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

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

However, IF they are unable to document the case, the former scout should be able to furnish something to rectify that failure, such as names of fellow scouts, patrols, camps attended, scoutmaster name and so on.

After almost 55 years I do not remember any of the names of my fellow scouters. But I do remember my perpetrator, how old I was and where it occurred. 

[Eagle1970]

15 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The list of claimants was sent to the BSA who then matched names to registrations and councils.  Whenever the BSA did not have a registration, it was sent to the council based on the geographic location of the alleged abuse.  The councils looked into the computer databases and the paper records to try to verify that the claimant was in Scouting.  There are a substantial percentage that could not be identified.  As I said before, that does not guarantee that the claimant was not a Scout.  Paper records could have been lost or destroyed in a flood or fire.  Our council records are intact but there was a good percentage that were not able to be associated with a record anywhere.

Local councils and the BSA have worked diligently to identify all claimants but many could not be found.  

I'm sure there will be many cases of missing records after so many years.  Then it becomes a matter of the claimant providing at least some little morsel of proof.  Could I join the Talcum Powder case without proof of ever sprinkling it on me?  Or the Roundup case without proof I ever bought it?  I doubt it.  There is so little money to go around in this case, vetting seems reasonable and I would welcome someone contacting me.  On top of my own documentation, I could name 20 other scouts I participated with-after 50 years.

[Eagle1970]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

After almost 55 years I do not remember any of the names of my fellow scouters. But I do remember my perpetrator, how old I was and where it occurred. 

I don't mean to be cold.  Blessed with a great memory, or at times cursed.  I'll wager you remember something, though, like where you held your meetings, attended camp, a hike you took....

[Life]

36 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

As a victim/survivor, the last thing I want to do is be cold to anyone with a legitimate claim.  However, it's just not that hard to document you were a scout, like an affidavit from a fellow scout or at least something.  I still have all of my paperwork and awards from the 1960's, and certainly have the ability to contact living former fellow scouts.  It seems to be a pretty low bar for any kind of legal claim. 

Frankly, with all of the advertising and talk of big bucks for claimants, this is ripe for fraud and the insurers have the right to at least cursory vetting.  I have read lately about the large percentage of covid relief fraud compared to the legitimate payments.  And fines with jail time didn't seem to slow that down.  So, anything these days that is not documented should be vetted.  If a claimant cannot even give the name of a former fellow scout, that's a pretty tall leap for me to judge as legitimate.

I too do not want to minimize any truthful claim. Nor create a forest for a few trees scenario. But as a survivor/ victim myself, I have all my information as well as patches and all pertinent information. I also believe, after seeing the many ads on Facebook about how easy it would be to anonymously file a claim with no court involvement, that false claims would be a part of this. Those Facebook ads were brutal. The comments, ugh… I don’t agree, nor have I, with how this is going down. It is like being used all over again. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Life
Typo

[Eagle1970]

1 minute ago, Life said:

I too do not want to minimize any truthful claim. Nor create a forest for a few trees scenario. But as a survivor/ victim myself, I have all my information as well as patches and all pertinent information. I also believe, after seeing the many ads on Facebook about how easy it would be to anonymously file a claim with no court involvement, that false claims would be a part of this. Those Facebook ads were brutal. The comments, ugh… I don’t agree, nor have I, with how this is going down. It is like being used al over again. 

To me, part of the justice is in validating the claim.  I look forward to giving details of my abuse and I only hope my abuser, a BSA camp employee, is still alive to face it.  The Facebook ads were off the charts, as were the television commercials.  The entire process has been gut wrenching.  I'm in a closed state so I'm not going to be compensated to any significant extent.  All I am doing with my comments is trying to help others recover what they have coming.  I never thought I'd agree with an insurer on this.  But I wholeheartedly support vetting these claims.  That should have been step one!!!  

 

[Eagle1993]

26 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I'm sure there will be many cases of missing records after so many years.  Then it becomes a matter of the claimant providing at least some little morsel of proof.  Could I join the Talcum Powder case without proof of ever sprinkling it on me?  Or the Roundup case without proof I ever bought it?  I doubt it.  There is so little money to go around in this case, vetting seems reasonable and I would welcome someone contacting me.  On top of my own documentation, I could name 20 other scouts I participated with-after 50 years.

Again, if the numbers were smaller (like 5% of the claims) I think it could likely be ignored.  I don't think they would sway the vote and would probably take a very small portion of the money.  I definitely could see a small percent, even after working with lawyers, wouldn't be able to narrow down some details.

I am now very concerned as it seems like this number may be much larger.  I also expect that some law firms didn't do much if any vetting of the claims (or even help fill them out).  A good lawyer would have sat down with the claimant.  Asked questions about where they lived/grew up/went to school/etc.  Eventually, you probably have enough info to add in a council at minimum.  Eventually, even COs, unit numbers, etc.  

The areas I think must be questioned right now.

1) The $3500 payment.  It will be good to see how many are taking that $3500.  Lets say 50,000 take the $3500 payment.  That is $175M.  To me, that is too much.  That payment should be $1.5K or less. 

2) Voting ... I think those taking the immediate payment should be considered a separate class.  I expect those not taking the $3500 are probably more likely  to have valid claims and perhaps indicate where the true abusers stand in relation to the settlement.

