I am not a lawyer. I am a pro se claimant sharing what I have learned from watching this case.

From the August 19, 2026 omnibus hearing, we learned from Mr. Rush there are approximately 200 attorney liens filed against claimants who fired their prior counsel. This is honestly, way less than I expected to hear, but still worth fighting.

Slightly more than half of the liens have been resolved. The September 29 hearing is the next opportunity to fix how the Trust handles the undisputed portion of liens.

The Problem:

The Trust's current position is that they will hold 100% of your distribution until the lien dispute is resolved. Not just the disputed portion. All of it. Even if your former attorney's actual contractual claim is only 40%, the Trust holds 100%.

Judge Silverstein has started to push back on this, harder most recently at the 8/19 Omnibus. The more claimants that are able to file, the stronger the position to force the Trust to adopt a change becomes.

If you are in the same situation and your payments are frozen after going Pro se, consider filing a joinder. It is just a letter that you can write, print, sign and mail. That's it.

Template for a Joinder:

Title:

Statement and Joinder of [Your Name or Claim ID SST-######] in Support of E.S.'s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why the Trust Should Not Be Compelled to Immediately Disburse the Undisputed Portion of Claim

Body:

• Identify yourself as an Abuse Claimant and holder of a Direct Abuse Claim
• Cite 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) as basis for standing as a party in interest
• State that you are similarly situated to E.S. (your former counsel filed an attorney lien and the Trust is withholding your distribution)
• Adopt the arguments in E.S.'s motion (DI 341/342 and reply DI 714)
• Request that any relief granted to E.S. also apply to you

Sign, date, include a Certificate of Service.

Where to file

• US Bankruptcy Court 824 N. Market Street, 3rd Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Case No. 20-10342-LSS

Mail copy to:

• Mark T. Hurford (Trustee's counsel), A.M. Saccullo Legal, LLC, 27 Crimson King Drive, Bear, DE 19701

Special thanks for SY of DI 745 who sent the following joinder already and if you are here, please send me a DM if you do not want to post publicly so we can coordinate other items if you are interested.

Source, DI 745:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9914cf7f-6e18-4b08-9325-486073569feb_745.pdf

Note: I'm a Pro se claimant and not a lawyer. This is a long drawn out process and no one should feel bad for being frustrated or upset. BK cases like this take 10 years or more to settle since there are literally hundreds of thousands of people involved including teams of lawyers and insurers who regularly fight paying anything at all costs.

Also, it was kind of heart breaking to hear the reaction in real time for the claimant to realize he was only getting 4.7% of his settlement and not the amount that was on the award letter. We all went through that gut punch, but it was tough to see.

Here's a complete transcript of the session in case anyone wants to read or run it through AI for stuff I might have missed while I was making notes while listening live.

Note 2: Reddit caps posts a 40k characters, so here are links to download

• Download PDF from Omni: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/edf0470b-b005-4e75-8933-a201870b80a1_783.pdf (download as a PDF, then open with Adobe Acrobat, export the .mp3 attachment to be able to listen if you like).
• Text Transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kltYOt7YGZDY4MOGhoINnw0tS_nhNtO/view?usp=sharing
• MP3 Audio Transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mEHyFOLz5La2uELpPbo8IB_xgeHBmc4J/view?usp=sharing

- - -

[00:00:00] Please be seated.

[00:00:06] Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:09] Michael Rush, we're Gilbert L. P.

[00:00:11] I'm behalf of the Settlement Trustee.

[00:00:14] I believe your honor wants to address the motions filed by incarcerated claimants first.

[00:00:19] So the first on the agenda would be agenda item number three, which is S.P.'s letter regarding claim.

[00:00:27] And I believe S.P. is on the line just to refresh your honor's recollection.

[00:00:32] This was a motion I believe.

[00:00:33] It's a late claim motion.

[00:00:34] It was originally heard at the June.

[00:00:36] The June hearing I believe and the trust's opposition was that the claimant had not provided an excuse.

[00:00:43] Your honor provided him an opportunity to submit some supplemental briefing, which he did in the trust's file was supplemental objection.

[00:00:50] Thank you.

[00:00:51] Mr. Piper, are you participating?

[00:00:54] Yes, Your Honor. I'm President.

[00:00:59] Okay. Thank you.

[00:01:01] I received your further submission.

[00:01:07] And I've read it. Do you want to add anything to what you have submitted?

[00:01:13] I believe that was pretty thorough in providing what I consider to be some substantial life events that were beyond my control.

[00:01:26] So I know I don't have much to add, Your Honor.

[00:01:29] Thank you. Mr. Rush anything to hear.

[00:01:32] If you're on the question, I think the bottom line I think our position is that the pioneer standard for excusable neglect requires a showing of some burdens mistake or something else that you know prevented the claimant from filing a timely claim.

[00:01:50] I think the question here while the trust is not questioned that the claimant underwent some significant events in 2020 with his himself and his family.

[00:01:59] Ultimately at the end of the day it was a deliberate decision not to file a claim and we don't believe that needs to excuse for the black satir.

[00:02:07] Thank you.

[00:02:12] In reading this one, I think it's a close call on the pioneer standards and maybe one of the closest I had.

[00:02:19] As the trustee noted in its submission required the claimants to provide a reason why they were unable to file a claim late.

[00:02:35] I think it's provided a reason. He did supply it in his June 15th.

[00:02:42] Now, probably his later filing.

[00:02:46] And he described in detail circumstances surrounding his circumstances in 2020 around the time of the bar date.

