Bzzy

That's not an apology, bud.

No, I do not expect apologies from parasites, I expect an apology from a scout who called a large number of other scouts liars based upon unfounded accusations. (That would be YOU.)

But we do know that one basic prerequisite here is proving one's "connection to scouting" via one's name being on a troop roster at the time of being assaulted, or by other documentation, such as the Troop Scribe's report in the local newspaper for those who were scouts in towns small enough to print the scribe reports in the paper. As non-scouts are easily excluded, the statement above calls fellow scouts liars. I find this behavior that requires an apology. In this context, there are some lines that one cannot cross.

While nothing is foolproof, a funny story to put this point of "fingerprinting" and "background checks" into perspective... I was attacked in the early 1970s, ran from my attacker the moment he let go, and have not stopped running since. Rather than hiking, camping, rock-climbing, and ice-climbing, I focused on drinking and trumpet playing. (I stopped drinking in 2005, simply because my age made it impossible for me to keep drinking.) I spent quite a bit of those 30+ years camping. While I lacked the proper back-country camping permits required by the authorities, the rangers and national park police were slow and noisy, and I was fast, quiet, and wary. I was the self-awarded "national hide-and-seek champion" for many years running. I'd work farmworker jobs, kitchen jobs, service industry jobs, as no questions were asked, and the pay was in cash. Running a trap line of snares for small game and fishing were my main occupations between jobs. I spent some time in shelters, including an extended period hobbling about while recovering from a torn meniscus at a St Vincent DePaul shelter. There are lots of them. As I was staying with them and enjoying their hospitality, I helped out in the commercial-grade kitchen at the church that hosted us (literally in their basement) to prepare the meals. By then, I was a decent line-cook, having worked in many restaurants, and learned some technique. One weekend, the volunteer who would come to unlock the kitchen and manage the meal prep came to open, but could not stay. He wanted me to handle all the cooking and washing up, and I was happy to do so. This became a habit, as there were only 24 to feed, not a big deal for me. He'd unlock, I'd do my thing, and lock the kitchen on the way out after dinner when everything was shipshape. No one was the wiser. But we were eventually found out, and I was a classified as a "volunteer". St Vincent DePaul was a very early adopter of "background checks" for volunteers, which makes sense. I could not qualify, not because I had an arrest record, but because there were NO records of my existence anywhere. I never had a credit card, bank account, home address, phone number, driver's license, etc. So, no keys for me. That was a wake-up call that I had played hide-and-seek far too well for far too long, so, I got myself some ID, one of those non-driver's license IDs from the DMV. But Scouting taught me skills that actually kept me alive and comfortable for decades. Sadly, there is no merit badge for camping for thousands of nights, and hiking thousands of miles. Of course, had I not gone from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts, I would not have been prompted to run and keep running in the first place.

What is the "appeal process"? I was not aware that there was any appeal process.

It is extremely difficult to talk about any of it. If any of the other victims are like me in any way, it is something of which I am still ashamed. Even now, I wonder if I might have done something different to avoid becoming a target. But mostly, I try not to let my memory do any more damage than has already been done. Sometimes, I can go days without any thought of any of it. You may call it "denial", I call it "survival".

