Eagle1993

The docket is bursting today with documents. A lot of discovery requests all around. Several now pulling in individual COs (specific churches, etc.).

Subpoena by Zalkin served against a variety of councils and COs including churches, schools, Etc. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/02f5f86d-8578-44db-b1e2-ba2559be6308_6549.pdf

I actually am shocked by some parents. Parents that barely slow down their car to drop a kid off at a park or building not even checking to see if any leader is present. I’ve shown up at meeting places in empty buildings to find a loan scout there who was dropped off by a parent (I told him I had to leave the building until another leader arrived). We don’t mandate YPT for all parents but sometimes I wonder if we should.

Per BSA Rules & Regulations Policy Concerning Political Questions The Boy Scouts of America must not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, chartered councils, Scouters, or members, involve Scouting in political matters. However, this must not be interpreted to prevent the teaching of ideals of patriotism and good citizenship as required to fulfill the Boy Scouts of America’s purpose. Faith-based teachings incorporated into the Scouting program by religious chartered organizations in a manner consistent with the Bylaws are not considered political matters. This po

So a similar timeline for BSA would be April 2023.

Major points that I heard on the TCC townhall. . 1) LCs can pay a LOT more ... 3X current offer and still be fine financially. 2) BSA screwed up with Hartford. Once this deal is rejected, that deal goes away. Hartford risk is >>>>> more than what was committed. 3) This plan sucks 4) 18,000 claims are post YPT implementation. The non financial aspect was watered down in this plan, that will change (focus is on oversight & IV files). 5) LDS offer is too low 6) BSA offer is ok, but only because they hid money all over the place, making it diffic

Very interesting update during the TCC townhall regarding the vote: Per bankruptcy code, 66% of each claimant class must approve the plan. That means, 66% of the voters must approve the plan (not 66% of 82,000, but 66% of the votes). Now the kicker... BSA LCs & LDS are not in bankruptcy. Therefore, the passing floor will actually be higher. In some cases that is 75% and other cases it is 90%. So, the bare minimum is 66%; however, the court will likely need to see a much higher percent vote for the plan if LCs & LDS (non bankruptcy groups) are included. Thi

Not sure. I clicked the hide all and then Facebook went down for half a day.

I do not believe that is a fair comment. While I believe some LCs can definitely afford more, there is clearly the FCR & Coalition who believe the deal is appropriate. So, I don't think this is someone defending the BSA/LCs at all costs. We can disagree on the amount, but this is not someone asking for a $0 settlement. It is an offer. If there is anger by claimants, I would direct it more at the coalition lawyers and FCR. Again, I am one who believes many LCs could (and probably should) pay more to get out of this bankruptcy alive. I think the vote could fail and is likely

This appears, at least to me, similar to the debates over adding girls, gay scouts and gay youth. I generally agree that for the most part, few if any will be swayed either way by the back and forth. Hopefully it can be done in a scoutlike manner so at minimum you have the benefit of learning where each side is coming from. This is a tough debate. There is simply not enough money to go around. BSA even if liquidated including all of its LCs could not come close to what is really needed to pay victims. In addition, many of us want BSA to survive and we know BSA was not in great shape

I think this is true for all attorneys involved, except the coalition attorneys. Perhaps they are, but I'm not fully convinced.

Let's let the forum member respond. I think there is enough room for many views regarding this topic.

This document has a pretty good way to help determine "fairness" by council. Exhibit G is the TCC's summary and Exhibit G-1 is BSA's response. Clearly fair is a personal opinion, but the two sides make arguments in this document. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

On a personal note, my Troop's summer camp was sold due to this bankruptcy. At the closing ceremony grown men cried as it was the last summer camp closing they would be attending at that camp. I have ashes from that camp fire in my office. So, it is painful in many cases as this is being repeated nationwide. I know many councils seemed to have lack of money going into this bankruptcy. That said, when I see the actual council finances on display, by blood starts to boil. It is clear that many councils sat on huge endowments/investments, claimed they were poor and sold camps. So, to

BSA is putting the future of BSA in this 1 basket. When a law firm of 10 lawyers represents 16,000 claimants ... I expect the news can play a bigger role than you think. But perhaps it is correct that the offer by many LCs is not defendable so why try.

A bit more about LC comments to the media. Going back to our 10 largest councils. Articles in these states will be rough (you can see Cascade Pacific has already appeared in an article, and they were the best out of our top 10 in terms of contributions. It is tough to argue that claimants who will get $9,000 for being raped as a child is a fair payout when Sam Huston, our largest council, is keeping 95.6% of their assets. The biggest issue will be local articles in grey states. I expect councils in the grey states contributed less and the claimants are receiving less i

Probably depends on the LC. New York can go with #1. Sam Huston #3. But expect Sam Huston to get killed in the press (if an article appears in Texas).

Then they are about to be killed in the press. They talked before, all the time. Each said the same thing… National is going bankrupt there is no impact to councils or units. Now no comment? They need to defend their settlement offers. If they cannot, then the articles are fair and I think the vote is more likely to fail. Seeing article after article in local TV and newspapers talking about low settlements, local councils offering low percentages of their net assets and victims talking how this is negatively impacting then with no counter from LCs will impact the votes of claiman

I think most adults will be in the same boat. I would expect self declared vaccinations would work hopefully. I know some clearances require serology testing to prove vaccinations but that seems a bit much here.

I understand your point and it is valid, but the failure is on the LCs. I actually don’t have an issue with Kosnoff in these articles. My issue is why did the LCs refuse to comment? The Seattle times reached out. That would have been a great opportunity to say look what we do for kids today and any further payment would severely hurt our ability to function. No comment allows articles to be one sided. BSA better have their LC PR groups better prepared in the future. Below was in the Times article The Chief Seattle Council, Pacific Harbors Council and Moun

I guess I ask how are they skewed? Do you mean he is pointing out the low end of the settlements? The numbers published are correct and are similar to other news stories. (In fact, the Seattle times shows a higher number for rape in a close state than what BSA is claiming. In reality, the pay outs are historically low and many councils are keeping the vast majority of their assets, which is why so many claimants are upset with this plan and taking this message to the media. Here are the numbers in the Seattle Times article A rape claim against the Boy Scouts might entitle a

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Hearst owned media based on his Twitter updates.

Is anyone still working with Scoutlander? I have an issue I would like them to fix and have not been able to get a response. My Troop doesn't use Scoutlander and the public contact info seems to not go anywhere.

My understanding is on the asset side, everything is sold for the benefit of or transferred directly to creditors. Every HA camp, all intellectual property/trademarks, etc. Everything. So, Eagle Scout rank ... I expect that would be sold. Possible buyers (Trail Life, GSUSA, some new WOSM org, private company that would want to profit from it somehow). Philmont would be sold. Yes, a tycoon could come up with $70M and buy it and save it for scouting (hopefully). I believe liquidation will not occur, even if the vote fails. The tone and actions of the judge makes me think this is

Since he made it public, if you are interested: text him at 425-830-8201 with "yes" and your phone number/email address You do not have to be a AIS client; however, if you are not you should clear this with your lawyer first.