Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

As for all the announcements about upcoming announcements, they're nothing but bait to keep everyone glued to each side's message stream.

I appreciated the light humor!

To be fair, the TCC's Town Hall was about six minutes long and basically said there were no developments, they encouraged every Survivor to vote (regardless of what that vote was) and keep an eye on their website for any updates.  No bait and switch.  As far as Stang stepping down, I have to guess that this was a tough decision by PSZJ but it speaks to wanting Survivors and the court focused on the settlement.  PSZJ said in court it made a mistake and is owning it.  It will now be interesting to see how far the Coalition wants to rub PSZJ's nose in the dirt.  We have to remember that these bankruptcy attorneys all compete for the same business.  So now they're going to act like children playing in the sandbox, reaching for a toy at the same time, and neither will let it go.  I was happy to see the TCC working to ignore that spat and I fully expect the Coalition having won this fight over a toy to now wave it in the TCC's face.  Survivors don't like bullies.  The TCC as nine survivors and NOT a group of lawyers has already shown it won't sit quietly and be bullied.  That'll be the wrong move if the Coalition overplays its hand.  It's still about money and YP.  Every Survivor should be thinking about the MOST the Coalition can get from the BSA and insurers.  Starting off so low makes the MOST possible a bar too low for me.  Let's see if any insurance settlements are announced and whether they come with charter organization releases.  If so, every Survivor whether they have voted or not should consider the ramifications of that and whether the settlement is anywhere near giving a CO a pass on all responsibility without a contribution and for open States what that means realistically for a case already filed where the insurance has evaporated.

[johnsch322]

7 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

As far as Stang stepping down, I have to guess that this was a tough decision by PSZJ but it speaks to wanting Survivors and the court focused on the settlement.  PSZJ said in court it made a mistake and is owning it. 

This was a very smart move on their part and shows all that they are more about survivors than personal egos.

[vol_scouter]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

This was a very smart move on their part and shows all that they are more about survivors than personal egos.

Does it really demonstrate that?  My interpretation is that Stang is a partner in PSZJ and will still receive a hefty fee for the role of the law firm.  It seems that the mistake or possibly a deliberate act with a planned response if challenged does not affect the law firm.  Perhaps Stang's share is slightly diminished but it could well not change depending upon how money is divided within the firm.  

Either these attorneys are not as good as everyone is making them out to be or they made a calculated move that they were prepared for the fallout.

[johnsch322]

17 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Either these attorneys are not as good as everyone is making them out to be or they made a calculated move that they were prepared for the fallout.

Either way a smart move.  The coalition and/or the BSA should have never protested the email blast.  

[skeptic]

Since I tend to be super skeptical of most attorneys in this kind of case, the scenario is just reinforcing that perception for me.   I truly see the focus on money, period, and the rest of the background is just dressing to make them look good, perhaps.  And the money focus is the guiding part of the process, whether for survivors or the lawyers.  The YP focus continues to fall into the background, and much of what has improved in that arena, both with BSA, and the larger society gets pushed to the back in favor of the monetary, greed and playing the system for profit.  It seems to me that the focus should be on getting the survivors the mental help and counseling that they may need at the expense of the BSA and others, not on throwing money at them, encouraging avarice by some, and especially by the "legal" opportunists.  My view of a continuing circus with no absolute answers; so they continue to think money will instead solve it all.  It won't, only leave bitterness behind.  

Meanwhile, the youth of the current era are not being well served, especially with the focus, in my view, being where it is.  IF real, viable guidelines for YP can evolve, that is a win; but it needs to not be corrupted by avarice.

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Since I tend to be super skeptical of most attorneys in this kind of case, the scenario is just reinforcing that perception for me.   I truly see the focus on money, period, and the rest of the background is just dressing to make them look good, perhaps.  And the money focus is the guiding part of the process, whether for survivors or the lawyers.  The YP focus continues to fall into the background, and much of what has improved in that arena, both with BSA, and the larger society gets pushed to the back in favor of the monetary, greed and playing the system for profit.  It seems to me that the focus should be on getting the survivors the mental help and counseling that they may need at the expense of the BSA and others, not on throwing money at them, encouraging avarice by some, and especially by the "legal" opportunists.  My view of a continuing circus with no absolute answers; so they continue to think money will instead solve it all.  It won't, only leave bitterness behind.  