[00:03:02] Again, I think this is a close call, but I'm going to permit the late claim. So I will enter an order permitting the filing of a late file claim and then the trustee will.

[00:03:17] Process it per the trust distribution procedures.

[00:03:21] You're on, I believe in your prior orders you have indicated that the motion will be deemed the proof of claims that the trust you just proceed to providing a claims questionnaire.

[00:03:30] I just want to make sure that that's the process the trust you follow here.

[00:03:33] Thank you for reminding me. I think that is a good process. I think there certainly is significant detail in the latter to be able to start that process.

[00:03:42] So, hi, where do you have any questions?

[00:03:47] So I guess the next thing to expect would be correspondence from the trustee side. Is that correct?

[00:03:53] Thank you. You're going to get a claims questionnaire probably.

[00:03:56] Correct.

[00:03:57] Yes, I believe you're on a, we have typically waited for the order to come out and then we will mail the claim at a claims questionnaire and processes claim the trust will process as claim accordingly.

[00:04:07] Okay, so that will be the next step actually before that you will receive a copy of the order that we enter.

[00:04:13] And then as you heard from Mr. Rachel, I'll send you a questionnaire. You should look for it and respond timely.

[00:04:22] Of course, thank you. You're on our creative.

[00:04:24] Thank you. Your matters concluded.

[00:04:27] I appreciate it. Thank you.

[00:04:31] Next up, your honor is agenda item number four, which is A.V.'s request for investigation upon plaintiff's expedited claims questionnaire payout.

[00:04:40] The lead list when when staffs was doing the role call A.V. was not present, but I don't know if you should let's.

[00:04:47] Mr. Brooks, have you joined?

[00:04:49] I do not hear response. Let's skip them for now. We'll check back at the end.

[00:04:58] So next up on the agenda is item number 10, which is, or sorry, agenda item number five, which is BM's petition motion for approval claim.

[00:05:11] And I think separately, the same BM is listed at number 10 for a motion to compile distribution and or accounting. Again, when when roll call was taken, I do not believe BM is was on under an if he has joined since.

[00:05:25] Mr. Moss, have you joined?

[00:05:33] I do not hear response. Again, we'll look at the end and circle back.

[00:05:38] Next up then is agenda item number six, which is R. M's motion for court to compel an order to be scouting settlement trust release plaintiff settlement.

[00:05:46] And R. M is on.

[00:06:17] Mr. Maserina.

[00:06:20] Yes, sir.

[00:06:23] This is your motion to compel the trust to make a distribution.

[00:06:32] My understanding from the response is that, in fact, you signed the release forms and sent them back and have and that it's a

[00:06:44] distribution was sent on July 28, 2026. Have you received it?

[00:06:53] I received payment, but it was incorrectly made out. So I written it back to see if I can sum back the track to have a read submitted.

[00:07:05] And I'd like to add that this was approved in March of 2005. I waited a year and a half to get the first settlement.

[00:07:16] Your claim amount was determined in 2025.

[00:07:26] Yes, ma'am.

[00:07:27] It was dated March. Didn't have a printed day of the month, the day of that month just March 2000 in 25.

[00:07:37] What do you want to add to your submission?

[00:07:44] Do you have anything you want to add?

[00:07:47] No, I just stand by the record.

[00:07:52] Okay, let me hear a response, please. Thank you.

[00:07:54] Yes, sir. I just wanted to provide context to why it took a little bit longer for the distribution to be made.

[00:08:00] There were some errors with release forms with notarization.

[00:08:04] So there was multiple different release forms signed.

[00:08:07] The trust then responded to our end and told him that it was deficient.

[00:08:11] There was no derization deficient.

[00:08:13] There was once admitted with multiple releases signed.

[00:08:16] So, and then there was the governmental lien's election form.

[00:08:19] So finally, the trust received a completed packet and was able to mail was able to provide him with his first distribution.

[00:08:27] Do you know what the issue is with the payee on the check?

[00:08:33] I do not remember. I mean, that this is the first we've heard of this from my understanding.

[00:08:39] Mr. Maazerina, can you tell me what the issue is with the payee on the check?

[00:08:44] Well, I got a receipt of a sum.

[00:08:51] And then after you received a sum, that sum was in March of 2025.

[00:08:57] And you received, I was on the impression I was going to receive the whole amount.

[00:09:02] But I only received a portion of it and it said first of Solomon.

[00:09:07] And I went in the back, I said, I asked how many installments are there in sum.

[00:09:15] And I haven't gotten a response yet.

[00:09:18] That was sent out about the say two weeks ago.

[00:09:24] And I'm doing something for myself. I'm pretty well-ch for the trust.

[00:09:27] The answer to your question is that the amount you receive is the 4.7% of the distribution, which is the total amount of the award that the trust is able to provide.

[00:09:37] All claimants at this point. It's possible with the resolution of a dispute about future claimants.

[00:09:42] There could be more.

[00:09:43] But as the notification of your award said, it's possible that not the entire amount will be paid out.

[00:09:49] So that's why you received a smaller portion rather than the total award number.

[00:09:53] Because the trust is only able to pay out 4.7%.

[00:09:56] Okay, so are you saying that payment is the only I'm getting?

[00:10:05] That's the payment.

[00:10:06] No, sorry. I'm not saying that.

[00:10:08] It's possible there could be future payments.

[00:10:10] But right now there is a dispute about further payments being made.

[00:10:13] So it is possible that in the future, more payments will be made.

[00:10:16] No.

[00:10:17] Oh, I understand that. Do I have a timeframe?

