CynicalScouter

Exactly the message is clear: Go away don’t ask for compensation don’t seek justice leave the “poor” BSA alone. Emotional damage is so hard to prove or measure let’s just forget about it. Etc. still waiting for a legal argument as to how or why that flies.

So your legal argument (this is the bankruptcy thread) is if an organization is a non-for profit and does enough good it’s allowed to get way with anything it wants because it has “an overall positive program”? I don’t care if BSA found the cure for cancer. The fact that it may do some good does not give it a legal exemption to tort laws regarding negligence and child sexual abuse.

When you go out of your way to insist the victims of sexual abuse deserve nothing unless they can prove PHYSICAL harm? When you go out of your way to insist the victims of sexual abuse deserve nothing because EMOTIONAL harm isn't a real thing, or isn't something you can be compensated for? Sorts makes me wonder if you do care.

Emotional distress damages are calculated every day in courts all around the nation. It is not a new concept. The tort of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" goes back at least 7 centuries (I de S et ux v. W de S, Y.B. 22 Edw. III, f. 99, pl. 60 (1348).) and is entirely a question of what EMOTIONAL damage a person suffers, not physical. In that instance, a drunk swung or threw an ax at the wife of the tavern owner when told the bar was closed. By sheer dumb luck or because he was too drunk to aim, she wasn't killed in fact not one PHYSICAL harm was done her. Yet the court held

Here is the deal with the LCs. They want to avoid their own bankruptcies? Then they need to pay and pay a LOT more than the pittance they are offering. Stang’s position is to leave LCs with 1) two years operating expenses in savings and cash 2) those camps that are actually being utilized. There are a LOT of camps that remain for nostalgia of a time when councils had 2-10x as many scouts as they do now. And that is it. If the council doesn’t want the deal, fine. They can then wait for the inevitable lawsuits (every single council has live pending sexual abuse claims inside

So, I want to come back to something people have raised and that is the value and assets of LCs. There are two main issues. The first is that the properties are undervalued. The second is that what the LCs insist are "restricted" really are not. The first issue came up in the hearing last week and has been discussed here, namely, that "book value" or real estate appraised value of these properties is absurdly low and that what needs to happen is appraisals. Only, as Stang was somewhat forced to admit, the vast majority of properties HAVE been appraised. There were two main

that’s why you do these broad subpoenas.

The other factor from what I was told is that the LDS was, in effect, subsidizing low fees for years.

Because the subpoena is addressed to the corporate entities, not individuals. Sometimes I've seen subpoenas in state court directed to "Custodian of records, XYZ Corp" or "Accounting Department, XYZ Corp.", but it will never say "Bob Smith as CEO for XYZ Corp."

Fine, here's an interesting move from Century in the bankruptcy. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9fbfe200-8084-4b1d-a659-6786ae8cffd5_6364.pdf They are asking to subpoena records from Stratos Medical Review, LLC Stratos Medical Review (SMR), LP and SCR Oldco GP, LLC, formerly known as Stratos Legal GP, LLC Why interesting? Because the judge, in her order authorizing aggregator depositions and discovery said only "Stratos Legal" https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3b242b2e-f932-4958-b328-48067e1b881a_6184.pdf

There's two issues: 1) If it happened at the time and you reported it to your council, that's really it. National's not going to intervene, certainly not after the fact. 2) If this is continuing to happen/ongoing, then point that out. They may not go back in time, but if it is STILL happening they'll try to stop if BEFORE it happens again.

Right, and I want to be absolutely clear: I've said before and I'll repeat that I want CSA victims to be compensated as much as the law allows, but that is the key. As much as the law allows. Please note that I have never, ever objected to or opposed those CSA victims that have said they either a) want BSA destroyed or b) don't care if BSA gets destroyed in the process. I'm not going to judge their emotions and feelings. They have every right to feel that way. I'll never argue against that sentiment. But what I have asked, and in particular @Muttsy , is what is the legal path they th

Because in the end he's not interested in what in monetarily in the best interest of his clients OR himself. He simply wants BSA dead. He is allowing his ideological/vendetta to kill BSA at all costs to override the best-interest-of-clients. Again, and again, and again, he's playing the Pied Piper to victims: just reject the plan and he can magically get all 50,000 statutes of limitations lifted and billions of dollars. Of course, he's never specified the legal theory behind any of this. He's offered nothing. The TCC at least is offering a path, or at least the 6-7 specific points of

This gets back to Kosnoff's Fantasy that all 82,500 victims can go back to state court tomorrow and sue, sue, sue. As noted, over 50,000 claims are time barred. So no Mr. Kosnoff, you are simply wrong. So this "let's go back to state court" idea may sound and work great for SOME claimants, but for the vast majority, not so much. This simply borders on what I've described before as magical or wishful thinking. Kosnoff's never, ever provided a LEGAL argument for why 50,000+ statutes of limitation suddenly disappear overnight.

