Chapter 11 Announced - Part 8 - TCC Term Sheet & Plan Confirmation

[skeptic]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is difficult to separate the reality of law from the reality of abuse.  When I say "morally wrong", I mean just that.  In an equitable world, BSA should vet the cases, throw them out or pay the $3500, and exit bankruptcy with a trust that equitably compensates victims based on its moral duty.  Paying some victims millions and some nearly nothing, then exiting bankruptcy like "ok, we took care of that" will never show BSA in a good light again.  Open state victims hit the lottery.  Those of us subjected to multiple or ongoing abuse, and in my case by a real actual BSA employee who had a "reputation" (who happen to be in closed states) will see little justice.  So, while I realize this settlement may be in line with the "Law", it is surely not in line with the moral obligation the BSA has to victims.

Similarly, I come back to the utipian idea that each case would be dealt with based on its merits with outside, but unvbiased by money or power of position, and the payouts be, "fair and balanced".  Weeding out the grifters and viewing known factors is the fairest and best way, but due to the time frames and simply the changes in society that is almost impossible.  All victims, or survivors if that is the better term, should be treated with fairness based on known a verifiable factors.  None should be "paid more" just because they have the ability to bring the most pressure or stretch the legal boundaries.  Reality is that this "should be" scenario is likely not possible.  So, we need to reach the best results possible, while doing whatever is viable to move forward with the best barriers and rules in place and regularly monitored, at all levels.  And it should be under constant review and bend to best practices, including those outside the BSA.  

    Of course, until somehow the larger system that allowed these crimes, as well as poor decisions under stress or other outside factors like legal threats and family choices for the time.  All of these played, and might, unfortunately play again with the reality of societal interactions.  Focus on the protections and vie for the least failue with constant review and vigilance.  Then work the program and make it better for the youth and others interacting.  

No absolutes, but we can get close.  We cannot depend on government or even a rebuilt legal system.  Ultimately it is on all of us.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Open state victims hit the lottery.

Not really true. I never bought a ticket I was a victim I had no choice.

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We could throw out the bathwater and keep the baby.  I do not advocate fully this yet, but do not see progress on the "reorganization" front...so await the final outcome of Chapter 11.  I see no problem with Chapter 7. 

We can find our way without the BSA

I realize you are not necessarily advocating for no BSA.

I question the ability to value "scouting" without effectively the same infrastructure that BSA provides.  National camps?  Advancement program?  Structure?  Consolidated organization providing background checks?  Some people call it "membership" ?  Others would call it an annual subscription fee.  ...  I've already alluded to a question of whether chapter 7 is really feasible with a national charter.  (can liquidate, but not really cease to exist long term without a change in law).  

I've questioned in the past.  I question if chap 7 provides significantly more funds to victims than chapter 11.  I doubt  scouting can exist without a similar national level org.  (national camps, standards, training, background checks, etc ... perhaps it can be a much more light weight org) ...  I question if chap 7 is feasible with a congressional chapter (can liquidate, but not long term not exist ... requires law change).

The question is really the BSA business practices / models.  Can bankruptcy force a bigger business model change.  More than pushing YP changes.  Additionally push business model changes. 

But then again, what changes ... beyond a more open business model with better published GAAP data.  ... But then again, this is 100% true for a large number of non-profits.

Edited February 15, 2022 by fred8033

[NJScout1980]

6 hours ago, NJScout1980 said:

I have been reading this blog for months and finally decided to express how I feel about this plan.  I have always and continue to believe there are thousands of fraudulent sexual abuse claims filed in this bankruptcy.  I also believe there are thousand of legitimate abuse claims that have not been filed.  I am frankly disgusted by the lawyers of the Coalition and more specifically those of AIS.  The coalition and the “supposed non organization” (AIS) actively recruited “victims” without, in my opinion, any legitimate vetting.  My attorneys required a vast amount of evidence, which I provided, to ensure my claim was vetted and valid. 
 

