CynicalScouter

Insurance companies respond to Green withholding documents claiming mediation privilege. How can Green have mediation privilege when he was a) NEVER a mediator b) a party to the mediation or c) specifically rejected as a mediator? Also Green is claiming some kind of “preparing to be a mediator privilege” which seems bizarre https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7dd12f1f-e5a6-41b8-bbd5-a859cccb966f_6316.pdf

In some ways it is. In some it is not. The disclosure notice hearing is tomorrow. The attorney for the ad hoc committee of Methodist churches will I would bet make a statement that can and likely could/will get picked up by media. The deadline is who should articulate the UMC position: the lawyer or who?

FCR/Coalition filed a proposed “plain English” document for “abusive victims” (sic) to receive. As you can imagine it puts Plan 5.0 in the best possible light. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/50451505-f81e-41f2-b64a-cae67dd03d3e_6312.pdf ”The Coalition and the FCR believe that the approval and implementation of the global settlement among the Boy Scouts, the Local Councils, the Coalition and the FCR embodied in the Plan is in the best interests of creditors and RECOMMEND THAT YOU VOTE TO ACCEPT THE PLAN.” emphasis in original

Nothing so far 8pm Eastern https://www.gcumm.org/scouting-news https://methodistscouter.org https://facebook.com/MethodistScouting/

They have been singing the same tune for this entire time: 1) BSA is running out of money 2) Give us a deal or else pension guarantee Corp comes in and takes everything 3) if the TCC really cares about all victims it will do anything it can to keep this out of state courts where some/most victims will walk away with nothing

From the Ad Hoc Committee brief “Meanwhile, the precipitous professional fees in these cases will continue to mount, and the estate’s assets will continue to be depleted. If these costs persist, the Debtors will likely have to liquidate before any chapter 11 plan process can be completed.” Translated: BSA’s continuous stalling and delaying tactics should be rewarded with a sweetheart settlement deal for LCs and COs.

FCR/Coalition file in opposition to TCC motion to delay hearing for at least two weeks https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6e36db0a-5f5f-4c53-8999-79485f16d680_6304.pdf

TCC has now withdrawn objections to the Lehr and Knight settlements here.

It is 3:30 Eastern and still no statement. I know, lot of day light left.

Several weeks ago the people running the UMC Scouting FB said they were going to have an "honest update" by September 20. https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/603906087681889?comment_id=604431790962652&reply_comment_id=604441290961702

Right, so for example, 82,500 claims 25% sit out that leaves you with 61,875. 61,875*.33=20418 That's why I said Kosnoff/AIS can never alone achieve a "yes" for anything, but they can persuade enough of their clients to a) vote and b) vote no then they can veto anything.

The coalition claims 55,000 or so at least that was the number in the RSA They do NOT have letters from everyone. Note the letter I sent around/found on FB. They are asking for such letters. 66% of voters, not 66% of total votes.

Green now files an appearance (through his lawyers) and a letter to the judge: The insurer's claims for his documents as to why he was picked as trustee and NOT as mediator are all mediation privileged. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d60659d9-f30a-432a-9fd8-adda406b9f90_6299.pdf

BSA's filing objecting to all TCC motions. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0994528a-9b42-45b4-8651-8a14b191a2bf_6293.pdf Main points The fact that the TCC approve and supported the RSA and Plan 4.0 should be held against the TCC's argument it needs more time. BSA is arguing, in effect, the TCC knew most of what Plan 5.0 would look like AND SUPPORTED IT, therefore the TCC does not need any more time The TCC just wants to delay to get past the exclusivity date and be able to submit its own plan. If the TCC wanted to, it had weeks after the RSA got knee-capped by the judge to file for exclusivity. Instead, it dithered. Therefore is there is an emergency it is of the TCC's own making. The TCC has failed to clearly demonstrate it has "cause" to demand the exclusivity period end before October 18.

To be fair to some councils (not necessarily yours) there have been massive layoffs in some of these councils. Having diminished staff AND being told to take on more responsibilities like this (something that runs counter to everything BSA has done for decades based on the CO model) is not something councils relish or are even prepared for.

