Eagle1970

To me, it is morally wrong to pit victims against each other and give victims who were merely touched more money than victims who endured unspeakable horrors, based solely on the state where abuse occurred. I understand that is how it is, but I find it reprehensible.

I empathize and agree regarding the value of "awards". Clearly, open state claimants are going to get a large portion of the pool, which I continue to believe is criminal (not in the legal sense, rather the moral). One stipulation though, regarding shades of Gray.... I'd sure rather be in Gray 1 than my happy home of Gray 3. The whole Gray scale drives me to drink. You are either closed or open. Gray 1,2,3 classification is arbitrary, and I'm sure there were cases where it was a coin toss between the categories.

Would anyone venture a guess on time frame? Do all independent reviews need completion before payments are made?

Should this plan prevail, we will need good information to evaluate TDP. I have decent documentation so will likely go that route. But, the final matrix should allow a claimant to evaluate their outcome with some degree of accuracy. Your guesstimates are probably close, though some are going to have to see what the questionnaire involves, since it is under oath. If it's not very detailed, more may go that route. If they require a lot of information (as they should), I can see more taking the $3500.

I'm going to be generous and say about 3, and I won't be one. Having just finished reading the text, it looks to me that the purpose is to steer only the strongest cases into independent review, thereby settling the vast majority through the main channel. Actually, just the $20k will accomplish that. Most survivors won't want to part with $20k with risk and I would have to believe that law firms are a bit reluctant to extend a lot of $20k checks since many outcomes may be 40% of $3500, which won't cover even the basics.

In the end, the greatest factor in settlement value will be state law. If you were abused in a state where survivors rights are prioritized, you may be in the tall corn. If not, the state and this process have dealt a great injustice to victims. I'm aging and will get by fine without the money. So, I am not bitter for myself, as the extent of my abuse was a very unpleasant one-week period at camp, perpetrated by a Boy Scout employee. But I am bitter for those who endured extended and egregious abuse that occurred in a closed state. As a result, they will receive a fraction of the settlement available to those with lesser abuse history in an open state. And that, my friends, infuriates me.

So is it safe to say few victims in closed or nearly closed states would see benefit from forking out $20k? I don't have benefit of an attorney, so advice on this topic is welcomed.

Fresh in my mind, of course, as just last week I received exactly that settlement.

By the time this is finished, we will end up settling for two years of free credit monitoring. smh

There goes my license.... "While legal experts don’t think the new law would apply to past crimes, they believe this change is a move in the right direction and should even go one step further."

It is my understanding that they took the action of eliminating the criminal sol due to dna testing and that old cases can now be prosecuted. If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to hand over my law license (which I never had).

Part of my acceptance is driven by the fact that Missouri is unlikely to offer much haven for a civil claim. Though the state did remove the SoL for criminal csa, there is no possibility I am going through the pain so the state can possibly have its way with my abuser, while I cannot. And with just my word and some 50-year-old 3rd party testimony from old men, it's quite possible he would still skate. How hopeless would I feel then? And the years it can take to weave a case through state court, which is possibly moved to federal court, with my most personal details for all to see--my heartbeat is rising just thinking about it. So for me, it's nearly over. I look forward to one more event: my personal interview before they slash my claim by 90% for SoL. In that moment, I will receive my only justice in 50 years of living with this. Once and for all, he will not have gotten away with it. And finally, whatever check I receive, be it $50 I will use it meaningfully. For you and others in a similar position, I wish all the best. Hopefully your legislature is more concerned with victimized citizens, rather than profits of insurers or protecting the Parishes against former alter boys. Stay strong and don't let them destroy you.