I am new here, and I read this discussion from the start. There are a few very important points that have not been made clearly, so I will attempt below, as they are. These are isolated points, and make sweeping generalizations, so there are many edge conditions and exceptions I will not address, as I do not want to write a book. I attempt to present "fact", but others may have divergent views of these same "facts". I'll not argue. 1) The BSA reincorporated in DE specifically for purposes of bankruptcy because DE permits non-consensual 3rd party releases in bankruptcy while Texas does not. So, BSA worked to limit the amount that they would pay victims from the start. To me, this move alone destroyed any credibility BSA might ever have as being any different from any other corporation, as it put its own welfare above the Scouts and parents who trusted it. (Not speaking for anyone else, but I'd be happy to tell BSA where they can stick their merit badges and service pins, and I'd suggest that they close the pins on the backs of the service pins before they do it!) BSA has no assets in DE, and the entire process was sham plainly intended to game the system, "forum shop", and choose laws of their liking. In this regard it is verified that BSA is not your friend, not anyone's friend. 2) The reason behind (1) above is that claims from those attacked before the 1980s would be paid by insurance policies with no "aggregate limits". So, even if the limit per claim is $100K, there would be no limit to the maximum total number of claims that the insurance company would have to pay out on BSA's behalf. So, the BSA had to come up with something that would allow their insurance companies to "settle for a fraction of total liabilities", and avoid jury trials. In some cases, the mechanism here was to negotiate a "buy back" of a policy for a fixed payment, and allow the insurance company to cap its liabilities, when the policy said that there was no aggregate limit, and no limit to the total liability. This is not in the best interest of any attacked Scout, but note well that while "Statutes of Limitation" are strictly applied to limit amounts paid to victims, no mention is made that the older victims were covered by much higher "per-occurrence" limit policies with no "aggregate limit", which should have a multiplier effect on the amount paid. So, bottom line, older Scouts are clearly and plainly "subsidizing" the more recently-attacked Scouts, who were covered under lower per-occurrence" and "aggregate" limits, as the fixed amounts are being allocated without regard to what insurance was in place. Is this "fair"? No, it is just picking and choosing between "winners" and "losers" when there are no winners here except the insurance companies, who are clearly not your friend, either. 3) Some pre-bankruptcy cases had been filed on behalf of victims who had unique compelling evidence, such as a newspaper report, an arrest, sometimes proof that their attacker was a repeat offender. This was the basis for accusing the BSA of being negligent in not policing its ranks. But in most cases, we victims were attacked once, fled from our attacker, and immediately left Scouting forever, unaware of any "repeat offender", and thinking that the BSA was neither aware, nor tolerant of perverts. The 2019 admission that BSA knew of, and failed to aggressively police their ranks was heartbreaking, but it was the basis for most of the claims, and the reason so many Scouts "came out of the woodwork", as it was BSA's admission of guilt and liability. Sadly, the lawyers representing those with these pre-bankruptcy cases controlled the bulk of the settlement negotiations, and they are not your friend either, and negotiated in the best interest of THEIR clients, not you. 4) But there were also ad campaigns to recruit attacked Scouts. That was as slimy as it sounds. Class-action (scumbag) lawyers borrowed money from "private equity" firms at usurious interest rates that would make a loanshark jealous, and used that "litigation financing" to carpet-bomb social media with ads. While I can't imagine that any Scout would ever lie or mislead, and would never accuse any Scout, these attorneys may have "recruited" some folks who will not be found in any troop rosters, 'nuff said. But these firms were representing many people, and wanted as quick a settlement as possible, as the interest on those loans was accumulating. So, these attorneys in many cases are as much an "abuser of Scouts" as the original attackers. But they "represent" Scouts, maybe you, and if so, you are stuck with them, as you signed an engagement agreement. And they aren't even acting in the best interest of the Scouts they actually represent! They will make far more than any attacked Scout will be paid, so they are just parasites. 5) The Sackler Perdue Pharma case, as some others have observed, is not likely to stop this train. The rush to get a deal approved was a rush with full knowledge that the Sacklers were playing the same game as BSA. The BSA amicus brief in the Perdue Pharma supreme court case argues "equitable mootness" which is the term for "we have an approved settlement, and we started paying money out, so you can't ask us to put the toothpaste back in the tube". So, now you see why the "quick pay" $3.5K payments and the "Advance Payment Program" exist. These token payments are not so much for the attacked Scouts as they are to pour cement on the bankruptcy to make the "equitable mootness" argument. The entire trust is acting to preserve its own survival by rushing token payments to unrepresented Scouts, and those with claims that might be "weak" due to attacker-victim relationships outside scouting and so on. So the TRUST isn't even acting in the best interests of anything but the "aggregate" group of Scouts, as they haven't leveled with anyone about any of this. "Trustworthy?" You decide. Don't blame the trustee, she can only do what the settlement agreement orders her to do. Blame the "negotiators". 6) If the Trustee gets the additional $4 Billion she is demanding from the recalcitrant insurance companies she is suing, and we assume (a) 82K claims, of which 7K took quick-pay, so 75K claims still open. (b) 80% survive to get paid, or have an estate to follow through on collecting from the trust (most of us are OOOLD Scouts - membership peaked in 1972), then we have either an average of about $31K per attacked Scout if the Trustee loses her suit, and about $100K average per attacked Scout if she wins. The "matrix" claims that payments could be larger, but there is not enough money, nor will there ever be enough money to pay much more than the amounts listed as "base minimums". Those using the "mediation" approach will lower the averages by being more adversarial than other attacked Scouts who can cannot afford the time, the money, or the trauma of a "individual hearing", so they have even found a way to pit one Scout against the other, and, mark my words, blame the "greedy attorneys" of those with the rock-solid cases for the lower "compensation" payments to the larger group. I'll refrain from expressing my personal opinions on any of this, except to note that I have never told anyone about what happened, and I never will. I have done my best to try to "move on", but I get the impression that this entire circus is nothing but another attack, choking us with our sashes and kerchiefs to keep us quiet while they have their way with all of us, and once again these attackers are far bigger and stronger than any of us.

