CynicalScouter

2 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Do they wait until the ballot tabulations are announced 12/21? If 5.0 fails to garner 2/3 of non-quick pay votes, isn't the choice for BSA to go to the toggle or Ch 7?

That's an interesting question, and I don't want to speculate based 12/21, but maybe I will now. In the next two weeks the TCC will (almost certainly) be putting out its plan once exclusivity ends.

What follows is wild, wild, speculation for if Plan 5.5 fails.

1) Fails by a little (65.99% or something like it) we get fights over whether or not to count the $3500-option ballots.

2) Fails but gets a majority (50%+) we get some kind of hybrid plan with elements of what TCC wants.

3) Fails by a lot: Cramdown BSA-toggle OR maybe the TCC gets to put its plan out to vote?

5 minutes ago, ChickenMan said:

Copy of full letter is located here: https://northga-email.brtapp.com/files/fileslibrary/bishop/letter+from+bishop+sue+and+chris+10-6-21.pdf

Thanks. Somehow I doubt pushing the deadline back to March 2022 is  going to stop churches from dropping/refusing to sign recharters in December.

8 minutes ago, qwazse said:

New parents come in and think that our troop is something special because some of us adults are Eagle Scouts. Meanwhile, the majority of other adults have put heart and soul into the life of the troop, helping us in countless ways. We Eagle Scouts don’t do all that much besides wear a nice knot.

I have worked with Eagle scouts that had absolutely no business being an ASM or troop committee. They did NOT get it.

I have also worked with people with zero connections to scouting who come in as the den-leader-parent and KNOW how to operate a troop (committee side) or work with scouts (ASM) in ways that amaze me each day.

But there's an assumption, probably justified SOME times maybe even MOST times, that Eagle = knowing "how to scout".

My committee chair was an Eagle. He's said over and over "As a scout, I had no idea any of this (committee stuff) even existed." Right, because as a scout committees should be invisible or not notable. Etc.

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

 I bet BSA has a back pocket quick exit plan that they could convince the judge to implement via cramdown

Yep it was called the toggle plan and while it would take a little updating to account for updated financial data a BSA-only plan could be out the door and approved relatively quickly I would think.

47 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

So, if National liquidates, does its intellectual property go on the auction block?

We don't know because much of National's IP is protected not merely by copyright and trademark law but a specific act of Congress.

36 U.S. Code § 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words

Quote

The corporation [Boy Scouts of America] has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights

And that same Congressional statute says Boy Scouts of America is "perpetual"

36 U.S. Code § 30901. Organization

Quote

Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.

So, we have NO idea what a bankruptcy court would do with that language since, as was pointed out several times by BSA at the start, we have NEVER had a congressionally charted organization go into Chapter 7.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Per Maria Chutchian (Reuters Bankruptcy reporter) Judge Silverstein said that individual claimants will have the opportunity to raise any concerns they have about the plan during a January trial if they would like.

The judge said pro se litigants showing up late in the game to file objections and demand discovery would be considered. And of course any claimant has the right to file an objection.

16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Is there anyone on this forum that could give me a rational objective reason to vote anything but NO on the current proposal?

I cannot, but let me offer three questions that, depending on your circumstances, may factor.

1) How much longer do you want this to go on for? A failed BSA bankruptcy stretches this out even longer, but that may be fine for you. But it also means dwelling on this longer. More mental pain and anguish. Or, maybe not. Etc.

2) How much more do you think you will get? If this is in your view the best you think you are going to get, then that might tends towards a Yes. If you think there is a chance of getting more out of BSA, the LCs, Hartford, or the LDS Church (if applicable) then that leans towards a no.

3) How much more do you THINK you will get and at what TIME COST? This is that rational objective thing. Mix the two together. It gets into game theory (remember you are only 1/82,500)

If I told you today that a NO vote would lead to payouts taking an extra 1 week but you get another $1,000? 1 month? 1 year? What if I change the amount to $10,000? $100,000?

What if I told you the time and the amount, but that you will be thinking about this and having to, in some respects, focus on parts of your life you'd just as soon forget? The cost, if you will.

Again, I cannot answer, I'm not a victim. I would never, ever be so arrogant as to even suggest a course of action. All I would say is that to my eyes from the outside these seem to be the major "objective" (that's not a precise word here but I'll use it) factors.

