Jump to content

elitts

Moderators
  • Content Count

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

elitts last won the day on April 16

elitts had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

267 Excellent

About elitts

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan
  • Occupation
    Assessor
  • Interests
    Woodworking, Making Syrup, Baking, Games, Anime, Buying/Selling stuff, Debating, Poker, getting a kid through school, Scouting
  • Biography
    Born,
    grew up,
    married,
    had a kid,
    divorced,
    living life.

Recent Profile Visitors

1710 profile views
  1. This is nonsense with absolutely zero basis in either the YP rules or common sense.
  2. This depends on your perspective. I don't know if these camps were ever really self-sufficient, but it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't. I think a good summer camp is important enough to the experience that I don't mind a LC running a money losing camp, where you run into a problem is when you have a state like Michigan where we have so many camps that they are all losing money, while if you shut down 1/4-1/3 of them and re-shuffle the scouts to fill up the remaining camps, they'd all be in the black. I get the sense that in many councils the camp reservations have often born the br
  3. The issue with generalized discussion of attorneys in this thread revolves entirely around avoiding flaring tempers and hijacking of the thread, not protecting the reputation/honor of the field. Discussion of specific attorneys and their actions is permitted because some of the attorneys in this case are operating well beyond the standard role being a court representative/advocate for a client and so their actions may have a bearing on how things shake out. Whether or not someone says something that could be considered libelous isn't really a concern. That said, I have deleted your more
  4. I meant what criminal conspiracy that the evidence we have thus far actually supports. The only one of those that you could even come close to with any of the statements or evidence I've heard of would be "Child Endangerment" but even that would be one hell of a stretch. Personally, I REALLY wish they had been able to file charges in at least a couple of places. With as widespread as the "whack a mole" priest shuffling was, I simply can't believe that there wasn't some kind of instructions in place making that a quasi-official church policy. Even if they couldn't make the charges s
  5. As someone else mentioned, competency in bankruptcy litigation is what advisors are for, but there's no getting around the fact that someone (or some group) has to represent the masses based upon that advice. And while a cut-throat attorney may offer excellent advice on navigating a situation like this, the whole purpose of having a committee to represent the victims is that you actually need people with the viewpoint of a survivor. That simply isn't a mindset that a non-survivor attorney could effectively channel. And since I'm assuming that these guys had a choice in the matter and we
  6. Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads. Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.
  7. I totally get why they'd be pissed off, but by the same token, I just can't fathom ANY way they could possibly have been included once the number of claims started skyrocketing. I mean, it took months to get a single additional group (the LCs) looked at and participating and that's a relatively homogenous group of organizations. Trying to add in every CO that wants in on top of that just seems like it would have been entirely unworkable.
  8. This is one of those areas where it's hard (for me at least) to know how to approach the issue. Whenever I see someone making impassioned but incorrect statements I always have to argue with myself about correcting them. I'm always trying to decide "does this person actually want correct information or do they just want a chance to express their feelings?". On top of that, my second thought is usually, "regardless of whether or not the commenter wants/needs to be corrected, would leaving it alone result in other people getting incorrect information, and would that matter?" So sometimes
  9. No, a copyright violation doesn't require selling or a monetary exchange. Someone duplicating a copyrighted work and distributing it for free would be a violation as well. However, the nature of the use and the impact of the use on the market or the value of the copyrighted work DOES factor into the evaluation of the "Fair Use" defense to copyright infringement accusations. But in the context of my comment, all I was really trying to convey is that if someone is considering making patrol patches or a troop patch that isn't going to be distributed, they don't really need to be concerned
  10. We had a patrol that wanted to use that patch for their intended "Sniper Patrol". The argument being that the blank patch was appropriate since "you never see a good sniper". But in the end the name got nixed by the SM on the grounds of "let's not name a patrol after a job dedicated to killing people".
  11. If I'm dragging some conversations from business school up accurately, one reason why companies tend to be over-zealous about protecting their trademarks/copyrights even in fairly minor cases is that their ability to use the courts to redress violations depends on their having actively protected their interests in the past. In other words, if they were to simply ignore small-time patch producers now, they could very well have problems getting a judge to protect their interests against a similar sized producer in the future. I don't remember if that issue is one written into the law or si
  12. I just want to clarify for those reading, it's the production of patches by a commercial business that is the trademark/copyright violation, NOT the wearing of the patch by a scout. If some parent makes a dozen patrol patches for the use of their own troop and isn't selling them, that will generally not run afoul copyright protections.
  13. This depends in large part upon the Den Leaders and Cubmaster. I know that when my son was a cub 6-7 years ago, he wasn't bored generally. Some of the Den meetings were a little boring when it was the "talk about it" style, but as long as many of the meetings involve going to do something they stay pretty engaged. The biggest issue is when Cubmasters start doing "parent" announcements and discussions at Pack Meetings while the scouts are expected to sit and listen. When I was CM I'd do a minute or two of "What to expect soon" with the Cubs sitting and listening, then I'd send them out to p
  14. Regardless of #2, I absolutely guarantee that #1 was a factor. There's no way the constant stream of record keeping problems I've seen discussed on here are new issues. Actually it really isn't, it's about keeping the courts from being burdened with cases that are practically impossible to actually litigate with confidence in the result because so much time has passed. SoL were invented well before the personhood of corporations and before the advent of the large class-action lawsuit with crazy awards. If a bad plan is likely to get you more money than no plan, the bad
  15. The problem I see with that list isn't so much the number of employees, it's the amount of "senior leadership". There are 22 people with titles that would indicate "senior leadership" out of a staff of 56, and that excludes the District Executives. To my eyes, that's WAY to many leadership positions for a staff that size. Of course without salaries and job descriptsions it's hard to know if they are truly "executive level" staff or if the councils simply suffer from title inflation the way banks do. But to provide some contrast, I work in a similar sized organization. It's a local gov
×
×
  • Create New...