[00:10:23] I mean, is it going to take 10 years, another 20?

[00:10:27] I cannot give you a timeframe on that, sir.

[00:10:32] Okay, I can't.

[00:10:33] Yeah, it just, I mean, I've never sued anybody before.

[00:10:38] It just seems it's just taken forever.

[00:10:40] It took 45 years to get here.

[00:10:43] And then it's taken like, from the first time I got the application in the question here.

[00:10:51] And a statement of claim and stuff like that.

[00:10:54] It's been like, oh, five, six years.

[00:10:58] This is a long process, Mr. Maserina.

[00:11:01] There is no question about it.

[00:11:03] And it's oftentimes from a claim and it's perspective not a satisfying process.

[00:11:09] But I can tell you based on the representations that I've heard from Council.

[00:11:14] And from what you've just told me that you are.

[00:11:20] Your claim has been accepted. You're included in the distribution.

[00:11:23] You will be included in any future distributions.

[00:11:27] There is nothing further that you need to do to be entitled to any future distributions.

[00:11:36] And unfortunately, you have to wait to see what's going to happen.

[00:11:42] You along with all the other clients.

[00:11:46] The question.

[00:11:49] Is it possible to find out if they got my current letter asking the correct name for checks to be dispersed?

[00:11:58] And is it possible to find out what a time table is for a new check?

[00:12:06] I will ask you for a new check.

[00:12:11] Yeah, for the whole process. I don't know if I'm getting one time check or portions or whatever.

[00:12:19] Just would like to so this way I can pace myself.

[00:12:22] Yes, I would not expect anything soon.

[00:12:25] Any further distribution checks soon.

[00:12:28] And so, but there is not a time frame that the trust can give you at this point in time.

[00:12:35] And in terms of the wrong name on the check, I would like counsel for the trustee to reach out to Mr. Malzareno and let him know if you have received his letter.

[00:12:49] And then certainly address whatever the issue is with him so that that check can be properly issued and cash.

[00:12:59] Okay, that's the best I can do for you.

[00:13:03] All right, thank you.

[00:13:04] Okay, thank you. Your matters completed.

[00:13:07] Thank you.

[00:13:12] The rest on the agenda is item number seven, which is DS's motion permitting movement to file a late use plan for suicide to excuse will look like.

[00:13:21] Pioneer rule.

[00:13:23] DS is on the one.

[00:13:25] Mr. Smith.

[00:13:28] Yes, you know.

[00:13:30] Okay, this is your motion to permit a late file claim.

[00:13:37] I did read your submission. It's interesting.

[00:13:42] Because you've attached papers mail to Omni prior to the bankruptcy case being.

[00:13:52] I have the right one.

[00:13:56] I have the right one.

[00:13:57] No, that's the wrong one.

[00:14:00] So, you, but you have attached some communications.

[00:14:06] Do you want to add or explain to me something further about your.

[00:14:12] Your communications.

[00:14:17] Yes, I would like the first ask are is the court in receipt the court and respond is counsel in receipt of my reply to.

[00:14:30] The opposition.

[00:14:33] I did receive that. Yes.

[00:14:37] Yes, sir.

[00:14:38] I also like this.

[00:14:41] I also like that.

[00:14:43] In between August the 16th of 2020.

[00:14:50] The day I mail.

[00:14:53] Of course, bond is till United States district court.

[00:14:57] I've been trying to find that identity of this attorney just to see if a claim was ever filed.

[00:15:05] So, in my honest, just met my honest thinking to try to do something to.

[00:15:14] Timeless to met a claim on my behalf.

[00:15:17] If there was one, no, but I, this, this is like I've been blocked from getting any information of finding not rather attorney file the claim.

[00:15:28] Well, that claim is submitted in my name by anybody else or anything.

[00:15:34] And since since since August of 2020 and June the second of 2021, which is the date I came in on this current criminal case.

[00:15:49] I didn't, I didn't have, I was under the pressure that since I have no communication, no information that are playing was submitted.

[00:16:01] And in incarcerated, there is no way, if it wasn't, if it hadn't been me researching matters in my criminal case.

[00:16:11] And references popping up, meeting other things and me to scum.

[00:16:17] I mean, if there was a bar date, I would have never known.

[00:16:23] And that is just all I wanted to add.

[00:16:26] Thank you. Thank you.

[00:16:30] I'm here from the trust. Yes, sir, honor.

[00:16:35] We would just raise that we think this would be an appropriate cut off for claimants who have never filed a claim.

[00:16:42] We do not have any records in the system of DS filing a claim. So there's, there's no records there.

[00:16:49] And it is also the fact that he was released when he said he first heard these ads, although that was prior to the bankruptcy.

[00:17:00] And then he said he filled out an unidentified package.

[00:17:03] But the question about that is, is, was that actually a claim's packet? What was that? It's unclear.

[00:17:10] So just wanted to raise that as not our serial number. Thank you.

[00:17:15] I think we're probably getting close to the point where it would be appropriate to consider prejudice to the trust.

[00:17:29] But this one also, there were two interesting ones here. And this is another one.

[00:17:40] In Mr Smith attached.

[00:17:44] Excuse me. Can other people please mute their lines?

[00:17:59] Mr Smith attached to his filing a letter dated August 16th, 2020.

[00:18:09] Directed to the court explaining exactly what he said in his letter. So this is a contemporaneous writing to the court about an attorney who he had contacted.

[00:18:24] He said he would submit a claim for him.

[00:18:27] And he completed a package that was shipped to him and mail it back.

