Eagle1993

I think the question is ... who didn't enforce YPT in this pack. How did the adult gain access to the youth? Were there trained leaders present at these outings that did not enforce YPT? How was the youth allowed to attend without parents? Per G2SS, the youth must have had 1 adult responsible for him while he attended. Who was that adult? Did the charter organization provide sufficient oversight of the unit? Were all leaders registered and trained in YPT? Were they aware of the outing and that a youth attended without his parents? Do they some how ensure the unit follows G2SS? Is there anything the district or camp should have noticed with this unit? Did they have prior YPT violations? We simply do not have the information, but there are a lot of rules and procedures in place that should have prevented this.

I deleted my post after seeing this. BSA is quoted as evaluating their 72 hour rule...

There is a screenshot in the docket above where an individual submitted a ballot to K.R. that they selected Reject and the receipt from K.R. states Approve. If true ... wow.

Unredacted .. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1258d52d-5524-45e6-ab56-3e9ea4d55115_7643.pdf Um... a LOT of questions about the eBallot coming out including one claim that the ballot was chaning his vote. A lot of emails in this link.

TCC had several experts in valuation, CSA, pensions, etc. provide all parties documentation on their findings December 5. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2f3a34bc-a344-4d23-8b4a-3db3479c6aeb_7640.pdf

The court as officially opened up Kosnoff's deposition. It sounds like some documents that were redacted may be updated on the docket. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/701b1aa0-2bbf-4897-8dc1-a94b6d7bfeda_7641.pdf

There is no legal basis to file a lawsuit. The Supreme Court already ruled on Dale v BSA. I don't see this even getting to the supreme court and if it somehow did there is 0% they would overrule Dale. BSA is a private organization. They can decide who they accept as members. Now even with co-ed troops there is complexity. Do you have a transgender girl tent with another girl? What about bathrooms/showers that are shared? I'm personally a fan of co-ed troops, and honestly most of the girl Troops I see operate that way. That said, this is complex and BSA will probably need to keep working on guidelines/rules. I expect this will vary based on where you live. If you live in an area with other co-ed Troops you are probably going to be ok remaining male only. I haven't seen any pressure at the Pack level to force packs to go co-ed in my area. Perhaps because we have many Packs that accept girls. Now, that said, if you have no co-ed Troops in the area, I could see the council starting to pressure some of the all boy Troops to consider being co-ed. I also wouldn't be surprised, if eventually, BSA would require all new units to be co-ed. I'm personally a fan of allowing all boy, all girl and co-ed BSA Troops. I trust the leaders of units to determine what is best for their scouts. I especially see benefits for allowing all boy Troops to continue as there are many boys who wouldn't be comfortable in a co-ed Troop. If BSA does open up co-ed Troops, I hope they respect the wishes of units looking to remain boy only.

1) She will lose any lawsuit, so no need to waste $. 2) Gender is complex. Right now, BSA has Troops separated by gender (boy Troops and girl Troops). If a youth identifies as a girl, then they must be in a girl Troop. She should be treated like any other girl and since there is no girl Troop then loan scout is her only option. Now ... as I mentioned, gender is more complex. I have a scout who identifies as non binary. Actually, I am seeing more non binary youth than transgender. We have handled their gender as their initial gender they registered with. I think the debate goes back to if we should have coed Scout BSA units. I prefer that we allow that as an option, but given our current rules/model, the unit/council took the correct action.

This AP story includes a quote from the first mediator and why he resigned. Carey refused comment. Another mediator, Paul Finn, resigned three weeks ago. Finn told The Associated Press afterward that he resigned because of “philosophical differences that have existed for some time with other parties and can no longer be reconciled.” https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article256415931.html

A couple of quick updates from the docket today: The judge granted TCC's request to shorten the time notice period regarding the request to have AIS provide their claimants a single summary stating the various law firm's views. The hearing will be Dec 14. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9b4fd7cb-ba8a-4818-ae3d-6ca81d2e3694_7612.pdf TCC Townhall Dec 9 ... they will cover voting extension, communication between TCC/counsels, mediation update and their goals. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3296e7df-f694-408d-a5c2-d7ae47a64a5e_7613.pdf

TCC has withdrawn their request for an ombudsman for voting and agreed that no further delay is required. They are pushing the judge to require AIS law firms to submit a single coordinated letter to their clients. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/05872c48-7a98-426a-b467-cdf731af043b_7601.pdf

Sounds like the coalition canceled their Townhall tonight.

It could explain why she seems so upset. Not emotional, but clearly not happy with having to take action. She found his name in the 620 page supplement BSA filed November 30. She must have read that entire document as no one objected to Carey. Very impressive.