I was sexually assaulted by a volunteer scouter in New York, which fortunately for me is an open state.  I waited years and years for NY to finally open the SOL so I could seek justice.  I waited and accepted the fact I would not be able to seek justice unless NY acted and I am happy they finally did.  
 
While I voted REJECT on the original plan, I am now voting to ACCEPT.  My reasoning is simple:  

1.  A tougher level of proof is required and many, if not most, of the fraudulent claims will be paid out at a lower rate.  

2. People from closed states will receive some form of justice and payment even though, sadly in all legal reality, are entitled to nothing 

3. Someone like me who has indisputable and clear evidence will be able to have his case heard before a judge and receive full compensation.  Yes the $20,000 fee is ridiculous, but for some of us it is worth the risk.   
 

I agree survivor v. survivor may not be appropriate, but unfortunately it is a reality.   Laws sometimes hurt certain groups of people and those from open states should not be punished because others are from states with closed-minded ignorant and uncaring legislatures.   This plan, while imperfect, is the best possible solution as it benefits most, maybe not in a perfect way, but certainly in some way.  

The last point I wish to make deals with Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  This choice is completely ignorant and self serving to a certain lawyer and a group of his minions who, in my opinion, do not represent the beliefs and attitudes of most survivors.  Under no circumstances do I believe scouting should cease to exist.  Scouting had a tremendous positive influence on my life.  Aside from the sexual abuse, I was happy with my experience and so proud to have achieved the rank of Eagle.  My scoutmaster, who did not sexually abuse me, was a stern and strict leader who instilled in me the idea of being responsible for my decisions and how to be a good leader.  His teachings instilled in me values that make me the man I am today and I have nothing but fond memories of him.  Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.  Yes scouting has ruined many, but that does not mean the entire organization is rotten.  The TCC’s push for better YP is a step in the right direction. 
 

I am sorry for the length of this post but I needed to express my opinion. Agree or disagree is ok, criticism of me is ok; my scoutmaster taught me to always stand up for what I believe to be fair and just, and accept the criticism for what comes with it.  That is an important value scouting taught me.  It is a main reason why I could NEVER support the end of scouting as it is today.  It is the reason I now support this plan.  

After receiving some advice I decided I need to clarify some points.  My statement is an opinion.  
 

There is absolutely no concrete or clear or legal evidence that suggests any lawyer or law firms did not properly vett the claims they represent.  I am not stating, nor did I state as a fact any did.   I want to be clear that my opinion, what I believe,  is based on documents I read on Omni, specifically the statements made by Century Insurance and their expert’s testimony.  I also base my opinion on the testimony provided in a deposition of an attorney.  I totally believe him and take him at his word. While I may not agree with him on some things I do not question his motives.   I have been following the case closely and have read almost all of the Omni documents, so I believe I am entitled to share my opinion. 
 

Bearing in mind these things, I think it is fair to question the validity of some claims and the actions of some law firms.   Also, according to Century and others, some claims were filed with vast amounts of missing information and names and all sorts of other things.  I don’t buy the argument of time sensitivity, all information is necessary. Because of these things I have come up with an opinion concerning the vetting of claims  

Again I am not stating as a FACT any attorney or law firm did anything illegal, unethical or unprofessional; I am simply stating my opinion based on what info I saw and read.  
 

It is sad that I need to clarify this but suggestions have been made that I do so  

I apologize for any confusion or misinterpretation of my post, and hope this clarifies the matter. Maybe I should have kept my thoughts and opinions to myself. 

[ThenNow]

31 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

After receiving some advice I decided I need to clarify some points.  My statement is an opinion.

I'm not sure who gave you the advice, but I don't think it was warranted. Good on you for going the extra mile.

31 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

There is absolutely no concrete or clear or legal evidence that suggests any lawyer or law firms did not properly vett the claims they represent.  I am not stating, nor did I state as a fact any did.   I want to be clear that my opinion, what I believe,  is based on documents I read on Omni, specifically the statements made by Century Insurance and their expert’s testimony.  I also base my opinion on the testimony provided in a deposition of an attorney.  