[00:18:36] And he's inquiring about whether he's done what's necessary to submit a claim.

[00:18:42] So I think these efforts show that Mr Smith was attempting to comply and to file a claim.

[00:18:53] And in fact, one had been submitted by Mr Black, the attorney.

[00:19:01] And then he became incarcerated. And so in these circumstances, I will permit the late file claim.

[00:19:08] This will be treated again as proof of claim and process then in accordance with the trust distribution procedure.

[00:19:17] So Mr Smith, I am granting your request to the image of participate.

[00:19:24] And again, you need to when you receive communications from the trust.

[00:19:29] You will need to respond promptly.

[00:19:34] Just provide information that they need in order to process your claim.

[00:19:39] Yes, you are.

[00:19:40] Do you have any questions?

[00:19:43] Okay, we will send you a copy of the order that we enter and then please expect to receive something from the trust.

[00:19:50] Yes, sir.

[00:19:52] Okay, thank you very much.

[00:19:54] Here's your.

[00:19:55] I'm concluded.

[00:19:56] Yes, sir.

[00:19:59] Oh, Mr. Rush.

[00:20:06] I think we're skipping number eight.

[00:20:10] And going to number nine, which is JV's request for quarter.

[00:20:15] And JV, I believe, is Mr. Bennett,

[00:20:28] Mr. Bennett, are you appearing?

[00:20:32] If you're speaking, I cannot hear you.

[00:20:34] Okay. Let's circle back at the end.

[00:20:52] Do you want to go to the, on the Proceded claim that he's not in car frame?

[00:20:57] Okay. So that would be agenda item two.

[00:21:00] That's ES's motion for order to show calls.

[00:21:03] Why the trust should not be compelled to immediately disperse

[00:21:06] the undisputed portion of claim pursuant to the trust distribution procedures.

[00:21:10] And ES was on the line at least.

[00:21:14] Mr. Sivil.

[00:21:16] Yes, sir.

[00:21:18] Okay.

[00:21:19] Then, in there.

[00:21:21] Yes, you're on. I'm here.

[00:21:23] Okay. Thank you.

[00:21:25] I've received your submissions, and I've read them.

[00:21:30] But this is your opportunity to provide me with any further information.

[00:21:34] Okay.

[00:21:40] Excuse me. I'm talking to you.

[00:21:43] Excuse me for the moment.

[00:21:45] I'm talking with Mr. Sivil now.

[00:21:47] I'm not sure who else is speaking.

[00:21:50] Okay. I'm talking with Mr. Sivil.

[00:21:56] And then who is this? Who's speaking to me?

[00:22:01] This is Mr. Bennett.

[00:22:03] Okay. Mr. Bennett, I'll have to come back to you.

[00:22:05] We're going to do Mr. Sivil now.

[00:22:07] Yes. Thank you.

[00:22:09] Thank you.

[00:22:10] Mr. Sivil.

[00:22:14] Yes, Your Honor.

[00:22:17] Okay. So I understand you have an attorney and a dispute with your attorney over the amount of his attorney's lane.

[00:22:26] I don't know, ma'am.

[00:22:30] I would say it's an actual dispute with attorney.

[00:22:33] Mr. Sivil23, I mean a total of high quality, high quality, high quality, high quality, high quality.

[00:22:35] Wait, Ma'am?

[00:22:36] MAX

[00:23:07] the 60% nor is it uploaded in the portal?

[00:23:20] So I'm sorry.

[00:23:21] No, go ahead.

[00:23:24] Yes, I guess I'm a little confused.

[00:23:25] I mean, originally, unfortunately, I did have a terminated council.

[00:23:29] And I did not take that lightly.

[00:23:32] There was a multitude of grounds for that decision, unfortunately.

[00:23:41] Naturally, right after termination, prior council,

[00:23:44] filed motion or filed, I'm sorry, filed a lien with the trust, which is 40%.

[00:23:51] And that was an October of 2025.

[00:23:54] And since October, whether I'm not sure if you're aware, but it seems like it's very difficult

[00:24:00] to follow the trust because they've continuously changed procedures.

[00:24:07] It's very confusing.

[00:24:08] I mean, at first, right after I terminated my attorney, they set me an email, the process

[00:24:14] at that point was they were allowing me 90 days to resolve that dispute with the prior council.

[00:24:20] And if not resolved within 90 days, they would obtain a inter pleater, I believe it was,

[00:24:27] at the expense of to me.

[00:24:29] So the 90 days, in that 90 days, I made multiple attempts to make resolution with prior

[00:24:35] council.

[00:24:36] He was refusing to cooperate.

[00:24:38] He was actually refusing to even give me my file.

[00:24:41] And I had to threaten, basically, a bar complaint for him to release my file to me.

[00:24:49] After that particular procedure, the date came and went on the 90 days, the trust then

[00:24:57] changed the procedure to that they would withhold the disputed portion at that time as 40%.

[00:25:06] And to my knowledge, it's still 40%.

[00:25:10] They could or may release my undisturbed portion.

[00:25:14] And a few months passed.

[00:25:16] And after that, the process then changed to this attorney, this lean resolution form that's

[00:25:24] required to be signed by both parties.

[00:25:27] And even the trust can vouch for this.

[00:25:30] They've noted that in record that they themselves have attempted, in myself as well for

[00:25:36] the past 10 months, to try to come to some type of resolution with prior council.

[00:25:40] And again, even the trust council has reached out to my prior council, trying to resolve

[00:25:46] this with, you know, there's no resolution in sight, obviously.

