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 allowed to get information while everybody else is told to go away.

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 because they think this is the best possible scenario for victims and that all the other possible scenerios are wishful thinking, unrealistic or too improbable/will take too long to sort out. Some may support Plan 4.0 because it offers BSA the fastest way out of bankruptcy. Etc. So, what exactly is your point here? That anyone who accepts or supports Plan 4.0 is wrong, bad, and evil? Or that anyone who accepts or supports Plan 4.0 is right, virtuous, and good? What is the point of a straw poll then? Most straw polls I am familiar with are NOT yes/no or binary ("Do you support Plan 4.0?") instead they seek to get information on which of a selection of options has the most support. Etc. I think you simply want in the end to broad bush many/most people here as "fellow travelers" of BSA (with by the way the communist-supporting undertones of that term) and therefore people who are NOT interested in victims or who do not care about victims. I can say this: I do care. I believe victims should be compensated. But you've still never, ever, EVER explained how you think you can achieve that under existing bankruptcy law other than via magic (the judge will magically set aside all statutes of limitations, all insurance caps, and simply declare that all insurance companies must pay out everything now). As Stang said in the last TCC Town Hall: reality is something different. You want the bankruptcy courts, or courts in general, to do things that simply are not going to happen. So go ahead, I firmly support your straw poll. Post it "Do you support Plan 4.0?" Just be aware that the data is the data, how you interpret it is on you.

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 know you have said in the past those shouldn't exist, it isn't fair they exist, but we are back to what is fair vs. what does the law allow (or require). If an insurance policy is written with per occurrence or per policy year caps, no amount of wishful thinking is going to make a judge set those aside and demand insurance companies pay, etc.

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 either Global Plan (BSA/LC or BSA/LC/CO), Toggle Plan (BSA Only), or neither. Vote for yes/no for Global Plan. WARNING: A no vote will result in the Toggle Plan being implemented resulting in less payouts to claimants. Etc.

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) and 2) board members. I will start to take BSA’s commitment to openness more seriously when they start to open up about ANYTHING.

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 victims 100% of recovery. And Stang made clear his view that was just not possible. It wasn't fair that statutes of limitations exist, but they were the reality/the cards that were dealt. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf So, again, we go back to Kosnoff's grossly unrealistic demands: 1) BSA and LCs liqudated 2) All claims evaluated and funds distributed regardless of statutes of limitation.

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 RSA, therefore everyone should be aware of what is going to be discussed. Etc.

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 Plan 5.0 to demonstrate to victims that there is momentum in this case. Ongoing mediation/organizations. Hearing September 23 on disclosure. Normally, the TCC and other creditors would get 20 days to review that statement. We are obviously past that. Whether the BSA can do that, whether they can file something NOW without seeing the Plan 5.0 or disclosure statement and still expect to have a hearing on it for September 23 is TBD. There have been offers and counteroffers betweens parties and one insurance carrier. Cannot say what happens here, not because of mediation privilege, but because things are so moving. Where will the TCC end? They want fair compensaiton for victims. 3) Humprey: Non-monetary demands are also a part of this 4) Q&A portion IV files be released? Can find some at the LA Times website. BSA has resisted releasing any more. TCC committed to having that information released. What is Omni Management Services? Omni a company is "claims agent". Bookcase/safe. Crazy stuff: RSA was not approved. The press headlines were not accurate. It is frustrating that media is reporting there is a settlement when there isn't. The RSA spelled out how claims would be valued and how much would be paid. LOTS of proofs of claims are incomplete. $3500 pay out option. If the claims trustee decides after reviewing things you claim is NOT credible, you will get $0. If you want to, you can go back into state court. Or you can go the settlement trustee plan laid out in the RSA to determine a value. Then the trustee would put assets against claims. The TCC has targets in mind for how much per victim and how much each entity will have to pay. The when is less clear. The pressure is on the insurance companies to pay out fairly on these claims. Trying to leverage the insurance companies. But remember: the BSA are the insured. TCC will push BSA to make reasonable demands on the insurance companies. We are NOT at a place that INDIVIDUAL claims are being examined. We are looking at ALL claims and TOTAL money. What is my claim number? And who is my attorney? There will be an opportunity for claimants to vote yes or no on the plan. Be in touch with your counsel. Make an informed vote. TCC will have its opinion. The TCC lawyers do NOT represent you. Contact your attorney. There likely will be more than one plan. Look at the RSA. It may be dead, but it does give you some idea what people are talking about and looking at. Statute of limitations question: it is based on where the abuse took place not where you live today. Why is there a statute of limitations scaling factor (this is the "Gray 1/2/3" system)? We have people on TCC from states that are very different. No one believes the statute of limitations are fair. But there's a reality: the insurance companies don't get a damn about that. The insurance companies will say "we are NOT paying on that". I am not going to ask an insurance company to pay me $1 million on a claim in a state that is shut down because they will just tell me I am wasting their time and and some point they just won't even listen to us. There are lawyers who will tell you about where a statute of limitations wouldn't apply, there are states where it is extremely difficult to bring some of these claims. Everyone knows it. People are expecting a distribution along the lines of what they would get if they were in settlement discussions or a lawsuit. It was a balancing that took place. This was extremely difficult. The sources of payment are on this "like a tick on a dog". What can we get the bankruptcy court to approve? I wished every state passed a window, but the cards we are dealt have statutes of limitations and we are tring to accomdiate everyone. Rule 2004 motion that was granted. What does it mean? Century and Hartford and other carriers have alleged majority of claims are fraudulent. In pursuing that theory, they are taking discovery on claims aggregators. They broker your claim. They have a declaration from someone who worked in one of these boiler-room type places and that she got bonused on number of claims. There are instances of claim forms clearly problematic. One insurance company found 70 claims signed by the claimant, and ALL the signatures are identical. With a little smoke, they are claiming a massive fire. Judge has authorized insurance companies to demand documents and depositions from the aggregators. The insurers goal is to get the judge to believe the claims are not valid. The TCC is committed to vetting out false claims.

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 get any plan other than Chapter 7/liquidation DISAPPROVED. Then the judge will have a choice: order a cramdown (I know, I know, never happened before in a sexual abuse related bankruptcy) or let BSA die.

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