Based on the glut of anecdotal evidence, I come to the same conclusion. How many, I won't hazard a guess. But c'mon man. Does anyone think the tort machine with call centers and aggregators felt the need to get this 100% right on the front end? These intake folks received bonuses for making and exceeding their daily signups, for the love of pickled herring. We're not talking about selling popcorn, cookies or insurance policies. Head shaker.

31 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

Bearing in mind these things, I think it is fair to question the validity of some claims and the actions of some law firms. 

 Yup. (See above.)

31 minutes ago, NJScout1980 said:

I apologize for any confusion or misinterpretation of my post, and hope this clarifies the matter. Maybe I should have kept my thoughts and opinions to myself. 

Again, IMNSHO there is no need. Please don't. Welcome and all is well (in my tattered and torn book). 

Edited February 15, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle1970]

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Not really true. I never bought a ticket I was a victim I had no choice.

Never meant as absolute reality, as in a boy buys a ticket to be molested.  If you prefer to criticize my word, rather than understand my point, there is no need for me to contribute.

[johnsch322]

14 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Never meant as absolute reality, as in a boy buys a ticket to be molested.  If you prefer to criticize my word, rather than understand my point, there is no need for me to contribute.

Honestly there are no winning lottery tickets in any of this. To equate any award as something akin to a lottery ticket is crass. Words matter. 

[ThenNow]

46 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Never meant as absolute reality, as in a boy buys a ticket to be molested.  If you prefer to criticize my word, rather than understand my point, there is no need for me to contribute.

 

29 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Honestly there are no winning lottery tickets in any of this. To equate any award as something akin to a lottery ticket is crass. Words matter. 

"Winning the lottery" is a common idiom to mean getting something unexpected and perhaps somewhat randomly. The random part - state of abuse and legislative action to open a SoL window - I think is operative here.

Please, let's not turn on each other as survivors. Words matter, but I think this was truly intended as idiomatic and not literal. It hurts being in a closed state and it's hard not to feel slighted. It's not the fault of our fellows, however, and let's keep that in mind. 

Also, I don't think JLSS likes the 20k pay to play at all and will open up the entire TDP process to a highest value calculus. I don't know how that gets funded, but may I suggest by contribution of the debtors' council? 5% should do nicely.

Edited February 15, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

By “highest value” I don’t mean to suggest lifting time-bars. Sorry if I gave that impression. 

[johnsch322]

40 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

"Winning the lottery" is a common idiom to mean getting something unexpected and perhaps somewhat randomly. The random part - state of abuse and legislative action to open a SoL window - I think is operative here.

Please, let's not turn on each other as survivors. Words matter, but I think this was truly intended as idiomatic and not literal. It hurts being in a closed state and it's hard not to feel slighted. It's not the fault of our fellows, however, and let's keep that in mind. 

Also, I don't think JLSS likes the 20k pay to play at all and will open up the entire TDP process to a highest value calculus. I don't know how that gets funded, but may I suggest by contribution of the debtors' council? 5% should do nicely.

I made a statement to you about a year ago that I felt all victims should share equally based on their abuse. I stand by that statement still. I honestly do not feel that as a victim and a survivor  like I have won a lottery. Those are the types of words that other posters would use to create divisions among survivors. 

[ThenNow]

22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I honestly do not feel that as a victim and a survivor  like I have won a lottery. Those are the types of words that other posters would use to create divisions among survivors. 

I understand. I would never suggest you or anyone of us has. Just trying to help, not pour salt. I trust you know my heart. I could've left it alone, but was trying to explain what I thought was meant, though not said. Perhaps my mistake. 