[00:25:51] So I guess I'm at a point now where I believe the council for the trust at one point

[00:25:59] had stated to me that it's been by email and a couple of different timeframes.

[00:26:08] They're saying that my account, my prior council now has a lean against my also my additional

[00:26:13] 60%.

[00:26:14] So he has a lean on 100% of my award amount according to the, but they've yet to verify

[00:26:22] or produce evidence of such lean.

[00:26:24] After multiple requests, I have documented multiple requests to the trust.

[00:26:29] Please provide this evidence of this additional 60% lean and to date that's not been provided.

[00:26:38] So yeah, I don't know.

[00:26:39] I guess I'm just looking for some type of resolution moving forward.

[00:26:44] You know, I guess in my opinion, your honor, where does the lean resolution form entitled

[00:26:51] prior council to hold up the entire distribution?

[00:27:02] How is that possible?

[00:27:04] I guess why is it a prior council of mine is being afforded the opportunity to withhold 100%

[00:27:16] of my distribution?

[00:27:17] Thank you.

[00:27:20] Let me hear a response from the trust.

[00:27:22] Good morning, again, your honor, Michael Rush.

[00:27:29] So the background here, the claim that yes received and accepted a proposal, I've claimed

[00:27:35] him amount in May of 2025 and he received shortly thereafter his initial distribution.

[00:27:40] At that point in time he was represented by council.

[00:27:43] Following those events, he made the decision to terminate his council, which is his right.

[00:27:48] And proceed, Proce, his former council's name is Evan Oshan, Oshan, and associates in Seattle,

[00:27:54] Washington.

[00:27:56] His now former attorney filed an attorney-lean notification form.

[00:28:01] Did not include any details about the amount that he's asserting the lean is.

[00:28:06] The trust through its general council, I know, had some conversations in which he's asserted

[00:28:13] that none of the LZ entitled to his contingency fee, which I believe is 40%, but he believes

[00:28:18] he has any right if he has to proceed against the claimant in court to recover the fees

[00:28:24] that he's entitled to attorney's fees.

[00:28:27] This takes no position on whether that is legitimate or not.

[00:28:33] The trust I personally have attempted to reach out to Mr. Oshan on five occasions.

[00:28:39] I've left him two voice mails.

[00:28:41] I've sent him three emails and it received no response.

[00:28:45] The trust wants to get.

[00:28:48] Yes, his supplemental distribution, but the trust needs to protect itself from making

[00:28:54] a distribution in light of a lane.

[00:28:57] The lean resolution, I believe, and I don't know how these stats are a little update,

[00:29:02] because there's a couple of weeks ago when I last checked, but I believe there's been to approximately

[00:29:06] 200 attorney-leans that have been noticed to the trust.

[00:29:10] Of those slightly over 50% the trust has received a notice of a partial or full resolution.

[00:29:17] And I think that the remaining balance is slightly, I think, weighted by the fact that some

[00:29:22] of the the the the leans have it's been coming in the last couple of weeks.

[00:29:28] So the trust has made efforts to try to to to to to figure out what the the amount of the

[00:29:35] evidence.

[00:29:36] You don't come up with your own amount.

[00:29:38] I don't know that we can't.

[00:29:39] I don't know that that would shield the trust from from liability to make a determination

[00:29:43] as to what is disputed and what is not disputed.

[00:29:46] I see that irony with respect to this and motion that I'm going to hear later on.

[00:29:54] Don't you're on her.

[00:29:55] Sorry.

[00:29:56] Well, the trustee is concerned about its liability if it makes them a stake and sends out

[00:30:03] the wrong amount.

[00:30:06] And it doesn't want to come up with the number itself.

[00:30:10] Right?

[00:30:12] And later on, the trust is asking me to to make the insurers sign something that's going to

[00:30:23] release funds from the trust when we don't know the amount because about the the trust

[00:30:30] isn't concerned about the liability that the insurers might have if it's the wrong amount.

[00:30:37] It's wrong.

[00:30:38] I just pointing that out.

[00:30:40] You can think about it.

[00:30:41] It strikes me as a tremendous irony here that the trust is trying to insulate itself from

[00:30:47] liability because it doesn't know the amount and it doesn't want to come up with the

[00:30:51] amount.

[00:30:53] Okay, so one of my supposed to do here.

[00:30:56] What am I supposed to do?

[00:30:58] One suggestion you're on or we had and I don't mean to step out of my lane but was to

[00:31:05] require misrocious to my knowledge other than my informal notice through the emails

[00:31:10] and voice files I left him to not receive formal notice of this motion.

[00:31:13] I don't.

[00:31:14] I wasn't the trust to stand up for you to find.

[00:31:16] What authority does the trust have and that's what a climate has raised.

[00:31:23] That's like Mr. Staville has raised.

[00:31:27] What authority does the trust he have to withhold the distribution?

[00:31:31] I believe that the trust has an obligation under Delaware law to preserve the assets.

[00:31:37] There we cited in our brief.

[00:31:39] There is authority in both in Delaware and elsewhere that says when a party has notice of an

[00:31:46] attorney lane and makes a distribution despite having knowledge of that lane and notice of that

[00:31:51] lane it could be it could be liable.

[00:31:53] So if if Mr. Ocean was unable to recover the money from from E.S. in the event he is entitled

[00:31:59] to money he could come after the trust.

[00:32:01] And that's a risk the trust has to prevent against given it's duty to claim it.

[00:32:08] Why not enter plea to funds like you had at one point?

[00:32:11] Well I think get out of it.