If bankruptcies have momentum, today seemed like a big swing to the TCC. A coalition lawfirm lost their fight to keep some of their communications sealed. They fought hard and even had AVA (who seems to do nothing in this case) file agreements. The judge ruled against them. Then to see the BSA be slapped for using a mediator in their plan .. can't be good for them. I'll be curious to see if we see the reason KR fought so hard to keep them private. If I were to guess what is happening based on the last few hearings. Vote is not going BSA's way. If it were, they would NOT have delayed the deadline. The schedule was critical to them ... and now they are open to delays? In addition, do I really think Coalition lawyers would be calling up no votes and spending 20-30 minutes begging one person to vote yes if the vote was going well? I expect the total votes coming in (including master ballots) is very low. This would follow other similar cases. In addition, the votes coming in are not at the 66%+ needed (which is why the are spending a LOT of time with individual claimants. Meditation with TCC is picking up and improving. I expect that means the local council contribution may be back on the table (I don't see much more from National). There have been multiple references to mediation starting to go well. It was mentioned at the TCC townhall. It was mentioned today in court. The judge is calling balls & strikes ... and just called two strikes on the BSA/Coalition. Will KR now start stepping back knowing his communications, even going forward, could easily end up on the court docket? Will he start being concerned about keeping a law license given complaints that are starting to be filed in PA? Mediators are now pretty much out of the picture ... so it seems like it will be Mono vs Mono (BSA vs TCC). Remember, the mediator who seemed to question the direction previously resigned ... it seems like mediator change was against the BSA.

She was clearly upset. Note that NO ONE brought this up ... she found it and ruled on her own. It wasn't even on the agenda. It seemed to be a clear shot across the bow of BSA & Coalition. They probably need to relook at who is leading the Trust right now. That will cause some questions later on.

Hearing is done. Silence.

Kevin J Carey ... was appointed was approved instead of Mr. Green. Judges MUST disqualify themselves if their impartiality is in question. Judge is NOT HAPPY with Mr. Carey. Having him as the initial special reviewer, she thought about terminating mediation. There is 1 mediator left. Parties can continue outside of mediation. Mr. Carey is OUT> Good for the judge.

Plan supplement filed Nov 30, Exhibit I ... identifies initial special reviewer. That was never part of any discussion. Kevin J Carey ... one of the mediators. NOPE ... she is rejecting that selection. Mediation neutrality is under question by the judge. Carey now as a stake on the outcome of the mediation. Uh Oh.

Judge ruling on AVA & KR request to keep their communication sealed. Judge ruled against them. Tim Kosnoff's deposition will not be sealed. The client waived privilege she said and Kosnoff had clear evidence of them waving privilege. She believes the clients gave informed consent. Kosnoff specifically asked the clients to waive privilege. This does not mean it is waived in other documents that could be found in future discovery. This means we will see the emails referenced. No claw back. Others can now use this as they need. There could be legal/ethics issues ... but that is for the future.

I think the U.S. Trustee objected to the plan, but didn't object to the vote. His main objection was against electronic communication only (he demanded paper be mailed). I expect the U.S. Trustee has decided the plan (or at least aspects of the plan) is not acceptable and is ready to argue about it during confirmation. Now, since the judge sent the plan for vote, I expect she is ready to accept this plan (or at least the structure of it) if it gets a major yes vote even over the U.S. Trustee's objections.

First ... I'm shocked that the judge allowed the voting to push out but the objection dates to remain. That doesn't seem right. I remember she questioned the old dates as being a tight timeline between vote & confirmation ... this smells a bit fishy. Second ... ER sounds like he is very concerned if this is released ... I wonder what he is hiding.

Could you explain? Is the judge upset? Was this during the hearing or just the docket?

Did they push out all dates 2 weeks?

Again, if the numbers were smaller (like 5% of the claims) I think it could likely be ignored. I don't think they would sway the vote and would probably take a very small portion of the money. I definitely could see a small percent, even after working with lawyers, wouldn't be able to narrow down some details. I am now very concerned as it seems like this number may be much larger. I also expect that some law firms didn't do much if any vetting of the claims (or even help fill them out). A good lawyer would have sat down with the claimant. Asked questions about where they lived/grew up/went to school/etc. Eventually, you probably have enough info to add in a council at minimum. Eventually, even COs, unit numbers, etc. The areas I think must be questioned right now. 1) The $3500 payment. It will be good to see how many are taking that $3500. Lets say 50,000 take the $3500 payment. That is $175M. To me, that is too much. That payment should be $1.5K or less. 2) Voting ... I think those taking the immediate payment should be considered a separate class. I expect those not taking the $3500 are probably more likely to have valid claims and perhaps indicate where the true abusers stand in relation to the settlement. 3) Law firms with claims without basic info should be questioned and perhaps punished if found to be signing off on unvetted claims. If you are a law firm with 18,000 claims .... you should be hiring enough lawyers to sit down with every one of your claimants to discuss their case and claims. I really think some law firms got in over the heads on this and are not managing the case at all ... and now are just looking to get out with a quick payout.