Coalition, BSA Jointly Announce Formation of Survivor Advisory Working Group

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As we know, the Coalition is lawyers, not survivors. 

Exactly and from all appearances this coalition of lawyers does not seem to be working in the best interest of survivors.  They also are the mass tort lawyers who so many of those in this forum were so against and claimed that is where the false claims came from.  My belief is that they are acting in the best interest of the BSA and themselves first. 

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My belief is that they are acting in the best interest of the BSA and themselves first. 

Three things: 

1) They specifically said the goal was to amass as many clients as they could through the ad and aggregation campaigns so the court (and other MPs) had no choice but to deal with them. To paraphrase, “We can then sit down in the road and obstruct any progress until we get what we want.” That is in no way an exaggeration or extrapolation of their internal communications; 

2) If they are acting in the best interest of survivors, why are they so desperately disparaging the TCC, literally lying about what they have done and the TCC not, and now creating entities that are not initiated in corporation with the TCC and, apparently so far, without the participation of the TCC; and

3) They engaged an attorney to publicly articulate a rebuttal of the TCC’s position and recommendation who actively lobbied for his own engagement by the TCC by the following means: running down Jim Stang and his firm, not revealing his CV and having others, who happen to be among the top three law firm members of the Coalition, to do the same. Oh. During the interview for the job, he also asked for a $10M retainer. The Stang’s firm? They committed 10% of their fee to BSA abuse survivors AFTER they were hired. After. After. After. Did I say AFTER?

Again, I see no clean hands or a clean heart here. The evidence screams “Houston, we have a problem...”

Edited November 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[MattR]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Three things: 

1) They specifically said the goal was to amass as many clients as they could through the ad and aggregation campaigns so the court (and other MPs) had no choice but to deal with them. To paraphrase, “We can then sit down in the road and obstruct any progress until we get what we want.” That is in no way an exaggeration or extrapolation of their internal communications; 

2) If they are acting in the best interest of survivors, why are they so desperately disparaging the TCC, literally lying about what they have done and the TCC not, and now creating entities that are not initiated in corporation with the TCC and, apparently so far, without the participation of the TCC; and

3) They engaged an attorney to publicly articulate a rebuttal of the TCC’s position and recommendation who actively lobbied for his own engagement by the TCC by the following means: running down Jim Stang and his firm, not revealing his CV and having others, who happen to be among the top three law firm members of the Coalition, to do the same. Oh. During the interview for the job, he also asked for a $10M retainer. The Stang’s firm? They committed 10% of their fee to BSA abuse survivors AFTER they were hired. After. After. After. Did I say AFTER?

Again, I see no clean hands or a clean heart here. The evidence screams “Houston, we have a problem...”

This wasn't brought up before very well. Thanks for that.

Lawyers that don't represent their clients very well is wrong, but is it legally wrong? And if so, what are the consequences? Can it be proven and can the judge remove them from the table?

 

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, MattR said:

This wasn't brought up before very well. Thanks for that.

Lawyers that don't represent their clients very well is wrong, but is it legally wrong? And if so, what are the consequences? Can it be proven and can the judge remove them from the table?

My honor.

I’m inexpert at ethical violations. Hopefully that reflects well on me and helps restore my sullied reputation. Seems a very long stretch and the clients would need to initiate, I believe. I think SiouxRanger is much more likely to have good insight on this, based upon his knowledge and not personal encounters with ethical violations! Need to be clear on that. 

[elitts]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Perhaps. However, if none of the TCC members are invited, that is neither wise nor easily explained away. Those 9 men were selected by the US Trustee to represent ALL BSA child sexual abuse survivors for a reason. That selection and appointment came after a fairly rigorous application and interview process. They have been intimately involved in this case since they were seated. Who, among survivors, knows more about the workings and machinations of this case? No one. Period. I also challenge anyone to say other survivors know or understand more than they do, collectively, about BSA youth protection and YPT. Also, they are the survivors who were instrumental in forwarding and insisting upon the non-monetary YP and YPT demands. My honest opinion, and the media has assisted with this, is the Coalition has co-opted and hijacked TCC work and initiative for their own benefit. They are assuming roles and achievements they should not be granted and have not accomplished (at least not on their own, as they claim).

They were selected to represent survivors as one side of a fairly contentious bankruptcy proceeding.  But nothing about the "Survivor Advisory working group" is directly related to bankruptcy other than the fact that something of it's nature was desired by the TCC.  Knowledge of the workings and machinations of the case isn't relevant to what the group should be working on and shouldn't really be viewed as an asset in my mind.