[00:32:13] I think that the reason for that was the trust didn't want to bear the expense of having

[00:32:19] to file potentially multiple inter pleater actions either in this quarter elsewhere.

[00:32:25] I think it was battling and then there was when we did file two here in this court there was

[00:32:30] at least suggestion from from one council that they were going to fight in a jurisdiction.

[00:32:35] You might not have to file it and wherever is the appropriate jurisdiction to file it but isn't that the

[00:32:40] accepted way to address a dispute over funds which the trustee says they have no time they

[00:32:51] recognize right the trustee says we're not entitled to these funds even the miscarotian

[00:32:55] is or the claimant is and we don't want to get in the middle of that and we might have

[00:33:01] exposure so isn't that the accepted way to handle this.

[00:33:04] I think that is a way but it's it's a drain on trust resources to have to do that and we have to

[00:33:10] do it multiple times where it might be.

[00:33:13] But where and and Mr. Spill asked for this and I didn't read this in the response where in the trust

[00:33:22] not in the trust distribution. Well in the trust distribution procedures of the plan

[00:33:26] is it say that the trustee can set up this process which the trustee obviously did it has a

[00:33:35] whole claims form it has a response it has this it has that and set up this

[00:33:42] extra judicial process for resolving this matter because otherwise Mr. Spill is right this attorney

[00:33:50] could hold up everything now I understand both of you want me to get the attorney in front of me maybe I can

[00:33:56] suggest strongly that he that he come up with a number okay and we still have a dispute but he

[00:34:09] come up with a number perhaps but can I do that I mean can I can I do that I can strongly suggest

[00:34:17] what if he doesn't do it what can I do so that's why I'm asking where's the where's the

[00:34:25] provision in the plan that permits the trust to establish this procedure rather than just

[00:34:30] fallen in a plea or if there's a cost associated with it there is we may have spent more money already

[00:34:34] than it would have that it would have taken for the trusted just file whatever they needed file.

[00:34:40] That's right I mean I believe we signed a case law in our brief I think if you look at the trusted agreement

[00:34:46] article 2.1 section D which says without limiting the generality of sections 2.1 A and B above

[00:34:54] and except is limited in the trust documents the trust he shall have the power to and if you look at x i x

[00:35:00] resolve all applicable lean resolution matters. This is in the trusted agreement it's page 11 of the

[00:35:07] trusted agreement. Okay so good power to resolve how are you resolving them? I think it's by setting up

[00:35:17] this procedure to to get a resolution at least on the undisputed portion in the first instance and then

[00:35:25] require I mean ultimately this is just between the claimant and his former council and I don't

[00:35:29] believe I haven't seen anything in the record suggesting that any proceedings have been instituted to

[00:35:33] try and resolve the lean or have a you know have the determination and the lean resolved.

[00:35:45] So this could just set out forever because there's an attorney former attorney is refusing to

[00:35:54] cooperate. I would think at some point one or both of them would institute a proceeding to

[00:36:01] to get a resolution of the lean and whether not the attorney is entitled to anything or what

[00:36:06] amount whether that's under the terms of the contract and that's another reason that the trust

[00:36:14] is is reluctant to file interplete or actions because we're aware of the least in some instances

[00:36:21] the contract between the attorney and the claimant might call for a dispute resolution process.

[00:36:28] So that quickly you from doing an interplacer? I don't see how I don't know I could have been

[00:36:34] wild since I've done an interplacer but I don't see how it could prevent you from doing that.

[00:36:39] I would think the attorney if I was the attorney in that situation might move to dismiss the

[00:36:43] interplacer action in light of the dispute resolution process called for in the contract.

[00:36:50] Whether that would be successful or not at all not your honor but that's

[00:36:53] that finds a third party in the dispute resolution process and that contract finds the trustee.

[00:37:02] I don't know. I'm finding this process unsatisfactory obviously because it seems to me that there's

[00:37:15] that I thought it had a waste before with the interplators and I recognize there's an expense to that

[00:37:23] but that is generally the way people handle situations like this. So I'll

[00:37:34] I'll enter an order requiring Mr. Oshan to respond to this and we'll see what he does

[00:37:43] but if he doesn't respond or if he responds to say that I don't have jurisdiction over this dispute

[00:37:51] then I'll need some on the assembly thing on that. If the trust is going to get involved in that

[00:38:00] it's going to cost the trust money to do that. Okay Mr. Sveil you've heard the discussion that I've

[00:38:08] had with Council here. I will enter an order that requires Mr. Oshan to respond to your

[00:38:17] motion and to set forth the amount of the lean that he believes he has and I'll set it for

[00:38:36] the hearing on September then whatever the next hearing is. I'll set it for hearing on September 29th

[00:38:45] and we'll see if Mr. Oshan responds and we'll go from there.

[00:38:52] But I think that's the best I can do today, Mr. Sveil. Do you have any questions?

[00:38:58] Yes, Your Honor. I'm not really certain that that will produce a fruitful resolution

[00:39:08] with prior Council. I think to me it's very clear what the dispute portion is or I'm disputed

[00:39:15] in fact is the 40% lean which is clearly it's very clearly even I'm not I have no legal background

[00:39:22] but a layman can interpret the lean that's in the port hole of the trust it specifies 40%.