Meanwhile, the youth of the current era are not being well served, especially with the focus, in my view, being where it is.  IF real, viable guidelines for YP can evolve, that is a win; but it needs to not be corrupted by avarice.

With the TCC pushing hard for YPT versus the BSA wanting window dressing of just one survivor board member I fail to see your point.  The TCC is also pushing for better trust disposition of whatever money is awarded.

I see no party that has liability in this matter throwing money at survivors in fact it is just the opposite I see the BSA, LC's, CO's and insurance company's making extraordinary efforts to pay as little as possible.  

It is very apparent that you are not a survivor and have not much idea of what transpires in a survivors life.  Survivors are not driven by greed rather as a whole we are driven by just compensation for lost opportunities of life that was denied us.  I have not seen anyone condemning the USA Gymnastics settlement saying anything about the greedy gymnasts so why label BSA CSA survivors as greedy?

As for current youth I have yet to see anyone give an actual case where they are not being served or will not have opportunity to be served in the future.  

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Either way a smart move.  The coalition and/or the BSA should have never protested the email blast.  

The email went out and probably caused some confusion.  The best way to handle that was for attorneys to simply contact their clients and reinforce their recommendations.  By making a fuss, the Coalition brought far more attention to the email.  That probably got even more claimants to view it and or forward it.  Claimants who are suspicious of this whole thing may now be further suspicious of the big push to not read the email.  

I wouldn’t be surprised if the reaction of BSA and coalition to the email results in more no votes than the initial email.  How do you guarantee someone will read a document?  Tell them not to read it. 
I’m looking forward to Dec 14 and seeing the vote count.  Most of the news before then seems to be just noise.  

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

It seems to me that the focus should be on getting the survivors the mental help and counseling that they may need at the expense of the BSA and others, not on throwing money at them, encouraging avarice by some, and especially by the "legal" opportunists. 

This line of thought is one of the most insulting words I have read on this site.  Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake" would be comparable.  I for one and other survivors I know are in therapy and have sought mental health solutions for ourselves and believe me it has not always helped.  At best it keeps us barely on just the plus side of function with occasional slips backward.  I know this because I live it on a daily basis.  Since I have sought help (which started not to far in the past) I take my Prozac daily have meetings with my therapist and my psychiatrist.  Any time I have to fill out a questionnaire I have to put a check next to the box of do you suffer from depression and anxiety and PTSD.

I have had very real issues with my physical health (fistulas and the outcome of the surgery that was because of being raped). 

To say just give them "mental help and counseling' should be appalling to every member of this forum.

Edited November 20, 2021 by johnsch322

[skeptic]

7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

With the TCC pushing hard for YPT versus the BSA wanting window dressing of just one survivor board member I fail to see your point.  The TCC is also pushing for better trust disposition of whatever money is awarded.

I see no party that has liability in this matter throwing money at survivors in fact it is just the opposite I see the BSA, LC's, CO's and insurance company's making extraordinary efforts to pay as little as possible.  

It is very apparent that you are not a survivor and have not much idea of what transpires in a survivors life.  Survivors are not driven by greed rather as a whole we are driven by just compensation for lost opportunities of life that was denied us.  I have not seen anyone condemning the USA Gymnastics settlement saying anything about the greedy gymnasts so why label BSA CSA survivors as greedy?

As for current youth I have yet to see anyone give an actual case where they are not being served or will not have opportunity to be served in the future.  

My point is that the money should be put into the needed programs to aid emotional issues past and present.  Such programs then open to those in need with proper vetting of eligibility.  No amount of money is ever enough to make up from the past, and the concept that a payment fixes anything is fictitious.  

Simply giving people money out of societal guilt is likely not productive for them in likely most cases.  If the money is tied to actual therapy, it is then at least sensible.  I likely do not need to point out that most people, when handed unexpected dollars, tend to not spend it on fixing what the guilt payment is intended.  

