Jump to content

Open Discussion - Program

Share Scouting Topics here.


Subforums

  1. Scouts with Disabilities

    Where parents and scouters go to discuss unique aspects to working with kids with special challenges.

    747
    posts
  2. Going to the next Jamboree?

    A place to chat about Scouting's biggest gathering

    2.8k
    posts

9231 topics in this forum

    • 3 replies
    • 788 views
    • 1 reply
    • 680 views
  1. Eagle Pattern/Model

    • 5 replies
    • 982 views
  2. AOL/Klondike Derby

    • 4 replies
    • 760 views
  3. non official uniforms?

    • 2 replies
    • 818 views
  4. New Forums Added

    • 0 replies
    • 760 views
    • 1 reply
    • 838 views
    • 3 replies
    • 861 views
    • 0 replies
    • 652 views
  5. best way of disiplin

    • 1 reply
    • 772 views
  6. Wood Badge Forum?

    • 2 replies
    • 917 views
    • 14 replies
    • 1.5k views
  7. uniforms

    • 1 reply
    • 732 views
    • 0 replies
    • 609 views
  8. Uniform

    • 4 replies
    • 1.1k views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • I wanted to separate out some of the questions about the relationship between LCs, National, and what property rights each might have in the LC assets. I'm going to go back about three pages in the Part 3 thread and move some relevant posts over here.  (I hope.  I've never tried this before.)
    • It's a partnership.  A&B in business together.  A can't ditch B without recompense, but if B fails, that does not mean A is forced to go down with the ship.  A can find ways to survive and continue.  If anything, A has a claim against B for impact to A's business.   Perhaps the LCs should counter sue in bankruptcy for business impact due to BSA's legal issues.  If BSA goes out of business, LCs should sue for legal rights to the intellectual property they have depended on.  That seems fair.
    • I wasn't really speaking to anyone in particular, in truth.  I think that there's just some surprise from us non-legal folks at the amount of money changing hands without going to the survivors.  I think we can all agree that we want to maximize the payouts to survivors in the hopes that it at least starts to make up for the injury you've suffered.  This happened in Scouting, and Scouting shouldn't have been about that, and it's up to Scouting to make you whole - or, at least, more whole. I would also guess that many of us also hope to minimize the damage to the BSA program.  These goals are, unfortunately, at cross-purposes, at least at face value. Speaking personally, I am surprised that lawyers in such a case would take 40% of the settlement before it reached survivors (or as was mentioned above, 36%).  Is such a large piece of the pie typical for cases like this?   (I know text can disguise meaning, so just know that my questions are sincere and not intended to be leading toward any one conclusion or argument). Goodness, no.  I was legitimately asking what was taking so long.  I haven't followed along as closely as some of you folks, as this whole process has been emotionally draining to me as someone who did have a good experience in the Scouts.  If anything, it looks again as though the BSA presented a second offer which was again viewed as wholly insufficient and insulting to survivors.  But if we all agree on that, that this offer is insufficient, what's holding us up?  Are we waiting for the BSA to bring another offer to the table?  Are we waiting for the judge to rule on what assets can be rightfully classified as restricted?  What's the next step?  (I suppose the answer to that may well be more complicated than I know). Please do read my questions as sincere, which is how I intend them.  This is not an area in which I have any expertise at all, and I don't really know whether this sort of timeline is typical.
    • If you're speaking to me, I don't feel it's my brotherly "duty." Not at all. I do feel it's just right to defend someone/anyone against accusations that aren't backed up by facts. It's easy to cast aspersions. That's my response to that one. Is it "Scout-like" to accuse without proof, even if it's convenient and helps make your point? You guys probably know more about today's standard of Scout-likeness, given my years of absence. I really think you will need to ask your local exec's who'll need to ask their superiors who'll need to ask Mosbey. The BSA controls the stick and rudders on this whole thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been following. IF they were forthcoming and facilitated full disclosure from the jump, many of these hours would not be logged. Right? Are you saying the TCC is resisting progress? Now, I will share my own experience. The first day of law school I told my cohorts I would not practice law for long. Reason? I couldn't see myself tethered to billable hours for the rest of my life and I didn't plan on litigating or owning my own firm. I wanted to figure out what's what and move into a business role. In many respects, I look back with regret that I didn't take the in-house role I was offered with HP immediately after graduation. My life is full of such regrets. Oh, well. I distinctly recall being told, "You only billed X hours on this series of agreements. There's no way you did it that fast. Think about any other time that went into how your structured it, etc." I was once told I could "bill the time you think about it, even on the john." There you have it. I didn't like it. I left after 7 years and helped start an entertainment venture. That said, I will not impugn someone else because I don't know what they're doing. However, I know some of the men on the TCC and they rigorously review all invoices and ensure me/us the professionals are working their tails off.
    • I think we've got a couple of lawyers in here who feel it is their duty to defend their profession from anyone who might attack it.  I don't think anyone is really intending to attack the legal profession, fellas - nor is anyone saying lawyers have never had any value to anyone whatsoever who ever lived in any society throughout all of history. I guess my question is this - to a lot of us on the outside, it looks like the legal teams are just billing, billing, billing, and nothing's getting accomplished.  In the legal profession, is there any reward at all for efficiency?  Why haven't they just moved on and gotten something done yet?   The cynic in me thinks it's because they're still getting paid regardless of whether the case progresses.  If that's true, the logical conclusion, then, is that they have no impetus to conclude the case, so long as they can continue to bill. I think that's the concern that we legal laypeople have about all of this - why isn't anything happening?  From my (limited) perspective, it looks like the BSA has to just keep paying all these legal bills with nothing to show for it and no end in sight. Would one of you fine gentlemen with a legal background care to enlighten those of us who don't understand all of this?
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...