I want to delve into Claro, because they were a player in the USA Gymnastics/Nassar cases. From the TCC filing https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7deb7908-df9b-497d-9bf7-0fe922e7707a_6287.pdf Whereas BSA hired White & Chase to come up with an estimated valuation of claims ($4-7 billion) Claro will come in likely much, much, much higher.

TCC wants courts permission retroactive to September 1 to hire professional to value/valuation for all 82500 claims. Remember that there was an attempt earlier at getting the US district court to make valuation determination. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7deb7908-df9b-497d-9bf7-0fe922e7707a_6287.pdf 8. The Tort Claimants’ Committee seeks to retain Claro for the purpose of providing the following services (collectively, the “Services”): a. expert consulting services and expert testimony regarding valuation of sexual abuse claims filed in the Chapter 11 Cases; b. expert consulting services and expert testimony in connection with any plan or settlement filed by the Debtors regarding childhood sexual abuse claims. In addition, expert consulting services and expert testimony in connection with plan or settlement filed by the Tort Claimants’ Committee or any other party interest, and any contested matters and/or litigation arising in these Cases as reasonably requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee and TCC’s plan, etc. ; expert consulting services and expert testimony in the review and evaluation of reports prepared by the Debtors, their professionals, the Debtors’ insurers, and their professionals; as may be requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee, assisting with the preparation of affidavits/declarations, depositions, and briefing in these Cases concerning the issues for which Claro is providing expert consulting services and expert testimony; as may be requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee, assisting with the allocation of claims to potentially available insurance coverage; preparing for and providing both deposition and court testimony in these Cases regarding the issues for Claro is providing expert consulting services and expert testimony; and such other consulting and advisory services as may be reasonably requested by the Tort Claimants’ Committee.

And herein lies the problem since at least the 1920s not only the annual charter renewal document but what would later evolve into the Adult Application made it clear that "Institutional Head" (which later split into the CO and IH) was approving those adult leaders and agreed to exercise oversight. This isn't about incorporated entity; this is about the idea that the scouting unit for legal and other purposes was considered a part of/program of the chartered organization. The equivalent would be if the Pastor of the local church approved a parish member to be the volunteer head of the youth choir and signed a document saying the Pastor had reviewed the person's character and vouched for him/her AND agreed to exercise control and oversight. The head of the youth choir is then found to have molested members of the choir. Clearly, the pastor took on the role and responsibility in his capacity as pastor to oversee that program. That the COs failed to read the documents put under their noses is neither here nor there. The fact is they bound themselves to these units, agreed to approval of the unit's leaders AND signed documents that they had reviewed those leaders (at least annually re-approving them). They have two choices: 1) Admit they had no idea what was going on in that unit despite the signatures. That's literally the definition of negligence. 2) Admit they had an idea but did nothing. Now we have willful indifference/deliberate indifference. That's actually WORSE from a legal standpoint.

Archdiocese of Portland officials have told western Oregon Catholic parishes to rescind charters with Boy Scout troops and related organizations like Webelos and Cub Scouts.

I could literally see something where they’re trying to mediate this well into tonight. The Facebook group for united Methodist scounting already indicated they were expecting to hear something by the 20th.

My council is similar: we have gotten no word in recharter while our next door neighbor councils are. I was told part is that the new internet rechartering system and getting folks setup is slowing things down as well.

Source Is web or email for the statement?

They would have a choice. They could chose to end (or not renew) the facilities use only.

Sure is. No one says what the LCs are offering is what will be accepted. In addition several councils I know in their letters of intent to pay into the settlement specifically said it was conditioned on global settlement that includes them (obviously they are not paying if they are not covered). So mediation is totally relevant and the fact that LCs are saying “we will pay X” is not the last word in the subject.

BSA wants the judge to order the insurers to stop asking for discovery. I am not kidding https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a142d925-ebd5-4709-b7ad-d99cdde395e8_6288.pdf They want the judge to issue and order declaring almost everything is mediation privileged therefore the insurance companies must stop asking.