DavidLeeLambert

In prior years (five-ish years ago, give or take), my council required Cub Scout Day Camp "walkers" (an adult whose job was to walk around with a provisional den, typically the once including their kid, and make sure no one wandered off) to have a certificate of YPT completion, but did not requre them to be registered with any unit. But I haven't looked at the fine print of those policies for the current year yet. My son's troop already had a policy that any adult wishing to attend more than 72 hours of cumulative camping time had to be registered with the BSA (hence also YPT trained), e

As far as I know, not with any of the current units I am registered with, but: My younger kids' pack switched COs at the end of 2020, from a public school's "Parent Council" to a church Several boys joined my older sons' troop after the CO of their prior troop (a Catholic parish) was dissolved, mid-2020 (and the parish's dissolution was announced in late 2019) Another troop (or at least one boy and its Scoutmaster) has been meeting with our troop for over a year now because the fire-station where they used to meet has been closed to outside groups since the beginning of the C

A couple other ways of looking at those numbers... The number of LDS Scouts at the end of 2019 was about 400 thousand (Salt Lake Tribune article), so that's about $625 per ultimate-year boy. That would have been almost 20 years of registration-fees at the 2019 rates, or probably fees for another 5 or 10 years as they've gone up (and will go up) since, or possibly more than the sum total of all registration fees ever paid before. It's also a fair complete-program cost (one Council camp or High Adventure trip, several weekend activities, literature, supplies, etc.) for one boy that year.

So these actually hit the docket before the Town Hall, but the Debtors have filed two more motions asking for approval of non-abuse litigation settlements... Romero Settlement Agreement https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cf68ebd7-41b0-42a5-99db-2d6986b00ccc_6155.pdf Knight Settlement Agreement https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/73c61cbd-1db3-4158-a1b7-1a5f7cd21eaf_6154.pdf The Knight case was discussed on this forum when the lawsuit was first filed, and I believe it was mentioned in one of the bankruptcy threads but I'm hav

Minor quibble: the 7th group was a uniform sampling across all claims NOT in the earlier groups. See the Neumann declaration, D.I.1972 attachment 6 page 3 (page 77 of the PDF): "We then sorted the Abuse Claims by this random number. [...] We then limited the remaining claims on the randomly sorted list to those that were not coded into any of the six sub-categories and selected the first 200 claims from that group." Did she say something that hinted that, or is that just your guess?

It's possible that this is what happened: Your friends contacted the Council Council told them to submit a claim They submitted claims They were then randomly cold-called (or cold-texted, or cold-emailed) by AIS intake specialists with slack time. (I was never cold-called, but maybe they were in the "absolute optimum" demographic, 60-year-old veterans with youth Scouting mentioned on their resume, or something like that.) During their responses to the cold-calls, they admitted (or insufficiently failed to conceal) that they had already filed claims. The AIS intake

A potential claimant has made a motion to the court requesting leave to file a claim, notwithstanding the Bar Date. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/08d00d9b-f3d7-4e65-b923-2860ee591eaa_6108.pdf He says he saw some of the attorney advertisements last fall, but not the part about the Bar Date; and that he was never actually served with any notice of the case by the debtors. (In other words, the noticing program didn't really reach him.) He currently lives in Pennsylvania, but grew up in New Jersey, an "open window" state. Also, "certain insurers" (America

Started at a little after 10:00. The parties had agreed on what to admit as evidence from depositions over the weekend, so Mosby and Ownsby will not be testifying. Recess at about 10:30 until 12:00, when oral argument will resume.

A couple of developments in the case... 1. I thought I had posted the first half of this one before, but can't find it. A creditor committee in the bankruptcy of the Archbishop of Agaña (a Catholic diocese in Guam; filed for bankruptcy in January 2019) had filed a joinder to the TCC's objection to the Disclosure Statement. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8705b18d-18f3-4edd-aaaf-e1638ffaddc5_4321.pdf Then the Archdiocese itself filed a joinder to an objection to the RSA. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dbd1e21b-96ba-40eb-91

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6b679ab4-343c-45fc-97b1-a29861a0deec_5971.pdf Actually, that's not the first, nor the last, of at least a half-dozen objections on the docket that make basically the same argument... down to the table of council with assets above $30 million in paragraph 21. For example, see D.I.5967 and D.I.5968. That is a good summary. I would add, in some cases, a claim against "facilities" place F. I think the case of some units regularly meeting at a place that was not owned by the Chartering Organization was already more common t

Hence the requirements in YPT (and similar training I had to go through for my church) that adults take an initial youth report of anything that sounds like abuse at face value, and personally report it to the authorities; and report anything that looks like deliberate or careless noncompliance with the rules internally within the organization. But there's a difference between taking a child's report at face value for the purposes of starting an investigation and taking immediate steps to make sure the child is safe on the one hand, and being completely credulous about a story that has la

There are a couple of things going on here: When the insurance companies first tried to serve Kosnoff, they tried to serve him at his Texas office address (the one on his Washington registration) and at a marina in Puerto Rico where he was believed to keep his yacht. They did not accomplish personal service at either place, and in their report of the attempts they noted that he's not licensed to practice in either of those jurisdictions. Kosnoff's divorce papers require him to pay spousal support to his ex-wife as long as he continues to practice law. Before the end of 2019, he sen

So I saw a story in my feed about a (non-Scout) summer camp in New Hampshire that ended its season near the end of the first week... The ‘Fyre Fest’ of overnight camps closed after 6 days https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/22/metro/fyre-fest-overnight-camps-closes-after-6-days/?utm_source=pocket-newtab Maybe it's just a badly-run private camp, but my own son's Council-run Scout Camp could have had to shut down like that mid-season this summer (although the price for two weeks at the camp in the story is ten times the cost of a week at the Council camp). Barely a couple w

So Thursday July 22nd was the deadline to object to the Restructuring Support Agreement as such (rather than to the Plan and Disclosure more generally). Several parties did so, including the estate of a deceased Non-Abuse Litigation claimant [D.I.5711], the Catholic and Methodist Ad-Hoc Committees jointly [D.I.5676], the LDS Church [D.I.5674] joined by the Episcopal Church [D.I.5677], and about 250 abuse claimants represented by about a half-dozen firms [D.I.5682, plus a few joinders]. However, the biggest objections are from Century. Redacted versions appeared on the docket on Friday.