Does anyone have a plain-English understanding of the "Releases" that Scouts are asked to sign as a prerequisite to getting the "Advance Payments" of $1,000 ? (Note, this is not the "expedited reduced payment", this is instead an initial payment to Scouts who have been found to have "solid cases" under the "Claim Matrix".) The explanation offered by the trust is complex enough to suggest the need for a new merit badge in "Forensic Linguistics". And no mention is made of the impact that the Supreme Court's eventual decision on the Perdue Pharma settlement might have on these releases. Would all BSA-bankruptcy-related releases become moot if the Court ruled such settlements invalid, or would the Scouts who sign releases be unable to participate in whatever process would take the place of the settlement? This is a purely technical/practical question, and this is very likely the only post I will ever make to this forum, so I am not debating anything or making arguments, I just honestly do not understand the implications of the releases, and hoping that someone smarter than me understands any of this. Quoting from the Trust's letter to Scouts: "If you wish to receive payment of an award from the Trust’s assets AND you “wish to have the opportunity to share in any settlement proceeds received from a Chartered Organization” (as defined in the Release form) “that is or becomes a Protected Party” (also defined in the Release form), you will choose to sign either Exhibit B or Exhibit C. The only Chartered Organizations that are currently Protected Parties are the United Methodist Entities (as defined in the Boy Scouts plan of reorganization (the “Plan”)), and, upon the entry of a final confirmation order with respect to the Plan, the Trust is entitled to receive up to $30 million dollars from the United Methodist Entities. The first installment of these funds is currently in an escrow account awaiting the final conclusion of the appeals of confirmation of the Plan. So, to date, the Trust has no funds from a Chartered Organization that is a Protected Party but expects to receive at least $27.5 million, and up to $30 million, upon the confirmation order becoming a final order not subject to further appeals. It is possible that more Chartered Organizations will seek to become a Protected Party and will make a monetary settlement contribution to the Trust for the right to become a Protected Party, but there are no other settlements at this time. Please understand two things. First, a claimant who does not sign either Exhibit B or C will not have the opportunity to share in any settlement funds provided to the Trust by a Chartered Organization. Second, even if you choose to sign either Exhibit B or C you are not guaranteed that you will be eligible to share in the proceeds of any settlement with a Chartered Organization, you will simply have the opportunity to share in those settlement proceeds. These provisions of the Plan are complicated, and we urge you to review Article IX.F of the Trust Distribution Procedures for more information regarding eligibility requirements and allocation of Chartered Organization settlement proceeds. The other significant difference between Exhibit B and Exhibit C is the breadth of the Release you are required to provide. In addition to a number of other parties being released, Exhibit B provides that you are also releasing “any Chartered Organization that is currently a Protected Party or becomes a Protected Party after the execution of this Release (or that is an Insured Party Releasee…).” Exhibit B, paragraph H. In contrast, Exhibit C provides that, in addition to those parties being released under Exhibit B, you are also releasing “… all Chartered Organizations that are not Protected Parties or Limited Protected Parties.” Exhibit C, paragraph G. If you sign Exhibit D, you will be entitled to receive payment on your award from the Trust’s assets but NOT from any settlement proceeds received by the Trust from a Chartered Organization."