3) Law firms with claims without basic info should be questioned and perhaps punished if found to be signing off on unvetted claims.  If you are a law firm with 18,000 claims .... you should be hiring enough lawyers to sit down with every one of your claimants to discuss their case and claims.  I really think some law firms got in over the heads on this and are not managing the case at all ... and now are just looking to get out with a quick payout.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Again, if the numbers were smaller (like 5% of the claims) I think it could likely be ignored.  I don't think they would sway the vote and would probably take a very small portion of the money.  I definitely could see a small percent, even after working with lawyers, wouldn't be able to narrow down some details.

I am now very concerned as it seems like this number may be much larger.  I also expect that some law firms didn't do much if any vetting of the claims (or even help fill them out).  A good lawyer would have sat down with the claimant.  Asked questions about where they lived/grew up/went to school/etc.  Eventually, you probably have enough info to add in a council at minimum.  Eventually, even COs, unit numbers, etc.  

The areas I think must be questioned right now.

1) The $3500 payment.  It will be good to see how many are taking that $3500.  Lets say 50,000 take the $3500 payment.  That is $175M.  To me, that is too much.  That payment should be $1.5K or less. 

2) Voting ... I think those taking the immediate payment should be considered a separate class.  I expect those not taking the $3500 are probably more likely  to have valid claims and perhaps indicate where the true abusers stand in relation to the settlement.

3) Law firms with claims without basic info should be questioned and perhaps punished if found to be signing off on unvetted claims.  If you are a law firm with 18,000 claims .... you should be hiring enough lawyers to sit down with every one of your claimants to discuss their case and claims.  I really think some law firms got in over the heads on this and are not managing the case at all ... and now are just looking to get out with a quick payout.

The time to have done this was about a year ago when the allegations were first raised.  Changing the value of a vote, the uncontested settlement amount, vet the claims, or vet the method that attorneys filed claims now is not fair.  I agree that it should have been done but we are now to a vote so it is not the time to change such things.  Seems to me that the process is deeply flawed.

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Seems to me that the process is deeply flawed.

If you’ve not listened to this, I highly recommend it. Although dated back to July, it is very meaningful. I recognize she doesn’t present a current depiction of YPT, so I know there will be objections. Suffer me or don’t listen. If you do, please make note of her comments about the work they are doing with insurance companies to create a standard for youth organizations to get insurance coverage for child sexual abuse liability. 

I know this organization well and met Marci virtually. She is the founder and CEO of CHILDUSA. She is a law professor with a Vanderbilt undergrad, two Penn State Masters and earned her JD from  the University of Pennsylvania where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review. I have pasted a link to the NPR interview, one to her bio and another to her Wiki page.

https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2021-07-09/what-the-boy-scouts-settlement-says-about-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims/116455

https://childusa.org/management/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marci_Hamilton

Edited December 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

6 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

The Facebook ads were off the charts, as were the television commercials. 

This is one large piece of the ugly collage missing from my knowledge base. I do not have social media accounts (other than this enterprise, if it qualifies), nor do I watch television with commercials, if I can help it. Admittedly, I haven’t looked to find them, but does anyone have a handy link or three so I can take a peek? I will guard myself as I walk carefully into the den of Shelob and Aragog, aka the dark web of claims aggregation and mass tort gillnetting. Forgive me. Was that too strong? 🤔  

Edited December 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[Oldscout448]

35 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This is one large piece of the ugly collage missing from my knowledge base. I do not have social media accounts (other than this enterprise, if it qualifies), nor do I watch television with commercials, if I can help it. Admittedly, I haven’t looked to find them, but does anyone have a handy link or three so I can take a peek? I will guard myself as I walk carefully into den of Shelob and Aragog, aka the dark web of claims aggregation and mass tort gillnetting. Forgive me. Was that too strong? 🤔  

Take an elf forged blade and a large can of bug spray

[ThenNow]

57 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

Take an elf forged blade and a large can of bug spray

Ok. One down and I live to tell the tale. The only thing missing from that Sheldon Law Group infomercial - and I was waiting on the edge of my seat - was the backend pitch for a Ginsu Knife Set and/or a pair of Bass-O-Matics. “Call before midnight tonight and you’ll also receive 12 free ShamWows!! That’s right folks...!!” (NO offense to any survivor claimant represented by that law firm. I am merely reacting to the script and two actors who played concerned professionals on my laptop screen. Ack.)

Edited December 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Ok. The collage is being filled in...note how the text is either faded back or in bold.

Edited December 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Fast forward to todays docket…

[Eagle1970]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

This is one large piece of the ugly collage missing from my knowledge base. I do not have social media accounts (other than this enterprise, if it qualifies), nor do I watch television with commercials, if I can help it. Admittedly, I haven’t looked to find them, but does anyone have a handy link or three so I can take a peek? I will guard myself as I walk carefully into the den of Shelob and Aragog, aka the dark web of claims aggregation and mass tort gillnetting. Forgive me. Was that too strong? 🤔  

I do not have a link.  But I saw the ads.  And a lot of comments in every direction including ugly.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

21 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Yup.

Yikes!  At $500K per (or five years in the hoosegow, pokey, slammer, etc.) that could potentially bump up the victim fund.  But, I believe, since this is a federal court, monies from fines imposed only go to the US Treasury, and, so, only Congress could direct the disposition of those penalties to fund the fund.  Good luck with that!  Literally, an Act of Congress.