[00:39:30] That to me is the I'm not disputing the 40%. I don't understand what the trust can't release the

[00:39:38] undisputed 60 but now they're telling me that 60 is also even disputed yet they've never

[00:39:43] provided any documents or legal information you know to justify or show me this this other 60%

[00:39:51] which would equal 100% of my distribution I mean there's no

[00:39:59] You know, there's no legal filings of this remaining 60% that the trust is claiming my council has a lean on

[00:40:08] That what is clear is the no no the council earlier stated that that they don't take a position

[00:40:19] but I guess

[00:40:22] I guess I

[00:40:24] Have you a differently it seems like they do take a position because I've received in the past I've received comments from the trust

[00:40:31] What grounds are statute they have to hold the undisputed at one point?

[00:40:36] They they state to me. They just simply have the power

[00:40:39] And one another point it seemed a little biased to me. They were referring to prior counts

[00:40:43] I want to first name bases

[00:40:47] So the when the when the council says they're they don't take a position

[00:40:53] The 60% I mean

[00:40:56] Again, I guess that's still an answer to at this moment during this hearing

[00:40:59] I've yet to be provided evidence of this remaining

[00:41:03] 60% lean that council claims that my part lawyer has against me

[00:41:08] So that was that what you equate to you know 100% of the lean

[00:41:13] I don't know that you know to me I guess you're on her it's clear that the 40% is

[00:41:20] identifiable

[00:41:22] also

[00:41:24] The the the council for the BSA

[00:41:30] provided you a

[00:41:35] An opposition statement a few weeks ago and in that opposition they reference that prior councils

[00:41:42] claiming he incurred approximately $7,000 in cost

[00:41:49] I think what they may be referring to because I have a settlement sheet from my initial 1.5% that I received and the settlement sheet

[00:41:58] The there was professional services

[00:42:02] obtained by prior council

[00:42:04] That have already they were paid out of my 1.5% and I have a settlement sheet

[00:42:09] demonstrating that

[00:42:11] So I don't know what the the cell of a sheet actually was a total specifically with 7,993

[00:42:18] dollars in 60 cents and I've evidence that that was paid by my prior council

[00:42:25] So we're the net, you know, right now the the it's to me it's very clear

[00:42:31] It's just the 40% lean is the only thing outstanding as far as evidence that I've ever been provided

[00:42:36] I've not been provided of any other

[00:42:40] This has been verbal, you know, I mean this verb this conversation back and forth between the trust

[00:42:44] You know, they've multiple times if kept repeatedly kept saying that you know, even though

[00:42:49] I think it's only a 40% lean

[00:42:51] They're telling me my council now has a 60 a lean on the 60 remaining 60%

[00:42:57] But after multiple requesting not provided any type of legal documentation demonstrating that nor is it uploaded in my portal

[00:43:04] So I guess my question is where are they getting that that would be not question to the council today

[00:43:10] Could you could is a possible you could ask the the council where they're getting that information?

[00:43:15] Yeah, Mr. Rush didn't Mr. Oshan have to submit a form form. It's a exhibit a

[00:43:29] And you'll see he left

[00:43:31] He tells the name section blank

[00:43:34] Well if he left the details blank then did he submit a sufficient form?

[00:43:41] I mean maybe his forms not sufficient if he doesn't state the amount of his lean

[00:43:51] Now maybe he doesn't get one if he leaves it open. I don't know what the law is on that

[00:43:56] But it does strike me it even though the trust is not taking a position effectively

[00:44:00] It's blocking a distribution from and especially if the attorney didn't

[00:44:07] Specify

[00:44:09] Exactly the amount of his lean then if you just go with what he he did and

[00:44:15] He

[00:44:17] Didn't give you an amount

[00:44:20] Maybe he doesn't get one

[00:44:22] Maybe that's not specific enough

[00:44:32] So you're on or can I speak one moment please just one more?

[00:44:40] I'm sorry. Yes, I guess my I would like to have a better understanding from council where the

[00:44:46] Additional 60% lean is it in can they show that community or demonstrate that that officially has been filed

[00:44:53] Because right now the only facts that I do have to operate from is the 40% original 40% lean filed back in October of

[00:45:01] 2025, which is available in the portal

[00:45:03] So I would like the council to produce this additional 60% lean that they're claiming my prior council has

[00:45:11] Semitic okay. I'm going to instruct

[00:45:14] The trustee's council to reach out to you and have some communications if you regarding this matter before the September hearing

[00:45:23] So those discussions will happen offline

[00:45:28] Okay, this matter is concluded. Thank you very much

[00:45:34] Thank you very much, Mr. Sidel

[00:45:38] Thank you

[00:45:40] I want to try once more for the two incarcerated claimants. Yes, I was earlier I believe the first one is number four ABs or

[00:45:47] Western investigation

[00:45:51] Miss rocks

[00:45:53] Yeah, good

[00:45:55] You hear me I can Mr. Brooks

[00:45:58] Yes, I mean here the whole time

[00:46:03] Are you not operate fun

[00:46:05] Okay, well I'm glad you're on now

[00:46:09] So Mr. Brooks

[00:46:11] It's your turn says talk to me about your matter. Yes, I was

[00:46:19] giving the expedited the 3500 as

[00:46:23] Prediction

[00:46:25] check

[00:46:26] on

[00:46:27] 416

[00:46:28] 24 I received a check for a 700 and 85

[00:46:32] I was on

[00:46:34] 1724 I received a check for

[00:46:36] 840 dollars on

[00:46:39] June

[00:46:40] June 26 I found for here for this hearing and then on July the second

[00:46:45] 2020

[00:46:46] I received a check for 25

Disclosure: I am a Pro se claimant and not an attorney. Use this information at your own discretion.

Good news everyone.