[Eagle1970]

19 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I made a statement to you about a year ago that I felt all victims should share equally based on their abuse. I stand by that statement still. I honestly do not feel that as a victim and a survivor  like I have won a lottery. Those are the types of words that other posters would use to create divisions among survivors. 

I lived over 50 years with the scars of my abuse.  Had I been in an open state and compensated appropriately, it would have felt to me like I won the lottery, after so many years of not even being able to confront my abuser.  All that means to me is that I would suddenly receive a large amount of compensation along with justice.  No apologies from me.  I will not be impacted by an attempt to chastise or scold me.  Way too old for that.  If you can't handle dealing with someone who uses slightly different words than you would choose, that's on you.  Like I've said before, I am grateful I do not need the money because I'm not going to see any windfall in compensation, due to state law.   Those who do, solely because they live in a state that cares about the rights of the people over those of insurers and churches, are receiving a windfall or whatever word makes you happy.

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I lived over 50 years with the scars of my abuse.  Had I been in an open state and compensated appropriately, it would have felt to me like I won the lottery, after so many years of not even being able to confront my abuser.  All that means to me is that I would suddenly receive a large amount of compensation along with justice.  No apologies from me.  I will not be impacted by an attempt to chastise or scold me.  Way too old for that.  If you can't handle dealing with someone who uses slightly different words than you would choose, that's on you.  Like I've said before, I am grateful I do not need the money because I'm not going to see any windfall in compensation, due to state law.   Those who do, solely because they live in a state that cares about the rights of the people over those of insurers and churches, are receiving a windfall or whatever word makes you happy.

I also have lived for over 50 years with the scars of my abuse. In a perfect world there would be no open or closed states we all would be able to receive the value of our abuse. I wasn't trying to scold or chastise you.  I do not feel lucky in any of this and honestly wish none of it happened to any of us, but I cannot rewrite history.  The only equity I see for those in closed states is a BSA National bankruptcy only and for that reason I will not be changing my vote.  That might make it more difficult for me but would leave doors open for people like yourself and @ThenNowif your states changed their laws. 

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

lived over 50 years with the scars of my abuse.  Had I been in an open state and compensated appropriately, it would have felt to me like I won the lottery, after so many years of not even being able to confront my abuser.  All that means to me is that I would suddenly receive a large amount of compensation along with justice.  No apologies from me.  I will not be impacted by an attempt to chastise or scold me.  Way too old for that.  If you can't handle dealing with someone who uses slightly different words than you would choose, that's on you.  Like I've said before, I am grateful I do not need the money because I'm not going to see any windfall in compensation, due to state law.   Those who do, solely because they live in a state that cares about the rights of the people over those of insurers and churches, are receiving a windfall or whatever word makes you happy.

 

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I also have lived for over 50 years with the scars of my abuse. In a perfect world there would be no open or closed states we all would be able to receive the value of our abuse. I wasn't trying to scold or chastise you.  I do not feel lucky in any of this and honestly wish none of it happened to any of us, but I cannot rewrite history.  The only equity I see for those in closed states is a BSA National bankruptcy only and for that reason I will not be changing my vote.  That might make it more difficult for me but would leave doors open for people like yourself and @ThenNowif your states changed their laws. 

I'm the boss of no one, often not even my own little self, but I hope we can leave this gently. As this process has meandered on, so too have our emotions, minds, bodies, souls and spirits. I've said it before, but I feel like I've been drugged and dragged through the tumbleweed town tethered behind a wild stallion. We're all weary, but I do think we can understand one another's perspective. We have to stay the course, stick together and give grace. Eagle1970, I hope you hear John's heart. He is for we Shades of Gray folk and his decision to hold steady with his plan rejection vote shows it. Deep breath and brothers and sisters we are. May nothing tear us apart. Please?

Edited February 16, 2022 by ThenNow

[yknot]

I've been hearing rumors that the Elks were also dropping chartering scouts but saw nothing to substantiate it. There was a post today on one of the cub scout sites today however with a letter. Anyone else see it or have any involvement with Elks?