Kosnoff: Plan 5.0 is "worst most appalling treatment of abuse victims ever." Victims get "less than 5000." First, I think his point is that given that 5.0 releases LDS and so many others (Hartford, COs after 1976, LCs, and of course BSA) for what amounts to $2 billion that it is "appalling". Second, the "less than 5000". I am not sure what his math is, but I have a guess. $787 million from Hartford (but that may ONLY go to those claimants covered by a Hartford policy, not all 82,500) $250 million from LDS (but that may ONLY go to those claimants abused by LDS leaders/in LDS un

Two reasons: Plan 5.0 is barely a week old. She has hoped mediation would settle these issues. She said several times in several ways the best solution is a global settlement. But as one attorney put it and she reiterated: sometimes you just have to litigate this out. She said herself: we knew for months there were these issues. Hope of a mediated solution is out. So now she has to start issuing rulings. I suspect there will be a ton Tuesday

One theory and I just wanna offer this out is that you don’t adjudicate or litigate what doesn’t need to be adjudicated or litigated. everything you described is true it could impact the final plan. But if the plan is overwhelmingly rejected we don’t have to worry about it. if the plan is such that it’s clearly accepted overwhelmingly then we can worry about the edge cases like maybe one or two councils here or there who may not be included. but I guess the argument is is you get the plan out the door and voted on and then decide how you want to slice the data. Do you want

Yesterday the judge indicated that Century's objections will get pushed to confirmation BUT that as for Kosnoff and the other attorneys, Century will be attempting to depose them. So while we do not get a Mosby and Kosnoff witness testimony, I suspect we will see Century attempt to put them into depositions.

I don't think it is a ploy, I think it gets at a particular issue: BSA isn't looking to just get out of liability, it is looking to get LCs and COs out as well. BSA is a national entity operating across the nation. Therefore, it makes sense to have all victims vote on whether to approve/reject the BSA plan as it relates to BSA. BUT let's take St. Louis Area Council (just to pick on them some more) for a second. They have 921 claims against then alone (plus some claims shared with other councils). Let's say the following took place. 50,000 claimants nationwide vote for Plan 5.0 and th

Official agenda for September 28 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2937f369-53f7-4514-a6f6-b9cee21556ac_6358.pdf 1. Debtors’ Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving the Disclosure Statement and the Form and Manner of Notice, (II) Approving Plan Solicitation and Voting Procedures, (III) Approving Forms of Ballots, (IV) Approving Form, Manner, and Scope of Confirmation Notices, (V) Establishing Certain Deadlines in Connection with Approval of the Disclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (VI) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2295, filed 3/

As I heard it, the way it would/could work is this. You vote your vote and either a) identify your council or b) your council is identified by your scouting history/claim The vote is then looked at in two ways: 1) Your vote is one out a national voting system to allow for BSA to be discharged. 2) Your vote is one out a local subset for the LC. So, for example, if you vote "no" to Plan 5.0. 1) You vote no, but are outvoted as to BSA by the rest of the nation. BSA is discharged out of bankruptcy. 2) You vote no, and a majority (or large minority, not clear) of

Here are some cold, hard, non-bankruptcy facts about the camps. BSA membership has been in decline for 30 years and freefall for the last 10. The entire LC camp system was developed at and in a time when BSA had literally MILLIONS more scouts that it did prior to 2019. Then LDS left. Then the bankruptcy. Then COVID. The LCs didn't need to dump millions into making ALL camps in use pretty. They needed to come to face the reality: sell some and use the proceeds to refurbish the rest. Much of the cash being spent now is endowment funds. NO ONE likes to spend down an endowm

Let's game this out knowing the following: 1) The absolute fastest the solicitation and disclosure can be finalized is next Tuesday. 2) The judge has said she wants 60 days of solicitation. And assuming 3) Somehow the BSA gets its way for 4-day-turn-around-for-discovery (this is sheer madness, but let's map that out). Disclosure Statement Hearing = September 28 Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 8 days later = October 6 60 days to vote = December 6 (December 5, but that is a Sunday) Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 5 days later = D

I am not the only one who noticed the missed deadline. https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/603906087681889?comment_id=604431790962652&reply_comment_id=620198382719326 People are posting on the Methodist Scouting page: where is that September 20 update?

"I have no reason at all to believe that what [BSA's attorneys] said was inaccurate [running out of cash]. No reason to believe that." So she does believe the BSA is going to run out of cash in 1Q 2022. Is she going to slam the accelerator now? Took her long enough.