ThenNow

BSA National just called. They want immediate access to this "Defense Fund" and asked who's been holding out on them.

Schullman. Yikes. Exposing all that may be wrong, problematic and questionable with the intake, vetting and signature processes with some firms. Ack. JLSS taking many notes with as sour look on her face.

A further argument is/was expanded in one of the Certain Insurers' filed objections. I can't imaging it doesn't come up again. There is a provision for BSA/the Trustee to help claimants obtain information they would otherwise have to scrap for through discovery. It's in the discovery protocols. This, specifically, runs squarely afoul of the duty to join their insurers in defending against claims. That's the argument.

I think Sean Higgins (Andrews-Thornton) was a terrible witness for them to put before the judge. He explained their vetting process, justification for e-signatures, ongoing contact and follow up with clients, the iterative process of gathering claim data leading to filing 100’s of POC amendments, and was very articulate. Showing his video testimony was a waste, at best, damaging to their case at the worst. Not well thought out IMNSHO.

BSA YP consultant, Praesidium Partners, on now. Aaron Lundberg, CEO testifying.

I wonder what the media will have to say about this. Sheesh. I would not want to attempt an overview or summary. His attorney looks like he has some undisclosed internal malady.

FCR is challenging the LC rep for the lowest scores on cross. His counsel has said, "Um. Er. Um." in every objection. Not pretty.

Listening to Charlie under both direct and cross, let's just say hope does not spring eternal as such might apply to my eventual award (or lack thereof).

Many details of the structure of the UMC, the priority of taking emotional and spiritual care of survivors, the processes for decision making, the directive to back away from CO status, the difficulty of the mediation sessions, the eventual settlement and scramble to get sign-on across the congregations, the retraction of the directive, their goal to pay their portion within the first year, their effort to see all COs gain releases and etc. Critical to me, he wept as he expressed true sorry over what happened to us. And, not just once, but several times. Me too. He ended direct questioning wit

I think more than alluded. "As long as they get a check, they settle."

Jessica Lauria: Updated Mediator's Report. BSA and RCC Ad Hoc Committee have struck a deal. They withdraw their objections. Agree to support BSA through 2036. Forming a CO advisory group...I just found it on the docket. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cfa95f81-22b0-409a-862d-6eb07e166523_9387.pdf

tccquestions@pszjlaw.com

TDP reference language, please?

Just updating the testimony and stating his argument, since our court reported was off duty. That's it.

Also, Jacobs noted that NC's "reviver" was found unconstitutional. To wit, open (window) state claims could later be un-opened by virtue of the laws being unconstitutional. As in, openness might be in flux.

Yup. I was speaking to the substance of your post for those who may not naturally tie that timber hitch.

Ninja hit. Logged on, took photos of the participants during the brief recess and logged off.

Foundation for appeal is being laid.

Let the games begin!

9305.pdf

[famous Rolling Stones line goes here]

At some point an organization (and I won't hold my breath that it will be a governmental agency) will need to do autopsies of these cases. Since the analysis is not being done during the process, for various stated reasons some of which I don't not comprehend, they just slide on through like snail snot. I used that because they are slow, but slick. How can this continue to happen relatively unchecked without both full disclosure of aggregator funding and advertising methods, and frontend vetting and validation of e-signatures? From what I see as a moral and objective standpoint, all expediency

Starting from the end, are you saying it's wrong, foolish or pointless to negotiate changes to help keep youth safe? I get the disgusting and don't disagree. Let's assume BSA is headed toward emergence to continue its youth-serving mission. For the sake of staying in a straight line, let's not argue whether it does or does not do that well. All mitigating arguments and objections to the outcome being realized aside, isn't it better to use the moment to leverage enhanced youth protection than see BSA emerge without those significant improvements? Are you exclusively saying that because they had

Yes.

Agreed. If we recall the way it went down, without any involvement of the TCC and triumphantly announced to the world as the second coming, it was clearly a (the?) major BSA gaffe that set the trajectory. I believe that is when I went into my, "smells like desperation" and not "teen spirit" routine.