CynicalScouter

Right. That is, in effect, advocating for parties to engage in ex parte communications with the court, especially where the party is represented by counsel who is asking them to do it. That whole process always seemed off (read: unethical) to me for that reason.

Following up on this: The Insurance companies are now demanding Green's company (Resolutions, LLC) produce any and all documents related to their interactions with the FCR (in particular), the BSA, TCC, and Coalition. They issued a subpoena yesterday. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/726423f6-16d4-45ab-b601-74f958a938fa_5866.pdf

Right. I'm not sure that any of that hypothetical (the SM that lies about their identity, etc.) has been alleged in any of the cases I am aware of. The negligence claim ultimately boils down to this: BSA, the Local Council, and the CO (or some combination) let groups of young boys alone with these leaders which BSA, the LC, and the CO put into positions of authority or agreed to supervise or both and the young boys were abused by these leaders in part because BSA, the LC and/or the CO failed to even provide a modicum or cursory supervision or examination.

https://oa-bsa.org/magellan https://www.facebook.com/oabsa/photos/a.109020151775/10158000559046776/

We can debate whether that is a fair or right or just thing (i.e. that as soon as a jury hears about a child being sexually abused, they'll go after anyone and everyone involved out of a sense of outrage and sympathy). I will however note two things: 1) BSA doesn't always lose in these cases, but it loses enough that if you multiply out over thousands of cases filed that BSA saw the writing on the wall: it would be in court for the next decade and have hundreds of millions if not billions in judgments against it. At least this way victims who are first-to-the-courthouse-door don't "w

Media coverage of this Boy Scouts’ Victims Push for More Insurance Info from Chubb (subscription required)

It's my understanding that yes, that was something like it: that in a time of crisis Churchill stepped up and led and that in BSA's time of crisis this is the leadership to get out of it, etc. Notice how for the most part almost all of it was shelved.

As for the above Rule 2019, if I had to guess given how obstinante Kosnoff has been, he'll file something for the Rule 2019 but there will be nothing for AIS because they will stick to the claim that "AIS doesn't exist". That's my guess.

So Century has filed a proposed order to put into writing the judge's verbal decision to force Kosnoff/Kosnoff Law AND AIS to file a Rule 2019 statement. Century wants the following info by August 9. Names of victims and their contact info are to be filed under seal EXCEPT that the insurance companies + the U.S. Trustee get to see https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a1b194aa-a67b-4f48-8c0a-6892690cffa5_5852.pdf 2. On or before August 9, 2021, Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC shall each file a verified statement setting forth the information required by

Bringing this back to the bankruptcy for a second: The Unsecured Creditors Committee for the Archdiocese of Guam's bankruptcy filed its objection to the BSA disclosure statement. In it, they ask that the court at least reach some of the aspects of confirmability now rather than wait for a vote of victims to approve/reject only to at confirmation veto the whole thing. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/bd4e3bde-0056-4944-a1b0-031ea56d53c7_5842.pdf

For what feels like the millionth time: the point isn't that BSA knew after the fact or that BSA did or did not report as to this particular Scoutmaster. The point is and I repeat myself but it is necessary. The reason BSA is being sued (and has lost numerous times in state courts prior to 2020) is that yes, the pedophile did it, but BSA was negligent in allowing it to happen. In short, and I mean very, very short: 1) Boy Scouts of America (BSA National, the Congressionally Chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils

USA Today opinion piece by victim: Abused boys, traumatized men: Bankruptcy plea exposes Boy Scouts as the cowards they are survivors of heinous crimes deserve to have their day in court, but the bankruptcy proceedings essentially shut down future lawsuits against the BSA. I still am trying to struggle to understand what victims have been told is BSA's actual holdings/assets and what "fairly" looks like. I've always expressed my concern that thanks to misunderstandings and/or outright misinformation that victims believe BSA has more money than they actually do and will reject any

Timothy David Kosnoff is admitted to the practice of law and an active member of the Washington State Bar. https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000016586 Whoever said he wasn't an attorney any longer was misinformed. What MAY have happened (pure speculation) is he was admitted to practice in Texas and let that lapse OR he let his Washington State Bar admission lapse and then became active again.

