CynicalScouter

And he continues to do so.

There's also the possibility both of the statements are true: Kosnoff wants BSA dead and/or liquidated and will use any means to achieve it The mass-tort/mass aggregator law firms were more focused on number of claims that any kind of due diligence and a) allowed in false claims and/or b) forged/misused Kosnoff's signature to that end If both statements are true, then all Kosnoff's doing is (justly) sticking the knives in the back of those who deserve it. Now, I would wonder WHY if he knew for MONTHS his name had been misused on some proofs of claim he kept his yap shut (attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to fraud on the court) and didn't notify the court. But now he's on record/under penalty of perjury saying at least SOME claims are fraudulent and/or forged signatures. The insurance companies ALREADY had forensic proof from handwriting and other examiners that some of these proofs of claim were questionable (at best). Now Kosnoff's confirmed it. I say this as someone who truly feels for the victims here AND wants to see BSA survive, but if an officer of the court, under oath/penalty of perjury says "my signature was forged on proofs of claim" isn't enough to stop the proceedings and have the matter reviewed, I don't know WHAT would.

Sorta? Kosnoff wants two things a) BSA dead and b) lots of money for his clients. Which takes precedence depends I think on his mood. The longer this takes, the less BSA cash there is to take. A dead BSA of course has $0. For him, the big prize is the local councils: he's want that and said that since the start he wants that $4-$7 billion in assets. Etc.

One possibility is that Kosnoff will try and simply scuttle this entire BSA bankruptcy in order to get what he wants: the liquidation of BSA and all the LCs. And one way to do that would be to allege an unnamed law firm put his name on proofs of claim without his knowledge. I'm not saying Kosnoff's lying here about that happening. What I am saying is that if he wanted to hinder the BSA bankruptcy, this is a great way to do it. A few weeks ago Kosnoff outright BEGGED Chubb/Century's attorney to get Kosnoff in for a deposition. This is why: he's going to stick knives in the back of anyone and everyone involved in this, get the BSA bankruptcy nuked, and force all of this into liquidation and/or a failed bankruptcy and then 1000s of lawsuits in state courts.

As expected: Kosnoff's sworn/verified statement that at least one law firm misused (forged?) his name to proofs of claim is now being used by the insurance companies to demand ALL claims be vetted immediately. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3a991e50-818a-4fba-8cbb-06e7086c4f0a_5954.pdf TLDR: Kosnoff just handed the insurance companies not only grounds to force ALL claimants to be vetted NOW but also for the entire process to grind to a halt until it can be determined how many of the 82,500 claims are time barred and possible civil/criminal actions for forgery and fraud on the court. and and also they are using the Kosnoff Rule 2019 to affirm that NOT all claimants should get a vote because their claims are timed-barred. and the insurers point out that a LOT of other abuse victims and their attorneys are now demanding that time-barred claimants should NOT get a vote here. The only question now is 1) Will Silverstein see it the same way 2) Will the U.S. Trustee's Office see it that way (remember as an arm of the DOJ the Trustee's tasked with ensuring no fraud takes place in the bankruptcy process as witnessed recently when the U.S. Trustee's Office stepped in to oppose the NRA bankruptcy).

Notice of Agenda now up. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3e7f93a-362f-4c26-ad4a-1eff50f7f9ab_5937.pdf 1. RSA 2. Motions related to documents filed for/against the RSA (under seal, over page limits, etc.)

At least some of this liquidity is based on shifting: taking money directly out of the endowment which, while technical legal, is a bad practice to be in. There are also indications that some "restricted" funds were raided in order to make ends meet; something akin to forced loans. I know some councils have raided their OAs in order to keep things going. The other possibility is they guessed wrong about how bad 2021 would be in terms of enrollment and such and are getting in more cash than they expected.

FYI: A slew of CA attorneys just filed for pro hac vice admission. Because California law gives sexual abuse victims a slew of rights in civil litigation AND against insurance companies, some of which were already alluded to, I suspect this will be the major fight: that this plan cannot be approved at least as to CA victims.

Reading the Kosnoff Rule 2019 he is directly accusing some unnamed lawfirm of forging his name on documents. That should provide more than enough fodder for the insurance companies to grind the entire proceeding to a halt until the forged claims can be removed or vetted.

It also gets into a massive legal question: who really is counsel of record for these victims? And it might also explain why some of the victims we've seen post here and elsewhere have been at an absolute loss as to who exactly is their attorney, who represents them, who they should be talking to, etc.

The Kosnoff Rule 2019 is interesting to the extent it is clear that Kosnoff had a vision for this bankruptcy that was a) grossly unrealistic and b) that the other attorneys in this process have shunned, namely that the bankruptcy court was going to ignore every statute of limitations AND all insurance policies in all cases and simply award maximum damages in every case. And here's the math. So Kosnoff's claiming to represent 15,103. BUT read the AIS Rule 2019 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. Interesting

Starting to see some movement this morning: 1) Judge signed order today (August 9) for Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC to file their Rule 2019 disclosures by...August 9. We'll see how that goes. Extra loving tidbit in the order "Hartford and Century may make further application to the Court to ensure compliance with this Order." https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/58f315d5-7725-4bf3-acae-0248f9d62090_5902.pdf As I said previously, I expect Kosnoff Law PLLC to file something (not necessarily very responsive), but I also expect there will be nothing from AIS as the three lawfirms involved continue to insist there is no such thing as AIS. But maybe I'm too cynical (ha, ha). 2) BSA filed its objection to insurer's motion for production of more documents (and further delay) regarding Board actions, the RSA, etc. In short BSA is arguing that it has produced every non-privileged item it can already and insurers are just playing a stalling game. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9851b45d-a658-4986-b901-4da61fa25189_5903.pdf

72% of those in the US say homosexuality should be accepted by society. Only 21% say it shouldn't be. That's up from 51% in 2002 (just after the Dale case was decided by SCOTUS). And among younger people that acceptance number is even higher. Why, because all gay people = child molesters? Or are more likely to be child molesters? Is that what you think?

Given that the newer/newest generations are exceptionally tolerant of homosexuality, I would bet that scouting in general has "changed their minds." Moreover, 1 in 6 Gen Z adults are LGBT. And this number could continue to grow. And the Gen Z = the newer/newest scouting leaders. Down vote this reality all you want: but the next generation of scouters and scouts are much, much more tolerant.

Disagreeing with your views does not = "people trying to force their ideas down [your] throat." You know that you can always just leave, right? Logout and never log back in. No one is making you stay here. As opposed to what exactly? That everyone is suppose to simply take your direction, your views, say "yes sir" and agree 100%? That's...not how the universe tends to work.

No one is "forcing" their opinions on you here unless by "force" you mean "disagree with." I find this curious that you feel it is perfectly acceptable to make a statement but then follow-up with a declaration that, in effect, you want no discussion, much less debate, of the subject(s) and that any attempt to disagree with you is "forcing" an opinion on you. If you wish to leave, leave. Simple as not posting here. You were the one who opted to post, no one here made you do so. You were also the one who decided to declare he "probably" won't read any responses So great. You made your point. You hate gays and girls being in Scouts, BSA and "probably" won't read anything or anyone who disagrees. Then your done and this thread can be locked.

I would be shocked if BSA did for two main reasons: Alcohol and marijuana (where legal) are still 21+ which means it would be limited to scout leaders and I can very easily see BSA for liability reasons indicating they will NOT serve beer or marijuana at Jambo NOR will they allow any leaders to drink or do drugs while they are responsible for scouts.

What do you mean by "announce" they are gay. What I HAVE had is a female den leader who said "My wife would love this." Is that "announcing" they are gay? No more than when I mention "I have to check with my wife about our calendar" last night at roundtable "announced" I was heterosexual. Then why even post here? This is the mods decision of course, but this is a discussion board. A statement like that is simply unscoutlike and directly contradicts the idea of there being a discussion board. What you are saying here, in effect, is "read my words, but I won't engage in any other way and I sure as heck won't read yours." Ok then, bye-bye.

One more thing: since it is clear an expedited hearing isn't happening today, that means that several pending motions are either not going to be decided or are going to be decided at the last minute. That includes Century wants BSA to produce any and all documents related to how it decided to agree to the RSA. TCC/FCR/Coalition want any testimony produced by the Insurance Companies regarding the RSA stricken unless a) Hartford starts to produce documents on Hartford's liability and how it and BSA decided $650 million was acceptable and b) Century/Chubb starts to produce documents on how much Chubb is on the hook for in terms of policies. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d0489f77-4726-4974-877d-453e156050b8_5898.pdf The judge has time on August 9 and so I suppose could hear those motions then, but with the hearing set for August 12 I guarantee if she does order additional production at that point a) the insurance companies are going to demand the August 12 hearing get delayed and b) perhaps even the TCC/FCR/Coalition (if Century/Chubb drop a massive amount of documents on them on August 10). The judge has already expressed in a prior hearing she's had to juggle her calendar because BSA wants to get out of bankruptcy ASAP. And this RSA hearing is delayed from its original date in late July. If this gets pushed back again, she'll be annoyed (at best).

Yes but I believe the idea, one pushed by both the insurance companies and at least some of the attorneys for the abuse victims, was and is that those with "bogus" claims shouldn't be allowed to vote on the plan at all. It's one thing AFTER the plan to simply vet these out and/or payout $3500. It is another to say they should get a vote at all.

Hard to say. One possibility is that the oral argument is expected to be anti-climatic. She may be the type of judge for which a hearing is just a necessity and she makes up het mind on the briefs. I’ve know judge who pre-write their opinion and the hearing is used to fill in some gaps. Or it may be that while the RSA is important, it is only the foreshadowing for the main event; the disclosure statement hearing. There are three ways this plays out: 1) The judge approves the RSA, the Hartford deal is out, and we head into the disclosure hearing with the TCC, FCR, and a Coalition in full support. That is where the real fight is. 2) Approval with minor modifications that don’t cause the whole RSA to collapse 3) Rejection. The question then becomes why did the judge reject it and it is something that can be solved/fixed. If, for example, it is rejected because it sticks it to the COs maybe that gets worked out in mediation. If however it is because the Hartford deal is deemed binding on BSA, that is probably unfixable and the TCC FCR and Coalition go into full opposition mode.

Just a heads up for the week: 1) Century filed a motion to have a hearing as earlier as tomorrow (August 6) regarding discovery and document production from BSA. That will likely popup as a hearing at some point. 2) It looks like next week's hearing on August 12 has a built-in time limit: the judge has scheduled the BSA hearing for 10am but has also scheduled another hearing for 2:30pm. https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/moveit/LSS.html

One more follow-up to demonstrate how statutes, Rules, and Local Rules work using in this case a motion by the insurers to compel BSA to produce documents and asking that the motion be heard ahead of schedule/normal deadlines for BSA to respond. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fd3d02e5-dc26-4e24-90c2-a5376767168a_5883.pdf So the Bankruptcy Code (what Congress enacted) has Section 105(a) which in detailing the Power of court includes this So, that's a broad authorization for the court to issue lots of things. There's a Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9006(c) allows a bankruptcy court to reduce the deadlines for anything set by the Bankruptcy Procedure Rules "for cause shown." So, if normally the Rules give you a 30 day deadline, the court "for cause shown" can reduce that down. But even THAT is kinda ambiguous. So Delaware Bankruptcy Court Local Rule 9006-1(e) gets even more specific: So, there you go. Congress gives the courts the power to issue any necessary orders. Rule 9006 says those orders may include reducing/shrinking deadlines established by the Rules. And Local Rule 9006-1(e) says such a request to reduce the notice deadline has to be in writing and that it will be ruled on without a hearing.

Exactly. The phrase is "officers, agents or employees" or the other version I've seen is "officers, employees and agents" I'm going to take the language from one such lawsuit and delete the name of the abusive scoutmaster to show the point. So BSA and the Local Council had control over scouting programs in the area. This gets back to my prior postings in negligence/duty of care: BSA in particular KNEW for DECADES it had a problem with pedophiles in the program and did either nothing or not enough. Or actively covered it up which gets to... And the materials unearthed as part of the Oregon case provided more than enough proof of that. And then there's this. So this is where the COs, the LCs, and BSA "own" the problem. They touted these men (and some women) as safe and trustworthy and did little to nothing to actually supervise or monitor what was going on. Yep. The CO put the abusive scoutmaster in that position and the LC and/or BSA encouraged scouts and parents to go to these programs where the leaders were, in effect, left to run amok. This is the "relied to my child's harm" aspect. BSA, the LC, and/or the CO touted it was a safe place, their leaders were good men/women, etc. And then did nothing (or not much) to see if that was true. And then this particular lawsuit lays it all out. In short, [ABUSIVE SCOUTMASTER] was either an agent, servant, or employee of BSA and the LC and BSA and the LC (along with the CO) were in charge of these scouting units and did nothing to supervise or maintain any kind of responsibility for what happened.

More lawfirms have now been added in support of the RSA AND the 16,869 claimants previously listed as = Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. are NOW listed as "Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. (co-counsel with AVA Law Group, Inc.)" And AVA Law Group has now been added to the list of lawfirms, with a similar caveat "AVA Law Group, Inc. 16869 (co-counsel with Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck P.C.)" https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e51debb0-5af7-4c97-85fd-13831a20b6f6_5868.pdf Kosnoff's name still appears absolutely nowhere