ThenNow

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.

"If wishes were fishes we'd eat for a lifetime." There is 0% chance this hope is realized. Also, 85% is not a good sign. 8000 holdout votes of 56,500 voting claimants is not insubstantial.

As I recall, on top of the AG's and US Trustee, Purdue had roughly 2000 holdout tort claimants. Based on this report, we have 8000.

I'm undergoing a remodel. It seems endless. Painfully so. One thing after another. Overruns. Redundancies. Do overs. Inflation. Supply chain. Bid adjustments. Delays upon delays. Unscrupulous people. Sound familiar? The electrician was installing lights yesterday. He is an affable, tatted up, big-bearded biker sorta fella. I like him. Yesterday, he overheard me muttering to myself after finding the latest dumb thing one of the other sub's did. He chimed in from the other room, "You're dancing in the hotdog factory, again. Get out of there and don't come back until they tell you it's finished."

Numb and Numb-er?

85.72% Accept. 1816711345_DI9275SupplementalNownes-WhitakerDeclaration.pdf

Let's see if you hear from your attorney. It is the best source of information and the least problematic for you and others here who can offer an opinion. Has your attorney been responsive in the past? By what method did you contact Omni?

I asked Omni and they said they'll have the final report the 10th. She also said she's not reading 3000+/- exhibits (with untold sub-exhibits), only documents specifically referenced during the trial. She was very displeased overall. She had a 20+/- second pause at one point, looking up into her brain apparently trying to determine what to say. I would love to know what things were passing through her mind. Did I say she was very displeased? I think he refrained since he's said the same general thing three times, always adding, "This is a case about abuse survivors!" I think hi

Yes, that's a simple summary of the requirements, but they keep talking about it being limited, designed for the high-dollar claims that are the most severe and horrific, and not a lot of claimants will pursue it. Clearly, as described in the Zalkin/Pfau brief, this is intended for the well-vetted, open state claims that were or could be prepped to go into the tort system. "Abuse claim is in statute." Those 3 elements that make up the narrow definition, I believe. I just want someone to say that. Continuing to say "most severe...most horrific" and high-dollar claims is just a shroud. I get it

I still want to know who created this supposedly narrow gate and how they are defining "most severe" and "high value." What one may see as (physically) onerous may not have the highest level of economic damages or the same statutory framework for maximizing/limiting non-economic and punitive. People like me who crashed mid-career in their 40's and had significant loss of income, etc., might not have had the "most severe" abuse, whatever the [blank] that means. Honestly, I don't know. I am NOT categorizing abuse because I hate the very thought of it. This type of injury (tort) is personal and c

Anudder half mill. [*drip*drip*drip*] https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dbcf37f0-5d86-4b6c-9ef0-bdfda2a24b42_9170.pdf

If you want to understand the view of holdout firms representing abuse claimants in open states with financially sound defendants (who now support the plan), read this. On the side, I think Sir Thomas Patterson is one of the smartest attorneys on this case. That is my opinion from watching him and reading his filings. Is he the only Rhodes Scholar among them? Dunno. I'm bettin', but what do I know... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/195daa83-e7db-494d-9c7c-05d2c09c293f_9156.pdf PS - I still want someone to better explain the IR process, specifically as to the

Precisely, and on a frequency the average mortal cannot detect. I’m messin…

Ok. We all have to admit this is a funny word. Experts like to coin stuff when they don't like what else is available to them, Cronbach or no Cronbach. I'm teasing, but use it in a sentence this week and see the reaction you get (unless you work in quantitative analysis, mathematics or the like).

Bam. An equal opportunity skinning on live Court TV. It is simply inexcusable they would think it perfectly terrific and endearing to say that sort of [blankety blank] with all of us watching and listening. Makes me pretty cranky pants.

Thanks for the "most." I assumed that allows present company to be excepted? (There are at least three of us present and relatively accounted for.)