Chapter 11 announced - Part 11 - Judge's Opinion

[InquisitiveScouter]

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Is that an inflation-adjusted estimate? I need to know how long to make the layaway term for the purchase of my new pair of Red Ball Jets. 

You learn something new every day, whether you want to, or not 😜

Had to look that one up.  Not really an element of the culture I grew up in...

https://www.fredsegal.com/collections/red-ball-jets

The first thing I ever bought on layaway was a pair of denim overalls.  It was 1976.  I was earning money picking up tobacco leaves dropped by the harvesters as they went up and down the rows in the field.  I remember how big I felt when one week, I got paid $10!!

Didn't know until later that that was far below minimum wage.  But, as a 10 year old, I'm sure I wasn't a very productive worker
 

Thanks for the stream-of-consciousness stroll down memory lane!

[Eagle1970]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As well as the number of claims left standing after the JLSS-mandated investigation, ferreting and vetting. 

It will be interesting to see where they draw the line on vetting.  

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It will be interesting to see where they draw the line on vetting.  

I mean no one ill in this process, but I do hope there is a reasonable separation of chaff and grain. It's worth noting (again) that JLSS not only directed Judge Houser to craft the processes and metrics for investigation but ALSO said she (JLSS) wants to see and approve them once JH drafts them. That says huge ton.

[Eagle1970]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I mean no one ill in this process, but I do hope there is a reasonable separation of chaff and grain. It's worth noting (again) that JLSS not only directed Judge Houser to craft the processes and metrics for investigation but ALSO said she (JLSS) wants to see and approve them once JH drafts them. That says huge ton.

It's a decision I would not want to be in the position of making.  Likely, there are totally bogus claims.  And just as likely, given the ages of many victims, there will be plenty of memory loss.  Just because I remember most details doesn't mean every victim will.

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The first thing I ever bought on layaway was a pair of denim overalls.  It was 1976.

I bought everything on layaway that cost any real money. The super big deal trifecta was my Jansport Mountain Dome, Camp 7 down bag and Hine Snowbridge pack. That was also 1976, based on the fact that is the inception year of my REI membership. Ok. I'm done deviating from the straight and narrow topic. 

[skeptic]

Am I the only one that suspects that if real vetting happens, a large percentage of the claims will go poof or be tossed?  And, I still do not understand why immediate vetting should not have been the case to start, as then perhaps a large part of this mess would have been distilled into verified categories, versus "I was a scout and someone looked at me funny" categories.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by skeptic

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

real vetting happens

Several things:

1. What do you mean by real?

2. How much good money is thrown after bad to accomplish the task? Is it a moral imperative or a legal and pragmatic exercise?

3. Are the judges looking more at the attorney and claims aggregators or the substance of the claims? In this stage, the former me thinks. Remember, this is a preemptory investigation, not necessarily the vetting and scrutiny that happens once a claim passes through the initial decontamination process.

4. I may not know what I'm talking about. Apply this truth liberally to the answers and questions above. 

[johnsch322]

27 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I still do not understand why immediate vetting should not have been the case to start,

Simple answer is that the BSA did not want to pay for it and have the process drawn out longer. Wanting vetting was an insurance ploy so that they could keep their money in their investments for a longer period of time.

[ThenNow]

31 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I still do not understand why immediate vetting should not have been the case to start,

Simple answer is that the BSA did not want to pay for it and have the process drawn out longer. Wanting vetting was an insurance ploy so that they could keep their money in their investments for a longer period of time.

A couple things:

1. Claimants are supposed to be signing these forms, which they didn't in thousands of cases. When the judge allowed it with the soft admonition of, "and I better not see a 100 Proofs of Claim signed by one attorney...when I was in practice I never signed a filing for a client," the game was on. Did she see 100 from one attorney? No. Hundreds and thousands.

2. Had hard core investigations happened after the "under penalty of perjury, $500,000 fine and prison time" didn't deter people, we would be adding another 6+ months to the process. That said, who knows how long it will take in the Settlement phase once Judge Houser starts her review and initial vetting. 

3. If the insurers got the green light they wanted, there would almost certainly be less money in the pot, along with some reduction in the number of claimants. I have no idea which creates a better outcome for survivors in the end.

