CynicalScouter

Yeah, as the judge said: the fact that AIS is a dysfunctional group does NOT mean they aren't still a group (that had to file a Rule 2019 motion).

Court: Onondaga Supreme Court Index Number: 006947/2021 Case Name: DOE, JMAEOC vs. Longhouse Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America et al Case Type: Tort-Child Victims Act https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=Iy3Ryoz50KwQ_PLUS_akQvOJ4ig==&system=prod Please note that while the plaintiff is a using a fictitious name for privacy reasons (Jmaeoc Doe) the abusive Scoutmaster is named and, per mod policy (which I 100% agree with) I changed the scoutmaster's name to be ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER however he is named in that court document.

Are you really trying to compare what some hypothetical Cub Scout is going through due to bankruptcy (which is what, exactly?) vs. the child sexual abuse claimants (TCC in general, Douglas Kennedy in particular)? Really? EDIT: I will say this about the sexual abuse victims and your hypothetical current Cub Scout. Both do have something in common: BSA failed them both. It failed to protect those victims then and that failure is resulting in the a Cub facing a diminished program thanks to BSA action and inaction over the years.

Here then is the next question. As I read it the Coalition can void the RSA if that provision is struck by the court. They don’t have to, but the can. Would they? https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf

And that is the problem: the judge is not going to let a party represented by counsel make a statement to the court (generally). If Stang had asked for 2 minutes he would have gotten it.

I regret that due to work I have been unable to listen into today’s hearing. Did Kennedy from the TCC ever speak? I do hope the judge makes a ruling today after the hearing.

We'll know tomorrow soon if a) the RSA was approved or rejected and b) if approved, disclosure hearing is the next big thing

In a totally related topic, isn't it time to start a new thread?

Ok then, in the context of the BSA bankruptcy, who exactly are "my political opponents" that "want greater government involvement in all of our lives"? Victims? The judge? The victim's lawyers? BSA's lawyers? Who pray tell?

I left because I was driving: what happened?

So, the 82,500 sexual abuse victims are your "political opponents" because they want greater government involvement? Well, to the extent they want the courts (government) to rule in their favor, yes I guess that would be "greater government involvement". To which I say: fine. Victims get to have their day in court, whether you like it or not.

It would have been. I believe the TCC/Coalition was trying to establish that the judge has ruled the RSA plan (and by extension the full reorganization plan, as currently amended) was determined to have been done in "good faith" so that 1) The Coalition's sweetheart deal (where they get paid ahead of everyone else) is deemed legally OK. 2) The TCC and Coalition can get that "good faith" determination and use it in future legal proceedings against the the Insurance Companies. The theory is that they can say "Judge Silverstein already ruled this RSA plan and its provision that the insu

Pretty transparent in the following sense. They based their numbers on current financial status (as of June 2021) and made several projections/several scenarios, including BSA emerging from bankruptcy in August 2021, March 2022, and one other scenario (I missed it) In all of them, cash-on-hand (liquidity) keeps dropping BUT stabilizes depending on when/if BSA comes out of bankruptcy and how much it has to pay to settle this bankruptcy. In short: the longer this goes on, the more likely it is BSA runs out of cash. No one denies it and no one thinks BSA or Whitman is lying about t

Whitman's testimony, generally and broadly, is getting at the following: 1) BSA reached the conclusion that the RSA was a good deal in a methodical, deliberate manner that shows good business judgment. There's day by day, step by step discussions ("I met with the National Executive Committee on the following dates, I met with the National Executive Board on the following dates." etc.) 2) During these meetings he discussed the RSA, the BSA's financial status (hint: bad and getting worse), the LC trust contributions, etc. 3) Whole portions of these presentations he gave are redact

We are back to fighting over the document/slide showing what the BSA vs. the RSA vs. the TCC/Coalition proposals were. Remember: the BSA the TCC/Coalition sections are redacted as "privileged". Document admitted with redactions. Insurers lose on this point.

Lauria: Good faith/arms lengths findings are out. Whitman being brought back in to testify.

This is what the insurance companies are arguing about the Coalition's sweetheart deal. Did the Coalition lawyers, in effect, take a $10.5 million bribe to sell out their clients to ensure they got paid first/ahead of everyone else?

Not to quibble, but as an attorney you know that no, he doesn't. The 9 members of the TCC collectively do and they are represented by counsel of record. Doug Kennedy doesn't represent the group. The TCC as an entity does and they speak to the court through their attorney. EDIT: If Kennedy wanted to speak, Stang or another attorney of record should have made the request to the court to allow him to speak OR Kennedy should have relayed his message through Stang. I've been in far too many courtrooms where parties tried to ex parte themselves to the court and it is improper. Yo

Lauria: Need 10 minute break to see if other RSA parties need/want that "Good faith" determination. Judge: Fine, I'll give you 15 minutes. Now in recess. I am now more convinced than ever: the reason the BSA (and the TCC/FCR/Coalition) so desperately want this "good faith" determination is so that the judge's finding can be used as res judicata in OTHER state and federal court proceedings against the insurance companies to say that the ENTIRE RSA and any money judgements against the insurance companies that come out of this process have already been deemed "good faith" and there

Judge: This needs to be limited to process and terms. BSA is "Straying" from what it should be focused on: the process and terms of the RSA. The reason is that the order is asking for a finding that the RSA was done in "good faith" and "at arms length". Still not what "good faith" means in the context of a RSA context, but that requires a much different evidentiary basis than just a small scope of this hearing: "Should debtors be able to go forward here? Has debtor properly exercised its business judgement?" "Quite frankly I am a little unclear on debtors case". Question to debtors o

Doug Kennedy of the TCC tried to speak for 2 minutes and the judge said no. He is not an attorney, so that's not un-reasonable.

3:08pm still no judge on Zoom. But judges are always on judge time and we don't know what could be happening behind the scenes.

Because you can get from NESA their entire directory for a price.

Exactly. That's what is not as clear here. If the the people were simply contacted "you may be part of this lawsuit/bankruptcy" that's one thing. It's quite another if an attorney said, on a possibly recorded line, that people should file false claims.

One thing I can think is that they are playing hardball: you don't give anything up you don't absolutely have to. The other is that it will be clear how far apart the BSA (left column of slide) and the TCC/Coalition (right column of slide) apart were and who it was that folded. It might show that BSA just utterly folded like a cheap tent.