johnsch322

If you were 7 or 8 years old and now 75 to 80 and with memory becoming an issue for you (dementia) I could easily see were these things could be murky to a survivor. It doesn’t make it any less real. In California you have to have been interviewed by a psychiatrist if you are over a certain age (I think 55) and have the psychiatrist certify that he believes you were abused. I believe if a defunct council was absorbed by another council than yes they are liable.

Interesting that you want TCC lawyers to show proof when it was the former person in charge of YPT that pointed out the fact and found it to be not acceptable. If it was the source of even one abuse I would say that it is a policy that should not be in effect. If other organizations do it why can’t BSA? As I have mentioned before my wife while we were in Canada had to get an RCMP background check before she could go on an overnight with my daughter. We paid for it and had no complaints about it.

546 survivors in the Larry Nasser, USA Gymnastic case get 400 million dollars of which the majority of the settlement will be funded by insurers. Think about that in relationship to what the BSA offer is.

Well that precedent of not violating has already been established in cases that had been settled that included insurance payouts.

We do not, especially when his story is almost verbatim what the coalition is trying to sell.

Kosnoff has just posted this post to his Twitter LOL

Sounds like I have been drinking the BSA Kool Ade for so long I can no longer think for myself.

Accountable in the least possible way? Once again some level of CSA is expected. A No vote does make the BSA go away but most likely make them more accountable, and will put more vigilance in the way of YPT. At least more than 1 token member survivor on the Board.

My legal representation in this case has come out with (what I was already going to do) a vote NO.

Not yet.

My hope is that BSA has hitched their horses to the wrong wagon.

The original RSA was endorsed by the TCC if the Hartford deal was left out. The latest is not endorsed by TCC with the revised Hartford deal. Hartford deal is a "Hoover".

Then why cut deals with them? Why not leave them out of the plan (Hartford) assign the policies to the trust and let the trustee deal with them? That is what the TCC wants or wanted.

Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies? Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

CSA generated lawsuits. Lawsuits created a perceived financial issue. Perceived financial issue caused the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy brought in more claimants. Yes the goal of victims is to get a sufficient of cash and assets into a trust. The only goal of BSA is to get out of the bankruptcy and at this point to bring the LC's CO's and insurance companies along with them for pennies on the dollar. If BSA had not cut deals with LDS and Hartford they would be that much closer to exiting bankruptcy. If 6 more months of spending cash is not what BSA wants then they should have never cut deals with the parties that they have.

AS a survivor I would like to say that in my opinion the abused to the BSA are like a swarm of gnats that they just want to get rid of. There can be no clearer evidence of this than the fact that they struck a deal with the coalition lawyers rather than with actual survivors the TCC. They would rather pay the coalition 15 million plus than treat abusers in a fair and equitable manner.

It can not be any worse than what is on the table now.

It will be interesting to see how many of the yes votes also take the quick $3500. If a large proportion of yes's take the $3500 I think their votes will be set aside.

Isn't this quite misleading? Isn't this a coalition of lawyers?

I believe if you don't look closely at the motivation of individual lawyers their experience in this arena that you are not doing anyone any good. I do not know who your lawyers are but maybe you should consider changing representation.

You pay a lawyer a contingency fee to fight to get you the best deal possible for you. The Coalition (mass tort) lawyers are fighting now for a settlement that is best for them. Kudos to Tim Kosnoff for coming out so strongly for voting no and a big shout out to him for supporting the TCC members.

And Tim Kosnoff one of the original AIS lawyers says “ I don’t know what to say, really, about AIS joint venture partner Ken Rothweiler’s statements about this plan. I want you to understand that I repudiate them for being false and misleading. I can’t control what he says but he not being truthful w anybody.”

No not just you.

I love it when a customer takes the first pencil.

They are to be mailed by the 15th. Then it is up to USPS as to when you receive.