We just arrive back though at the same place.  My contention is to offer all survivors the actual help they need to redirect their lives, while also working to find better ways to combat the CA rampant in society as a whole.  To me, that should be the goal, not just to say here is whatever amount, now you are okay.  

But we need a balance that addresses the wrongs from the past, but with as little damage to the present as possible.  That perceived big pot of money has a lot of current-day attachments.  That needs to be part of the consideration.  

Add to the "settlement" perhaps an honest attempt to also bring those still around that are the actual perpetrators to justice as well.  

Finally, the continuing suggestion that because some of us may look at things without the weight of being a victim of this particular event does not mean that we cannot have our own demons and understand the difficulty these survivors may have encountered and continue to encounter.  They simply exist in different mental shadows and are our own struggles which we choose to keep to ourselves, or perhaps with our own methods of therapy.  

So, now it again is time to watch the likely continued tragedy play out to a poor conclusion for most involved, except perhaps the lawyers.

 

 

 

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

My point is that the money should be put into the needed programs to aid emotional issues past and present.  Such programs then open to those in need with proper vetting of eligibility.  No amount of money is ever enough to make up from the past, and the concept that a payment fixes anything is fictitious.  

Simply giving people money out of societal guilt is likely not productive for them in likely most cases.  If the money is tied to actual therapy, it is then at least sensible.  I likely do not need to point out that most people, when handed unexpected dollars, tend to not spend it on fixing what the guilt payment is intended.  

We just arrive back though at the same place.  My contention is to offer all survivors the actual help they need to redirect their lives, while also working to find better ways to combat the CA rampant in society as a whole.  To me, that should be the goal, not just to say here is whatever amount, now you are okay.  

But we need a balance that addresses the wrongs from the past, but with as little damage to the present as possible.  That perceived big pot of money has a lot of current-day attachments.  That needs to be part of the consideration.  

Add to the "settlement" perhaps an honest attempt to also bring those still around that are the actual perpetrators to justice as well.  

Finally, the continuing suggestion that because some of us may look at things without the weight of being a victim of this particular event does not mean that we cannot have our own demons and understand the difficulty these survivors may have encountered and continue to encounter.  They simply exist in different mental shadows and are our own struggles which we choose to keep to ourselves, or perhaps with our own methods of therapy.  

So, now it again is time to watch the likely continued tragedy play out to a poor conclusion for most involved, except perhaps the lawyers.

 

 

 

I feel sorry for you as a human being.  

[skeptic]

16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

This line of thought is one of the most insulting words I have read on this site.  Marie Antoinette "give them bread" would be comparable.  I for one and other survivors I know are in therapy and have sought mental health solutions for ourselves and believe me it has not always helped.  At best it keeps us barely on just the plus side of function with occasional slips backward.  I know this because I live it on a daily basis.  Since I have sought help (which started not to far in the past) I take my Prozac daily have meetings with my therapist and my psychiatrist.  Any time I have to fill out a questionnaire I have to put a check next to the box of do you suffer from depression and anxiety and PTSD.

I have had very real issues with my physical health (fistulas and the outcome of the surgery that was because of being raped). 

To say just give them "mental help and counseling' should be appalling to every member of this forum.

Sorry, that is your view.  But, perhaps I should add addressing any physical problems as well as possible?  I still contend that the monetary elements should be in the form of actual help, whether physical or mental; not just a big chunk of dollars.  I am sorry you find that insulting, but that was and is not the intent.  

[skeptic]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I feel sorry for you as a human being.  

Thank you.  

[johnsch322]

18 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I am sorry you find that insulting, but that was and is not the intent.  

Just the result.

[prof]

Wow. I don't think I've seen any subject with 100 pages before.

[MattR]

10 minutes ago, prof said:

Wow. I don't think I've seen any subject with 100 pages before.

It's closer to 600. We cut it off and start a clean thread once in a while. This is the 6th thread and will most likely be cut off after the vote is completed.