CynicalScouter

Right, because there's no way to get the statsor data in a way to make that kind of a statement. Not without heavy lifting. 1) Membership in GSUSA and BSA had already been declining for years due to social changes on how young people and their parent spend their time. 2) Then the BSA's move regarding girls 3) Then COVID So, how much did EACH of these impact GSUSA numbers? You'd have to do a fairly sophisticated marketing and membership model factoring in these multiple aspects to try and pull out what impacted what and how much.

A private group that is not listed anywhere on scouting.org that you need to have permission to join. that is your definition of openness and engaging with the masses? Only the select few who have even knowledge of that Facebook group’s existence? right now today if I was a den leader or a cubmaster tell me exactly and I mean exactly how I would even know to look for that Facebook group on any official BSA website or any official BSA information source. if nothing else you’ve just proven my point: only the select elite few who are allowed access to private groups (FB) are allowe

For the record, I support both straw polls (when properly done) as well as stew polls (also when properly done).

Getting more and more reports of 1) Methodist churches terminating charters NOW. Not waiting for December. 2) Virginia United Methodist bishop asking churches to get out now, ASAP. BSALettertoConfSep82021.pdf

True, yes, thank you. So, again I am not as conversant in bankruptcy law, but I guess it is possible to have two competing ballots/plans to go creditors/claimants. So, I guess the ballot would be 1) BSA Plan 2) TCC Plan 3) No on them both or perhaps only 1) BSA Plan 2) TCC Plan

It isn't a hard question at all. How you interpret the data would be. If 100% of participants here vote to oppose Plan 4.0, that doesn't tell you WHY. Some may oppose because they think BSA shouldn't have to pay a dime for actions that occurred decades ago (and therefore Plan 4.0 is too harsh on BSA). Some may oppose because they think Plan 4.0 lets BSA get away with sexual abuse and that NOTHING short of the end of BSA is acceptable (and therefore Plan 4.0 is too lenient on BSA). If 100% of participants here vote to support Plan 4.0, that doesn't tell you WHY. Some may support it be

This getting back to fair vs. legal, so I am answering on this thread. Let me clarify: AS TO BSA (which is the debtor-entity here) there was never an instance for $1+ million payments. There simply wasn't. I am sorry if you were led to think there was, but there isn't. BSA and its entire insurance portfolio (again with its insurance caps and limits) was never going to get to $82 billion dollars. As for all those other entities, even if the sum total of all their insurance amounted into the trillions, you still have statutes of limitations and insurance coverage limits. I kn

I want to loop back on something that was said at the last Town Hall and is something that maybe I am over-reading into and maybe I am not. During the TCC Town Hall video, John Humprey at 52:33 said this "more than one plan." Remember, Plan 3.0 was global OR toggle: if global got rejected, then toggle was to come online as the cram down. There was NO provision for voting on multiple plans. It was either/or. We never got to the point of seeing the ballot statement, but I wonder if this talk of "more than one plan" means that the ballot will read one of two ways: Vote for

And mathematically speaking that may be true. Again: there was never a scenerio here where 100% of victims were paid 100% of the abuse values equal to some of these $1+ million abuse settlements. There was not $82.5 BILLION to be had first of all. Second, statutes of limitations, insurance plan limits, BSA and LC assets, etc. were all finite.

I have now been reading Kosnoff and his Twitter feed and keeping wondering if there was some other Town Hall I missed. He’s convinced himself and victims the TCC has already accepted the “11th hour deal”. https://twitter.com/nievesenrique68/status/1436459729832878096?s=21 again and I can’t wait for the transcript to come out but I heard absolutely nothing to that effect. Stang indicated, at most, they had no idea what the new plan entrailed. There was absolutely nothing about the TCC accepting anything.

To what end? Say the straw poll shows overwhelming support for Plan 4.0. How does that make this forum more or less “relevant to anyone”? Or the opposite: universal rejection of Plan 4.0: is the forum now suddenly more or less relevant? I guess what I’m asking is what result of a straw poll would convince you this place is still relevant?