Two weeks before the July 24 deadline, the Trustee, the STAC, and Scouting America itself all filed papers backing the same position. All three say the FCR was wrong to block the payment percentage bump from 4.7% to 5.7%. The FCR has nobody on their side.

Here is what each filing means:

• Trustee Houser: The Trustee's brief argues the FCR has to be the one to prove he was right to block her. She's not the one who has to justify going up to 5.7%. He's the one who has to justify saying no.
• STAC: this brief goes further and says the judge should give the Trustee a lot of room to make the call. Their argument is that once the Trustee makes a reasonable decision, the judge shouldn't second-guess it unless there's a clear problem. That's a high bar for the FCR to clear.
• Scouting America: this filing goes at the FCR's numbers directly. The FCR is arguing that 11,000 more people will file abuse claims in the future, mostly after 2040. Scouting America says that number ignores the fact that their youth protection program today is much stronger than what existed decades ago. If Scouting America is right about the current program, the FCR's future claims estimate falls apart.

Our odds of getting the 1% in a timely manner (legally speaking of course).

If you'd like, I encourage others to read the filings directly:

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents/index?clientid=3552&tagid=1518

Look for July 10 filings - Numbers 604, 605, and 607. The first one from the Trustee is 21 pages and the easiest to read. The STAC's is dense but well-organized if you want the legal argument. Scouting America's is a shorter youth-protection piece.

The next thing to happen will be Judge Silverstein setting an oral argument date in the next few weeks. After that will be her written ruling, then the Trust can proceed with distributing the funds.

If everything goes fast, it would mean an extra 1% in September. If everything goes slow, could be November or early next year. This is outside of the $211m interest and non-settling insurers issues that are being argued separately.

First, I am a Pro se claimant and not an attorney. I am not paid to do this and all work is provided openly to the community.

- -

Second, everyone in this sub has some version of the same question. Nobody has a clean answer because the number depends on a hundred moving pieces: the FCR ruling, the $211M interest motion, the Comprehensive Coverage Action against the non-settling insurers, remaining property sales, art auctions, and how many claims ultimately get determined. Guessing gets tiring.

I built an interactive tool that lets you set each of those variables yourself and see the effect on the total Trust pool and on your individual claim. It's grounded in actual filings (D.I. 592, D.I. 553, the July 2023 complaint) and the latest Trustee updates, so the baseline numbers are real. Everything above that is a scenario you control.

You can toggle each insurer group in or out, slide their recovery from none to max, adjust the FCR ruling from 4.7% to 5.7%, model the $211M interest recovery, change the total claimant count, add or remove a future claims reserve, and enter your own allowed claim amount. It updates live. Four preset scenarios (Conservative, Base, Optimistic, Max) if you don't want to fiddle.

To be clear: this is a model, not a prediction.

Individual insurer exposure estimates are grouped by corporate family and approximated from the industry-standard CGL policy stacks the Trust is pursuing. The point isn't to promise you a number. It's to move from "no idea" to "if these things happen, this is roughly what it means for me." It also does not take into account any overly optimistic scenarios.

Link: see comment below

Corrections, missing insurers, or better exposure data welcome. If your allowed claim came in above or below the $584K matrix average, adjust that field before reading any of the projections.

Dashboard link: I'll post in a comment below, apparently cannot post links :/ (preview image above)

First, I am a Pro se claimant and not an attorney. I am not paid to do this and all work is provided openly to the community.

- -

I built a table of every Local Council that committed property to the Settlement Trust per Docket 7515. 83 councils, $109.7M committed in property value. Each row is clickable and expands to show the camp, confirmed street address, status (sold, listed, retained, protected, cancelled, unconfirmed), Google Maps link, LoopNet search, ProPublica 990 lookup, and a news search.

Honestly, after a lot of digging I feel like giving up at this point; it is just such a small amount to collect (0.2% of total Trust) when valued against the tens of thousands of fellow claimants.

Where things stand now:

• 79 of 83 properties have confirmed street addresses
• 10 sold, 2 currently listed, 1 protected by conservation easement (Buckeye, Camp McKinley), 1 cancelled via endowment carve-out (Grand Canyon), 4 retained, 1 partial sold, 1 partial, 63 disposition unconfirmed
• ~$44M collected to date against $109.7M committed, leaving roughly $65M unaccounted

Three important data points that have been found/shared:

1. Connecticut Yankee (#072) Deer Lake was sold to Pathfinders Inc in 2022 for preservation, status corrected from retained to sold
2. Buffalo Trace (#156) Old Ben Scout Reservation in Winslow IN appears redeveloped as Old Ben AquaPark, status corrected to sold
3. Ozark Trails (#306) is credited in Exhibit X with S-F Scout Ranch, but S-F is publicly owned by Greater St. Louis Area Council. Possible attribution error worth surfacing to STAC
4. Grand Canyon (#010) announced plans to sell Camp Geronimo plus 10 acres of Heard Scout Pueblo to meet a ~$7M settlement obligation, but the disposition I have on file is "cancelled" based on public "outcry." Either the council substituted cash from its endowment for the property contribution, or the sales actually went through and the dashboard status is stale. Anyone close to Arizona scouting who can confirm which version is accurate, please weigh in

What I'm asking anyones help in researching:

• Corrections on any council, especially the 63 marked unconfirmed
• Active or archived MLS, LoopNet, Crexi, or auctioneer URLs I haven't found
• Recorded sale prices, buyer names, deed dates
• Local knowledge on whether retained camps are actually operating or quietly being marketed
• Anyone with documents showing what their council reported to the trust versus what they actually delivered