The insurers really, really don't like BSA trying to get a Protective Order from the court for things they haven't even asked for yet.

Century- it is wrong and unconstitutional!: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0b016f1d-6cff-40fd-b4aa-5d106a300ad6_6495.pdf

Quote

Rather than follow the familiar course of
responding to discovery requests, meeting and conferring about disputes—as the Local Rules
require—and seeking to narrow any unresolved issues, the Debtors lurched for a prospective
ruling on not-yet-seen-or-served discovery responses....the Court lacks constitutional authority to grant the Debtors’ unripe requested relief

AIG - at least let us ASK and say NO before running to the judge: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/940034c2-64a2-4739-8cce-6019ab64d2fa_6497.pdf

Quote

Debtors’ Motion seeks an impermissible advisory opinion on non-existent discovery disputes.

3 minutes ago, leedavid815 said:

Thank You. I didn't see the mitigating factors in the TDP. You confirmed it. I guess the Discovery will expound on it. There are still much to be mediated. I see many insurance companies still to be bargained with.

There are 3 variables.

• Variable 1: Value of claim. That is expressed as type of abuse, BASE value and MAXIMUM
• Variable 2: Mitigating Scaling Factors: there are at least 4:  Absence of Protected Party Relationship or Presence of a Responsible Party that Is Not a Protected Party; Other Settlements, Awards, Contributions, or Limitations; Statute of Limitations or Repose and BSA’s Discharge; Absence of a Putative Defendant
• Variable 3: Aggravating Scaling Factors: Impact of the Abuse (Mental Health Issues, Physical Health Issues, Interpersonal Relationships, Vocational Capacity, Academic Capacity, Legal Difficulties); Abuser Profile (the more victims, the more money); Nature of Abuse and Circumstances

13 minutes ago, leedavid815 said:

Does the Trust Distribution Proceedure Payout account for the highest bracket or combine all that we experienced? Are the original factor multipliers still valid or did they change?

First, welcome.

Second, you need to speak with an attorney.

Third, the ONLY thing that the tables show is

1. The tiers of abuse
2. The BASE valuation
3. The MAXIMUM valuation.
4. Once done the adjustments start to get made:
5. Statutes of limitations Gray 1/2/3/Closed will adjust that number DOWN.

Other mitigating factors will adjust down.

Others aggravating factors will increase that number.

ALL that this TDP chart shows is broad, general, non-specific-to-your-case information.

So, I go back to the second point: speak with an attorney. Simply looking at a chart does NOT say what YOUR particular case means.

2 minutes ago, livitup said:

Downvote the post, which is in effect a low value "I disagree." post without an explanation. I can't discern any additional "consequences" of a downvote.

Yep. Its petty if THAT it response in its entirety.

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Wait a minute. That is hypocritical considering you gave me numerous copious and indiscriminate downvotes. You didn't see me complain.

Barry

You would be in a position to complain.

And here. If it means that much to you, have an upvote. On me.

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

It’s not that I care when you down vote me (and you do quite often) I would like you to explain what it is you actually disagree with

Yep. If all a person can do in response is some kind of petty little internet point diminishment (down vote) and offer nothing else, then that's not really contributing anything.

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

One forum member is going back through all of my past posts and indiscriminately down-voting every post I've ever made.

In light of your copious and indiscriminate use of the down vote button, I hardly think you are in a position to complain.

95% of paper printed. Equivalent of 16 million pages. Used double sided printing and printing multiple pages per page.

Solicitation packages getting mailed today. First wave: incarcerated.

100% complete mailing by weekend.

Mediation: no agreements to announce.

Hearing possibly running late?

https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/moveit/LSS.html

Literally minutes before the hearing, BSA drops a revised schedule that is supposedly approved by TCC>

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/979151ac-9556-4dac-ba1b-6af093259003_6494.pdf

Quote

The TCC and the Insurers, including the Certain Insurers, have agreed to the entry of the Revised Proposed Order.

Still on track for January 24.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

charged in court in 2000 over abusing teenagers but got a plea deal. 

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This one is interesting as the man was charged in court in 2000 over abusing teenagers but got a plea deal.  That was an a leader of an Explorer unit ... so how could the BSA let him still be a leader in 2018/2019?

Likely because BSA did absolutely no reference checks and focused on convictions. According to this, the plea deal made no mention of anything about child sexual abuse. He plead out to firing off some pepper spray and if he stayed on his best behavior even THAT was dropped.