Now I'll grant you that their knowledge of BSA Youth Protection probably IS a benefit, but if it were me, even if the coalition didn't exist, when it came time to fill positions the actual members of the TCC wouldn't be anywhere on my list of desirable candidates.  Not because I'd be looking for stooges that would let me get away with anything, but because I truly don't think any actively involved victim could come out of 2 years of emotionally taxing contention in a bankruptcy case and be able to switch to a "lets work together to make it happen" role instead.  I can see letting the TCC pick some of the survivor members of a group, but not take the positions themselves.

[MYCVAStory]

My bottom line, this is nothing but a distraction from the Coalition's inability to this point of gaining a bigger trust fund AND a reaction to the TCC making it clear that abuse elimination is a SERIOUS part of a reorganization strategy.  See this grand Coalition announcement for what it is, an interim step.  It does NOT change the fact that the settlement's "protection" of youth guarantees NOTHING when it comes to transparency with the public.  I appreciate any Survivor wanting to lend a voice and I thin most would line up at the chance to speak with the BSA right now.  We want to prevent what happened to us from ever happening again.  But you know what that makes me an expert in?  How to prevent MY abuse.  The Coalition's working group does NOT include experts in the field.  It does NOT include the immediate reporting of data.  It does NOT include a TCC demand that ALL recommendations would be released publicly so that the BSA could inform the public of what will be followed and what WILL NOT.  This is another Coalition attempt to distract from what's most important by throwing the barest attention at an issue.  Don't tell me "They're trying."  If they were serious about protecting our youth they would have listened to the TCC last Thursday night, which they obviously did, and said "We can do even more."  They have not.  They have announced a minor initiative before a plan that DOES NOT guarantee any significant changes. 

 

[johnsch322]

I think we are at the point of the negotiation where the car salesman offers free window tint.  They claim it has a $499 value without telling you it will cost them about $50 and won't last 2 years before it looks like crap.

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, elitts said:

They were selected to represent survivors as one side of a fairly contentious bankruptcy proceeding.  But nothing about the "Survivor Advisory working group" is directly related to bankruptcy other than the fact that something of it's nature was desired by the TCC.  Knowledge of the workings and machinations of the case isn't relevant to what the group should be working on and shouldn't really be viewed as an asset in my mind.

MYCVA nailed it, per usual, but I need to respond even though he effectively made moot the discussion. 

Have you listened to the members of the TCC talk about this topic? Read what they’ve written? Do you think this isn’t a part of the bankruptcy - a big part for them/us - and something they only started thinking about on 2.18.20? Who hosted Michael Johnson on their weekly town hall? (Hint on that one. Not the Coalition.) I think you totally misapprehend the situation. Also, not a jab, but I don’t believe you’re a survivor who has thought about how and why you were able to be abused for 50+/- years, like some of the members of the TCC.

5 hours ago, elitts said:

Not because I'd be looking for stooges that would let me get away with anything, but because I truly don't think any actively involved victim could come out of 2 years of emotionally taxing contention in a bankruptcy case and be able to switch to a "lets work together to make it happen" role instead. 

And, I think you greatly underestimate the men you’re talking about and who I imagine you do not know. John Humphrey stated he has a new mission in life and it revolves around youth protection and advocacy for survivors. The BSA is a great place for these guys to start, given all their collective knowledge, poise and passion. I just think your missing it here. By a mile. 

Anyway, it’s a ruse and a distraction so it’s immaterial.

Edited November 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I think we are at the point of the negotiation where the car salesman offers free window tint.  They claim it has a $499 value without telling you it will cost them about $50 and won't last 2 years before it looks like crap.

Are we talking about Muttsy’s BMW again?

[elitts]

9 hours ago, ThenNow said:

MYCVA nailed it, per usual, but I need to respond even though he effectively made moot the discussion. 

Have you listened to the members of the TCC talk about this topic? Read what they’ve written? Do you think this isn’t a part of the bankruptcy - a big part for them/us - and something they only started thinking about on 2.18.20? Who hosted Michael Johnson on their weekly town hall? (Hint on that one. Not the Coalition.) I think you totally misapprehend the situation. Also, not a jab, but I don’t believe you’re a survivor who has thought about how and why you were able to be abused for 50+/- years, like some of the members of the TCC.