Knowledge is power. I don’t mind when council and other big wigs say they cannot say something because of NDAs. I understand being under a LEGAL restriction to not talk. What I oppose is the culture of secrets that permeates BSA. There are cliques, those “in” and those “out”. Information if not withheld then not shared openly and freely. I just point this out: BSA as I demonstrated is literally the only large not for profit I know of of one focused on children and youth where you literally cannot figure out from their website who 1) senior leadership is (other than the national key-3

Yep. I tried to limit to direct court filings. Ok, I think I get the gist now. Thanks.

Sorry it’s all confusing

I've now listened to the Town Hall. There was absolutely NOTHING about the TCC "caving" in Plan 5.0. All they said was Plan 5.0 was to be determined. The only reason I can think Kosnoff concluded that "they’ve caved on the soon to be unveiled Plan 5.0" comes down to either 1) Stang was pretty clear that they are looking for a deal and Kosnoff wants BSA liquidated and nothing less and/or 2) The conversation about the reality of statutes of limitations. Kosnoff is on record in his Rule 2019 statement that he will never, ever accept statutes of limitations as the basis for denying

I want to tug at this. Past a certain point, the judge is NOT going to let BSA to drop a Plan 5.0 and not give parties some time to digest it. Yes, she can cut the days back to less than 20, but how much? The disclosure statement hearing is September 21 and the main hearing on the main plan the 23. As Stang pointed out, hard to read a disclosure statement without a plan, so both would have to be filed. 10 days prior is September 13 (Monday) if BSA were to drop plan 5.0 then, is that enough time? BSA will downplay everything, say the new plan is just "minor adjustments" to Plan 4.0 and the

Big takeaways 1) Information on mental health services now on the tccbsa.com website. 2) Stang: Lots of people asking in chat how long will this take. Very dynamic. Gave a review of the RSA proceedings: Hartford deal and Coalition fees. The RSA was NOT approved, it WAS NOT approved. The RSA self-executing termination date has already lapsed (August 27), so the RSA is dead. People are now able to go their own directions. TCC expecting Plan 5.0 and has been expecting it. Stang's theory: BSA would like to reach an agreement with at least 1 insurance company (or 1 more company?) into Pla

TCC video now live https://www.dropbox.com/s/7i01h4syy3vtgpb/BSA Town Hall 9-9-21.mp4 NOTE: if you watch it in browser/drop box it cuts off a 1 hour precisely. Download for last 8 minutes or so.

IMHO in reading his prior statements, unless that BSA Plan 5.0 is total liquidation of BSA OR BSA and Local Councils, he will attempt to rally victims to reject.

While I applaud that effort, I would think it is impossible for the reason you mentioned: mediation and other privileges. I therefore worry that the "Anything" in "Ask Me Anything" will turn into "Anything not covered by mediation privilege"

To come back around to this: Kosnoff's view/narrative 1) The abuse victims who make up the TCC are stooges or useful idiots for the evil Stang and other money hungry lawyers to manipulate. They aren't really fighting for victims, they are fighting to line lawyer pockets. 2) The only "real" fight ends with BSA eliminated from existence. To paraphrase his appearance and other statements: you don't negotiate with evil and the BSA is totally irredeemable. Nothing less than unconditional surrender of all BSA assets (and Local Councils, too) is acceptable. Etc.

Nothing less than complete liquidation is acceptable to him. Anything less, in his view, is a betrayal of victims. And he's convinced many of his clients/followers that total liquidation is a) possible and b) the only fair solution. Thus, in his view, he IS working "in the the interests of ALL survivors" to get the maximum: BSA liquidated, all Local Council assets liquidated, total scorched earth. Anything less is "betraying" the victims. As I said before: Kosnoff doesn't have the ability to persuade enough people to APPROVE a plan, but with a 2/3rds threshold, he may have enough sway to

This is Kosnoff's version of events. I am redacting a word.

Century is now demanding document and other discovery from Catalur Special Opportunities Fund I, LP and Catalur Capital Management, LP. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/694c48ae-f39e-4e81-9afe-9d3ba16136bd_6188.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f1403599-c360-4263-8bfd-9fe6b87daa56_6189.pdf Who are they you ask? They are the Wall Street hedge fund(s) that helped in part bankroll the entire mass aggregation program. From a previous filing https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf