CynicalScouter

Chapter 7 won't happen. The judge has made it pretty clear that's not in the cards. If BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen. Let me repeat that: if BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen. Even Stang earlier on admitted that. The main reason for this entire knock down drag out fight is that BSA wants the LCs and COs covered, too. If the only issue was BSA leaving (what was called the "toggle plan") I fervently believe they could be out of bankruptcy by December 2021 (optimistic) or March 2022. It would, of course, leave the LCs and COs

This is why the court made the point of noting that any fraud (I mean REAL fraud, not "I forgot to dot an i and cross a t" things that the insurers want to lump in) may have to be dealt with now, for the following reason. 1) Fraud on the part OF THE PROCESSING. Let me get real technical here. Normally, when a proof of claim is filed, the claimant signs it. Now, their attorney may do so BUT (and here's the but) BUT the attorney has to examine the proof of claim to determine it meets the bare minimum of validity (prima facie). Accusation #1 is that the lawyers were just mass-signing th

TBD. If I had to guess it was because they wanted to hide the fact they were mass cranking these with only a few lawyers.

We don't know WHAT would happen. Per US law/the Congressional Charter the IP belongs to BSA. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/30905 We have never, ever, had a Congressionally Chartered org go into Chapter 7. The question came up early: can a BANKRUPTCY judge set aside federal law and declare certain provisions like that void? The answer is probably no, she cannot; it would have to go into U.S. District Court.

You would have to go through claim by claim by claim. First, keep in mind AIS did NOT use aggregators (so they claim) and Kosnoff insists it was the Coalition and not AIS that is to blame. Moreover, Kosnoff is claiming his signature (e-signature) was applied to many of these claims. So far, the evidence presented shows that to be the case. In other words, the only “tie to it” may be that the Coalition and their lawyers used the AIS lawyers signatures improperly and NOT that AIS and Kosnoff were the ones acting improperly. Second, keep in mind that fraud/invalid distinction.

Ok, blood less boiling, I want to address this in particular and YPT in general. Yes, YPT is burdensome and in some edge-cases overly burdensome, some dare say unrealistic. But YPT did not come out of thin air. One-on-one with adults was not just magically created. It's part and parcel of child sexual abuse. And yes, declaring someone an adult at age 18 is problematic. But it is a clear, bright line that at least has a legal basis (a person is per se an adult at 18 in all states). Asking unit leaders to parse out whether the 17 year old talking to the 18 year old as a fri

But, conversely, what about a pan when half a group AGREES? 50%+1? The other factor as the judge noted in her ruling from the bench yesterday is she will want to figure out how those mass aggregate claims COULD impact voting.

This is an excellent, broad, overview of everything so far in the bankruptcy/legal case so far. Thanks!

Wow. This is hyperbole on top of hyperbole. It is also far outside the scope of Chapter 11 topic. I'd suggest this be taken elsewhere.

Deleted. Discussions of internal Council/National politics and the removal of Scouters is NOT part of the Chapter 11 legal proceedings. Take complaints to another thread.

Deleted. Discussions of internal Council/National politics and the removal of Scouters is NOT part of the Chapter 11 legal proceedings. Take complaints to another thread.

Deleted. Discussions of internal Council/National politics and the removal of Scouters is NOT part of the Chapter 11 legal proceedings. Take complaints to another thread.

I would differentiate here. The UMC's official national institution issued their very public opinion for all Methodist Churches. However, the Catholic Church does not have a directly comparable entity. The closest thing, and it's not directly comparable, is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. As of this date, they have been publicly silent. Moreover, at the bishopric level, the Methodists and Catholics have also reacted differently. SO FAR the Methodist bishops have urged, encouraged, recommended, strongly recommended, etc. no rechartering past December 31, 20

Exactly. There's no such thing as "This bankruptcy only good for claims in the following states". It is ALL claims and debts owed as of the bar claim date (and some incurred during the pendency of the bankruptcy such as general operating expenses) nationwide. I agree that this makes the situation involving the legal status of SoLs problematic. A person in State X for example, may have no claim TODAY against BSA due to the SoL but by next August WILL under a new state law that lifts the SoL in State X. From a purely legal standpoint, that is what makes this even more of a challenge as

Yes, but they were redacted pursuant to the courts various confidentiality orders. See page 78 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf I am going to be as careful, oh so careful, as I can be here about "No Impact Alleged" and "No Physical Abuse" and I am hesitant to even go this far but I think it is a legit question worth answering. No Impact Alleged/No Physical Abuse COULD mean one of a few things. As a point of reference, this was the Sexual Abuse Proof of Claim form. See in particular PART 5: IMPACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE https://casedocs.omni

Here's the article but it is paywalled after about 100 words. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case-what-to-know-11630062000

BSA's latest financials are in. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/24d538eb-17d5-4da0-8e59-11c0f2069ab2_6135.pdf BSA posting a loss of 6,851,000 So far throughout the 17 months of the bankruptcy, there's a cumulative loss of $99,620,000

Something hinted at The judge quoted the statistician Martin that Martin testified she COULD get sample with a margin of error of 4-7%. If your population (of claims) = 82,500, selecting 1,400 leads to a margin of error of 3% at the 95% Confidence level. If your population (of claims) = 82,500, selecting 1,400 leads to a margin of error of 4% at the 99% Confidence level. So, assuming random sampling and all other standard sampling caveats apply, 1,400 could get to that 4-7% alluded to.

I looked at the media coverage I don’t get that impression at all if you look at the way they phrased it they say “attorneys representing 70,000” they don’t say “attorneys in control of 70,000” can you provide an example of media reporting that the attorneys control the votes?

That is not what Kosnoff’s Rule 2029 says. It says HIS firm does.

But even if the coalition does in fact sell out they don’t control the votes it’s still possible to have a situation whereby Based on coalition lawyer advocacy you get a 51% majority or even a 60% majority but still failed to get the 2/3. that would be an absolute horror show and I mentioned it back in May. 67% is the threshold what happens if it comes in at 65% does the judge order a cram down and just skip the 2%? what if it were 60% or 55%?

Here's my problem with the article, and it is a major one. In three different places the article says that support from "a majority" is required. It's more than that. It's 2/3rds. And that is what makes this calculus so much harder. Again, all other things being equal, that means a MINORITY (27,500 out of 82,500) can scuttle this plan absent a cramdown which is just a horror show in its own right.

A scout is obedient. So too should be scouters. I couldn’t imagine being a hypocrite to say that I expect my scouts to follow the rules but I refuse to follow them and I’m gonna play games of “don’t ask don’t tell” involving adults making one on one contact with children in direct violation of YPT.

The rule pertaining to no one on one contact between scouts and adults is a youth protection standard. YPT is not a “game”. And adult scout leaders keeping secrets is exactly how we got into 82,500 sexual abuse claims

Depends. Here's the problem; it is NOT clear who represent about 15,103 claimants. Kosnoff claims he does. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf So Kosnoff's claiming to represent 15,103. BUT read the AIS Rule 2019 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf In other words: 1) Kosnoff is claiming those 15,103 are his clients. 2) The AIS filing is claiming those 15,103 are clients held jointly by the three firms (Kosnoff Law, PLLC; AVA La