Oh, I'm certain an advisory group is important to the TCC and the establishment of one is a central part of what the TCC wants out of the bankruptcy.  Though what the TCC is looking for isn't so much an advisory group as a watchdog. (which I don't find fault with either)  What I was trying to get across is that even if we were looking at a working group that was everything the TCC desired, once that group is created, the bankruptcy and the acrimony involved, the struggles of the people who pushed for it... none of that should be relevant to operation of what is intended to be an independent advisory/watchdog group.

In a really simplistic way it's much like raising self-sufficient kids.  You put in tons of effort, try and shape them based upon your beliefs and past history, possibly bicker and fight with your co-parent, and then when they are ready they go off to live.  But once they do, the past history of the parents that shaped their strategies, the fights they may have had, the goals they may have had; none of those are really relevant to the ongoing life of the child. (if you did it right)

Quote

And, I think you greatly underestimate the men you’re talking about and who I imagine you do not know. John Humphrey stated he has a new mission in life and it revolves around youth protection and advocacy for survivors. The BSA is a great place for these guys to start, given all their collective knowledge, poise and passion. I just think your missing it here. By a mile. 

Anyway, it’s a ruse and a distraction so it’s immaterial.

It's not a matter of underestimating specific people, its just knowing how people work.  Very very few people I've ever met would be able to set aside their animosity towards someone/thing that they viewed as having destroyed their life and work with them with an open mind and heart.  And frankly, those people I have met who could do so were so dispassionate that they'd be unlikely champions of anything in the first place.  I have no doubt that John Humphrey is sincere about his stated purpose in life, I just think expecting anyone who has been in his place to stop viewing everything related to the BSA with suspicion would be asking a miracle.

[Eagle1993]

To be clear, the TCC is the official committee appointed by the United States Department of Justice through the US Trustee.   They are paid by the BSA as a cost of the bankruptcy process.  The TCC contains both lawyers and 9 claimants who were selected by the US Trustee.  Their sole role is to represent all child sex abuse claimants.   This announcement is clearly about addressing the non financial aspects of the bankruptcy.
 

To take only Coalition representatives poisons the well. It makes the appearance of giving power to those who agree to BSA’s terms vs giving priority to those who  would best represent claimants.   There definitely could be overlap but making this solely under the Coalition is wrong.  If BSA was truly interested in improving they wouldn’t limit it to the group of lawyers who are attempting to get their current plan passed. 

[johnsch322]

33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

They are paid by the BSA as a cost of the bankruptcy process.  The TCC contains both lawyers and 9 claimants who were selected by the US Trustee.  

One little correction the TCC is the nine claimants who were selected by the US Trustee.  They hired the law firm and only the law firm is paid by the BSA.

 

1 hour ago, elitts said:

Very very few people I've ever met would be able to set aside their animosity towards someone/thing that they viewed as having destroyed their life and work with them with an open mind and heart

If what you say is true I would think that would rule out pretty much any survivor.  

[elitts]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

If what you say is true I would think that would rule out pretty much any survivor.  

There's a big difference between the average survivor and one that has spent 2 years fighting an active battle against the BSA.  Kind of like the difference between a divorced spouse and a divorced spouse that went through 2 years of bitter divorce proceedings.

[johnsch322]

1 minute ago, elitts said:

There's a big difference between the average survivor and one that has spent 2 years fighting an active battle against the BSA.  Kind of like the difference between a divorced spouse and a divorced spouse that went through 2 years of bitter divorce proceedings.

I do not believe there is an average survivor.  We have all had different courses in life. Being on the TCC does not make you a bitter spouse.

I believe that someone like John Humphrey who had a successful career before the bankruptcy and is passionate about CSA would make a perfect candidate.  He appears to be quite rational and clear headed. I think that his tireless dedication with the TCC is outstanding.  

[elitts]

32 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I do not believe there is an average survivor.  We have all had different courses in life. Being on the TCC does not make you a bitter spouse.

I believe that someone like John Humphrey who had a successful career before the bankruptcy and is passionate about CSA would make a perfect candidate.  He appears to be quite rational and clear headed. I think that his tireless dedication with the TCC is outstanding.  

I get it.  He's your champion.  I'm not impugning him or his dedication and I wouldn't expect someone who views the TCC that way to feel otherwise about him being a member of a committee like that.  But to be clear I wasn't talking about someone "being bitter" after a divorce or after serving on the TCC, I'm talking about the emotional and mental fatigue and damage one suffers while going through a "bitter divorce" or something like this bankruptcy.

And "average survivor" in the context of my previous post simply means "one that hasn't spent 2 years winnowing through every document, pleading, brief or anything else to do with this case".

Edited November 4, 2021 by elitts