brothers who wanted to join Scouting when I just joined and 10 who I prohibited from joining while simultaneously deciding I couldn’t tell my dad about the abuse. Got it. Glad you have so much time on your hands to pick apart my posts and the points I’m making, even if not wholly accurately. Be a bit more logical and consider all the components of my statements, please. I have a lot of you to defend myself against. It gets wearying. Look all the way back, as well. On second thought, don’t. I’m tired of it.

And, speculating about avoidance of abuse through Scouting is not statistically established and, again, does not address the bankruptcy.

Answers like this are academically sound, but morally disingenuous and ultimately avoid the issue. One to one, less Scouting is equally as impactful and repugnant as being repeatedly raped by your Scoutmaster resulting in millions of dollars in life wreckage, suicidality, self harm, CPTSD, depression, failed marriages and etc. Got it.