4. As an attorney and claimant, the whole thing saddens me to infinity and beyond. I stared at that signature block and the dire warning, taking it seriously. Before I signed, I ran around in my brain like a chicken, pecking at every detail to be sure what I wrote was as it happened to the best of my ability to recall. When you don't have to do that memory and soul-searching, the bar is automatically lowered. Sorry, but it's true. 

Edited September 6, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle94-A1]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

A couple things:

1. Claimants are supposed to be signing these forms, which they didn't in thousands of cases. When the judge allowed it with the soft admonition of, "and I better not see a 100 Proofs of Claim signed by one attorney...when I was in practice I never signed a filing for a client," the game was on. Did she see 100 from one attorney? No. Hundreds and thousands.

Can those lawyers lose their licenses?

 

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

2. Had hard core investigations happened after the "under penalty of perjury, $500,000 fine and prison time" didn't deter people, we would be adding another 6+ months to the process. That said, who knows how long it will take in the Settlement phase once Judge Houser starts her review and initial vetting. 

Is that per signature, lawyer, false claimant, or overall.? And could the $500k per fake claim be used to  reimburse real victim and/or cover the extra legal expenses that their false claims caused?

 

 

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Can those lawyers lose their licenses?

JLSS specifically said she reserves the right to take additional actions against attorneys if malfeasance is found. 

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Is that per signature, lawyer, false claimant, or overall.? And could the $500k per fake claim be used to  reimburse real victim and/or cover the extra legal expenses that their false claims caused?

It's on every Proof of Claim, so I would think each. I have no idea where that money would go, but I do hear the sound of a massive vacuum tracking on the radar as eminating somewhere in the vicinity of the Potomac region. I doubt survivors would see anything from that, but perhaps the judge could direct otherwise. 

[yknot]

4 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

It's a decision I would not want to be in the position of making.  Likely, there are totally bogus claims.  And just as likely, given the ages of many victims, there will be plenty of memory loss.  Just because I remember most details doesn't mean every victim will.

What I have hoped is that some kind of corroborative forensics will be done to establish a matrix and depict clusters of cases in time and/or place or other common details. That could lend credence to claims in cases where aging memories are failing. 

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

What I have hoped is that some kind of corroborative forensics will be done to establish a matrix and depict clusters of cases in time and/or place or other common details. That could lend credence to claims in cases where aging memories are failing. 

Elaborate further, please? I believe a majority of the claims name abusers not previously known and similarly do not show multiple (or even more than one) victim. I may have that upside down and backward. Also, if a claim does not contain name of the abuser or other identifying aspects of Troop, LC, CO or geography, the POC wouldn't lend data to a pattern analysis. True or false? My recollection is, at one point, 30,000 or some big number had notable facial deficiencies. Numbers are not my forte and there are so many in this dervish, not to mention the number of zeros flying about.

[yknot]

26 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Elaborate further, please? I believe a majority of the claims name abusers not previously known and similarly do not show multiple (or even more than one) victim. I may have that upside down and backward. Also, if a claim does not contain name of the abuser or other identifying aspects of Troop, LC, CO or geography, the POC wouldn't lend data to a pattern analysis. True or false? My recollection is, at one point, 30,000 or some big number had notable facial deficiencies. Numbers are not my forte and there are so many in this dervish, not to mention the number of zeros flying about.

In some cases, I know certain suspect claims had information but it was recorded in the wrong fields or in attached narratives. If there is no other information included other than "someone somewhere abused me" then yes, you're right, you couldn't use that to establish any kind of corroborative matrix. But if there is a name, or a place, that would be something to work with. I know we've been told certain things about the claims but frankly unless they've been reviewed by an objective entity I don't know how much credence to give to anything that has been said.

[ThenNow]

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

unless they've been reviewed by an objective entity I don't know how much credence to give to anything that has been said.

Agreed. Let's just get on with it, shall we?! Inquiring minds want to know already.

Oh. I am also wondering about the details of how the pattern analysis would work to suss out memory lags v smell like rotten fish claims. I can guess, but my skill there is akin to the ol' arithmetic chops.

Edited September 6, 2022 by ThenNow