An attorney representing three abuse plaintiffs in three separate cases in the State of New York has filed a motion to allow the stay to be lifted, only for the purpose of adding a Chartered Organization to each case before the Statute of Limitations window closes again. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f8deaeb1-fb2c-4f3d-9e67-434ca96e5d0b_5582.pdf Case 806601/2020 in Erie County. Against the Greater Niagara Frontier Council and alleged abuser Robert L Eberhardt. Adding Rescue Volunteer Hose Company No 1 of Cheektowaga, NY. Victim born about 1968, abu

The insurance companies' implication, and a plausible suspicion, is that the specific claims and lawyers they've highlighted are only the ones who were sloppy enough to get caught. A lawyer who waited five minutes between cursorily signing claim forms, or who used a VPN when signing, might not have showed up in their first analysis. And there are still thousands of claimants who didn't specify a CO, and almost 40,000 where the claimant mentioned a CO but the alleged Council (or National, for post-1999 claims) has checked their rosters and finds no record of the claimant ever being regist

An attorney has filed his appearance on behalf of several Knights of Columbus chapters. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2872d939-b08b-4f90-980e-b5693a7dcf64_5534.pdf And BSA has filed a response to a "Third-party" (probably an abuse claimant) who filed a motion to correct his address on court records. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f589e0f3-6983-4092-9b4e-94c660a43986_5532.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c66ef068-8ebf-4569-80df-8c86c6dc1a9d_5348.pdf Motion says "On [date] the Third-party

Well, BSA did mention the DC revival in their First Day Motions Informational Brief [D.I. 4], filed on the first day of the case, page 5: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/799040_4.pdf "In January 2020, for example, a group of plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the District’s recent revival-window legislation permits plaintiffs to bring previously time-barred claims, regardless of where the abuse occurred or where the plaintiff resides. [footnote: See Does 1-8 v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 20-00017 (RJL)

So I can't cite the exact Plan page from memory, but I believe it said that each claim would be classified based on the most-serious incident of abuse, and the openness bucket would be based on any state in which the claim "could have been" presented in civil court. I would interpret that in favor of the claimant, so that if there's a connection between the claim and two states, one more-open that the other, the more-open one would count; but if the TDP could be interpreted otherwise, that might be something to object to before it's sent out for vote. Where it gets tricky is when the most

Slight update on the rosters... May 19th was the "Roster Production Date", when BSA and Councils shared some information with the TCC and the Coalition. In turn, TCC shared some summary files with counsel for claimants (and with self-represented claimants). I've done some analysis on those files. Out of roughly 82,500 non-duplicate claims (and claim numbers up to 106665), there were 40392 claims that Councils checked against their records. (The others might have not specified a Council, or specified only a post-1999 claim, or specified a council that didn't even bother searching

As you note, the TCC mentioned at an earlier town hall that there were at least some cases where a claimant had left the council blank, and more or less stated the CO in the narrative for the corresponding field, and it had been coded as "Unknown" in the file they received. The same could have happened on a few forms for the council. And not all councils are statewide. Some are, or were, only a single city, or only a few counties. When I was a boy, I was part of the Detroit Area Council based on the address of the CO when it first registered the unit... but then the CO moved and met at a

One more non-abuse claim withdrawn, and the attorneys who represented the claimant are withdrawing from the case as well. "Estate of Sherrye Howell", claim #225, $750,000. D.I 5404, 5405, 5406. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a20977fe-b5a0-4d58-9ab4-712ae5741f6f_5406.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/bed8d7fa-e731-44e7-bf84-c75d421d9a6a_5405.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f8668973-8308-4b67-a726-d6202241d0db_5404.pdf

In short, no, GSUSA will not have a claim against the trust under the draft plan. They discuss (and complain about) their treatment in an Objection to an earlier draft plan, D.I.3579... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6740a91f-c56d-41f6-aeb6-0ffbd851a3b7_3579.pdf p. 6: "Specifically, the Disclosure Statement lacks information necessary to understand the feasibility of the Plan, the basis for the classification and treatment of Girl Scouts’ claims when compared to other Non-Abuse Litigation Claims." p. 7: "Unlike the Convenience Claims and the General U

Who are the additional parties? Your (ex-) local council, or (ex-) chartered organization? A new official committee? An insurer? Or someone else? Basically, if it's what I think it is, it means that the lawyers (and perhaps even other personnel) for the additional specified party or parties can read the full details of your claim. They're still not supposed to share it further, or publish it to the world.

For those trying to use the 84,000 as the metric for the amount of abuse in BSA, this is once again a reminder that number should NOT be used and was/is an undercount. The 82,500 doesn't include victims who are dead and didn't tell their story to an heir, or who didn't see the advertisements or didn't connect them to their abuse, or who just chose to stay out of the bankruptcy for some reason. But I wouldn't assume so quickly that the the 82,500 should be immediately doubled, either. Consider: The TCC's numbers released in March show 2,970 cases in Michigan. It's possible B