Yeah, I got a fan. My speculation here is along the lines of what is the the nature of that "runoff" agreement that the PA Commissioner agreed to and wants no one else to see. If it is in anyway capped, that could means one of two things: 1) The cap's unenforceable garbage. Sure, there may be (and let me say again may be) a cap on Century's runoff as part of the transfer to Chubb ("We'll buy you, but only if the debt's $1 billion (an illustrative number I am pulling out of thin air)" or something like that) and that was enough to get past the PA Commissioner's smell test, but it is g

Chubb/Century and Hartford are still refusing to turn over financial information, perhaps most critically the question of how much assets Century has and to what extent Chubb is liable for Century debts. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f71fbcdd-939f-4ded-b0b8-2569bdcffb06_5835.pdf In short and perhaps a tad oversimplified, there's a (real) possibility that the hoped for big insurance payouts may not happen. Chubb may (and let be stress, may) argue down the road that under the terms of the 1996 acquisition of Century that Chubb took on only Century's assets a

You did because it would have made some historical sense if you consider that Civics (1911-1946) became Citizenship (1947-1951) which splintered into Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation and Citizenship in the World and Citizenship in the Home and World Brotherhood in 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discontinued_merit_badges_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)

Sure. There's the Bankruptcy Code, the law enacted by Congress that deals with, well, bankruptcy. That's found U.S. Code Title 11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11 There you'll find familiar names CHAPTER 7—LIQUIDATION (§§ 701 – 784) and CHAPTER 11—REORGANIZATION (§§ 1101 – 1195). So far, so good. Rules of practice and procedure of federal courts were until the Rule Enabling Act of 1934 also entirely in the hands of Congress. Since 1934 there's a shared arrangement: the courts (through the federal Judicial Conference) can adopt rules of practice and procedure, but Cong

We've got a new hearing date for the disclosure statement: August 25, objections by August 16. The judge obviously had to move somethings around to get BSA on the docket that quick. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e76188ad-f1fe-4110-a82f-c2c4a25eb4db_5833.pdf This is my new Guestimated Timeline, based on the Fourth Amended Plan. Obviously there will be some shifts since some of these computed dates fall on Saturdays, but (again large and copious amounts of salt here, not just a grain) if BSA can move fast they can get out of bankruptcy by early November.

I know you are not the first person to say this/repeat this, namely, that victims were told they would never have to tell their story except for that one time. Another version included that the victims would remain 100% anonymous to everyone. That obviously isn't true UNLESS (and here's the unless) UNLESS you agree to take the $3500 "expedited" payout which, under the latest plan being discussed, relies entirely on that claim document you submitted. If you want ANY more recovery than that, then yes, at some point or another you MAY and likely WILL have to tell your story in more detail. W

Reuters take on yesterday's hearing https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-victims-lawyer-group-must-disclose-makeup-judge-rules-2021-07-29/ Kosnoff says he's ready to disclose. And I again come back to my own theory: The Rule 2019 Kosnoff/Kosnoff Law/AIS is going file to be minimally informative if that much and we'll be right back before the judge in 1-2 months for another fight on this. I could be wrong, but given Kosnoff's track record and obstinance, I would bet against full and complete compliance with the judge's order the first time.

1) Yes RSA 1.0 is gone. RSA 2.0 is back and identical to 1.0 except the only major difference is that if either side dislikes whatever is brought forth as part of the plan to include COs either side can walk away. Oh and the deadline for the judge to agree is late August AND they got more lawfirms to agree, bringing the total number of claims represented by attorneys to over 70,000. 2) The grey tiers in RSA 1.0 are in RSA 2.0. Again 1.0 = 2.0 plus a few amendments. 3) How much and when is still TBD. Remember: the RSA is simply "This is what BSA, the LCs, the FCR, the TCC, and the Coa

They argued two things: to keep confidential the list of abuse survivors and the professional engagement letters and instruments purporting to evidence the Coalition’s authority to act on behalf of its members. The thinking was listing all clients on a court website would expose/revictimize victims (they did agree to name 6 victims who were serving at the Coalition's advisory board). Moreover, they worried the insurance companies would start to investigate some of these claimants. Ok, said everyone else. But there's ways to work around the confidentiality issue, and there sure as heck no

Few possibilities: 1) Kosnoff is not as all powerful as he lets on and Eisenberg and AVA are really driving the bus. 2) Kosnoff is just obstinate and would rather be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything he doesn't want to do. That's why my guess in that the Rule 2019 disclosure will be minimally informative (if even that much) and result in a motion to compel further disclosure. As a reminder to all: the Coalition did the same thing. Their initial Rule 2019 statement was sparse (at best) and it wasn't until months of litigation and hearing before the judge that the Coali

So, what would a Rule 2019 look like? Well the Coalition had to be forced by the court to file a full (with some redactions) versions last year. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf It should lay out, in detail, the legal and financial arrangements between Kosnoff (or his law firm), AVA Law, Einseberg's law firm, etc. It should also spell out the financial interests in the case and while not by name (victims names will be filed under seal) identify which lawyers are representing which claimants. While a prudent person would perhaps lay o

So, the big takeaways are The RSA is set for August 12/13. The disclosure statement hearing is getting pushed back to some date to be determined. Remember several things here. If the RSA blows up/gets rejected by the judge the odds of a disclosure statement drop to zero. The TCC/FCR/Coalition have said they'll never agree to a plan with the Hartford settlement. BSA is on record saying the RSA was a "gating" issue, meaning its acceptance or rejection sets the stage for any disclosure statement. From disclosure statement hearing through a vote and a confirmation hearing is at le