I'm sure all won't agree. But I am morphing into acceptance. We are all getting older....in my case, fairly quickly. Before the BK, many of us had decided either to leave the whole matter faded with the time that had passed or we had no case, due to SoL (or both). We have been through various degrees of reliving our abuse. That has not been good for our mental health, especially combined with the other fun things going on around us. Dwelling on this is not how I want to spend my sunset years. BSA was negligent, without a doubt. My abuser is a piece, without a doubt. We're not going to get much compensation, but what we do get sends the message that we have at least been heard. Fix it for future boys and then it's just time to move on. JMHO

Perhaps safer then when the BSA employee was abusing us back in the 70's. I would hope so. But it is not meaningfully safe to put boys in isolated situations with men. So maybe we should start there. No one on one in non-public settings. Ever. Period.

Would someone clarify the meaning of the "opt out" and "$3500"? If the $3500 box was checked, are those basically settled out thereby reducing the number of claimants? Or would they take $3500 and remain in play somehow?

I just finished reading Bates' report. Now I have a headache. It's well-written, but a bunch of spin. So we're too old to deserve a decent settlement? While I get the sol issue, if a suit is valid, there's no telling what a jury would do. My abuser was a BSA employee who signed my merit badge card. So there's not much question as to BSA liability. If they reduce my claim by 90% for sol, then scale it down because I'm old, I just don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe they could add a couple of additional minus-scaling factors and I will owe the BSA. But the concept of this being equitable or full payment is laughable, or more likely tearful.

Nope, not you this time😁. Just introduced last week, the only information is in summary form. It is part of a larger bill.

Here is the summary of the Missouri House Bill that addresses Sol for civil child sexual abuse: CCS/SS/HCS/HB 1055 - This act changes the laws regarding sexual offenses. The act: (15) Extends the statute of limitations for any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse; (Section 537.046)

I trust that the majority of voting survivors would agree, as the majority of survivors are scaled. I'm ready for the vote. Let's get on with it. Problem is that nobody ever asked before it was inserted into the plan.

I just saw the LA change in a New Orleans online article. Many states will change it. But this leaves me in the position of voting down any plan if scaling is in it.

Missouri House, last week, brought forward a bill that includes elimination/lengthening of the civil child sex abuse sol. It appears to be moving along. If the settlement is voted down, can the Grey 3 be adjusted?

And I believe that is a good thing. The more I have learned about the claims harvesting in this event, the more I hope they lose their butts on this as a "business venture". While I understand some older claimants may deal with age-related memory issues, it is really a stretch to me when I hear tens of thousands of claimants don't have any recollection of where they were abused, who abused them or even how they were abused. Again, I am blessed (or suffer from) recalling most details from my events 50 years ago, so maybe it's just me. The process is very flawed imo.

Just wondering if anyone believes that the vote will overwhelmingly pass.... Other than the $3500 issue, I have not heard much to indicate any forward momentum.

I have never seen any type of settlement involving real dollars where the claimant didn't have to, at least, give some detail. I welcome the opportunity to tell my story. Actually, it would help me get through this all. But I would wager there is a big number of claimants that would drop off totally if they had to do the same.

I'm almost 66 and won't allow this to consume my setting sun. I'm NOT headed to court. Missouri has its head up its @ss with trying for 10 years to eliminate the civil SoL for child sexual abuse. The lawmakers let it die every time since 2013. I don't think they ever really considered BSA victims. Mostly it was alter boys and Marianist students. Either way, the Insurers and Churches beat it down. I moved away. It is what it is. Funny how they had NO problem eliminating the criminal SoL. Let the state have its way and torture the victims while they testify and risk their lives. But we ain't gonna make our insurance companies pay you no money! I will never understand just how they can justify eliminating the criminal SoL but not so much as a window for civil. Please explain it to me. I do understand you seeking justice through your state court. Most states are more reasonable than Missouri. And yes, there are theories, such as delayed realization and various forms of concealment, but I don't have it in me. Lord knows I had NO IDEA of how badly this abuse had impacted me until I joined the BSA BK club. But I'm going to take the chump change they offer in the bk and give them all the information on the predator. However, I'm not testifying, prosecuting, suing or anything else. When I was younger, I really wanted to. I couldn't sue because I was just past my civil SoL AND my abuser was protected by a criminal SoL. Now he's not. He's old, I hope he's dead. I'm getting old too. Just have to get past this.