Quote

As part of a plea agreement reached with prosecutors in June 2001, the three endangering charges were dismissed and Rowcliffe admitted to a misdemeanor count of unlawfully possessing or selling noxious material for discharging pepper spray in the back of a police car in the presence of a young person in June 2000. Under the agreement, if Rowcliffe complied with court-imposed conditions that included an evaluation and counseling, even the charge he admitted to would be dropped.

12 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Can anyone give an example that they know of how the abuse occurred despite the YPT rules?

Jonathan Spohrer case discussed here

Cannot wait to see the unsealed version of this motion

[SEALED] Motion to Approve to Take Judicial Notice that the Court-Approved agent; Omni Agent Solutions has Effectively Abandoned its Clients with Debtor Claims that are Housed in Prisons. Filed by W.M.. The case judge is Laurie Selber Silverstein. (BJM)

Unsealed version https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/097fb989-2ad6-44ed-86d5-208a6ddf9310_6491.pdf

He is basically asking for the court to declare any incarcerated person with a claim a separate special class and to have counsel appointed for them.

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So the COR will be brought into court and asked what he/she did to review/approve the leader (call references, etc.). In many cases, I expect COs could be found negligent in their role in youth protection under the current BSA system.

That is exactly what the lawsuits that name COs are saying and why the Methodists are running for the doors. I remember the Methodist bishop who sent a letter claiming the church was being blamed for the actions of leaders CHOSEN BY BSA. No, bishop, if you look at each and every one of those adult applications, your church (going back to the 1920s) were signing off either through the COR, the IH, or both (for annual recharter).

That is why the entire CO system has been a joke for years. The idea that COs were really fulfilling their duties under the charters to oversee and supervise the unit? A sad, pathetic joke. Well guess what? The COs are now finding out that they are up a creek.

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid question but here it goes. 

Who would be responsible legally for future abuse if BSA does adopt the outside group's YP policies?

I also want to point something out and this brought up several times: there is 0% chance the BSA will be forever end child sexual abuse within scouting.

The point is can BSA demonstrate to a judge and jury that it was not NEGLIGENT. Broadly speaking (and I mean broadly) the accusation against BSA in the lawsuits that were filed were

1. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND DID NOT DO ENOUGH
2. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND ACTIVELY TRIED TO HIDE IT
3. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND FAILED TO SUPERVISE VOLUNTEERS

All of these things (modern YPT, adopting whatever the outside group recommends) will weigh against these three claims. But whether in THIS particular case involving THIS particular victim and THIS particular adult volunteer, was BSA nevertheless negligent? TBD.

6 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid question but here it goes. 

Who would be responsible legally for future abuse if BSA does adopt the outside group's YP policies?

I would 100% guarantee the next time a child was abused the outside group's report would be introduced as an exhibit but whose?

If BSA did NOT adopt, plaintiff lawyer runs with it:

"BSA knew they had problems. They were told by outside expert/outside group the specific problems they had and how to fix them. BSA ignored them. My client was abused as the result of BSA's refusal to change its ways."

If BSA DID adopt, BSA lawyer runs with it:

"BSA knew we had problems. We were told by outside expert/outside group the specific problems we had and how to fix them. BSA did exactly as it was told to fix it. Plaintiff was NOT abused as the result of BSA's refusal to change its ways/negligence."

Would a jury nevertheless hold BSA liable? Who knows. It will depend on the precise facts in the case.

21 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

You have to keep in mind that in a year or two, there may be no Scouts BSA at all. This could happen.

At this point there is still alot of things up in the air. This court case in my opinion will not be over for some time.

This is the thread to talk about this:

Yes, there is still a very, very real possibility that Boy Scouts of America the entity that runs Scouts BSA, Cub Scouts, Venture Scouts, etc. will be forced to liquidated (not by the court but by simply running out of money and having no choice). Moreover, even if BSA survives, there's no certainty it will make it if membership numbers do NOT bounce back the way they are financially projecting.

There's also the possibility that Boy Scouts of America the entity survives but that local councils will go through waves of their own bankruptcies, etc.

I do not think it is helpful to speculate much past mid-December (when we find out how victims voted) or late January (will the judge confirm/approve whatever the plan looks like post-vote).