ThenNow
-
Content Count
1541 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by ThenNow
-
-
If someone wants to read through this and summarize, please do. I get the gist of negligent representation, in various forms, but it's interesting from there. I pray this fella is okay, in the midst, regardless the truth in all of this.
-
Bench ruling coming down tomorrow at 3:00PM ET.
-
1 hour ago, yknot said:
Also, I think scouting can be a bit of an echo chamber. We hear what we want to hear and dismiss what we don't. What I hear outside my scouting/community/church circles when talking to people who don't know I'm involved in scouting is different.
You know my love for the random and anecdotal. Here's today's minuscule sample "survey." I live in a wee pocket [not the one Mr. Schiavoni was in the other day] between a metro area and a mid-sized town. Pretty much all those who work along the half mile stretch I frequent are known by and to me. I was in the petrol station and snackery talking with two gals my age just now. (May I say the 'g' word?) They asked what was what and saw I'm looking a bit bleary, not only because I was checking out with a 44 oz. Diet Coke. I gave a quick "BSA bankruptcy" reference and they were off to the races. They had nothing but hellfire and damnation. The line was held up and I started feeling uncomfortable for the patrons behind me. This isn't an unusual or isolated occurrence, though I grant typically not with the Scouting age parental unit crowd. [Nod to the Coneheads] I know there are folks out there in my bracket with Scouts. No offense or slight intended. Just talking about the vast majority.
On a similar "people on the street" note, my sister has friends with kids in Scouts. All are very involved parents. As to discussing or even mentioning the case? "La, la, la, la, la. I can't hearrrr you. La, la, la, la, la..." Want none of it. Zero.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:
That was Hartford's objections. Here's Century's
Yeah. Ya read one, ya read ‘em all. Jk. I shoulda posted both. I’m going to ask how many read them by COB tonight. 😴
-
-
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:
Right, both nationally and locally the Methodists have been told to NOT sign any recharters that take them past December 31, 2021. Some did (summer recharters) but most didn't.
I know my council typically sends out the "it's recharter time!" emails starting in September. Once that happens, that is when the very awkward conversations are going to happen in earnest.
Right now, the Methodists and Catholics have the leverage, I agree. But the question is how much of it is a bluff?
What is the vested interest of these COs in continuing to "host" Scouting? A long while ago, we discussed how Scouting is a valued component of many congregation's menu of youth and community services. Is that still widely the case? Is that their singular "compelling interest" counterbalancing the current abandonment and risk of tremendous liability exposure in the near term. "I guess my 'partner' must not value me as much as they oozed, so perhaps it's time for a divorce?" I'm curious and don't have great insight into this topic or perhaps too much else. Thanks, in advance.
-
This is long (42 pages) but worth a read. Insurers hitting things squarely in the forehead with a cinder block.
-
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:
“Hey, now, hey, now. Don’t dream it’s over...” Guess I missed this. Bam! https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/05/27/clergy-abuse-what-know-proposed-wisconsin-child-victims-act/5165648001/
UPDATE: Just spoke with CHILDUSA Advocacy, the legislative arm of CHILDUSA, and they said, “We plan on working with Senator Agard to pass SoL reform in Wisconsin.”
And, just noticed that Senator Agard is on the Board of Director’s for the Glacier’s Edge Council. Innerestin’.
-
“Hey, now, hey, now. Don’t dream it’s over...” Guess I missed this. Bam! https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/05/27/clergy-abuse-what-know-proposed-wisconsin-child-victims-act/5165648001/
Excerpts:
A proposed bill that would allow survivors of childhood sexual abuse to hold their abuser accountable is facing an uncertain future in the state Legislature.
The Child Victims Act would allow survivors to pursue civil action against their abuser or the organization that employed the person, removing the current limitation that allows a person to pursue action only until they turn 35 years old. The bill, survivors say, would allow them to finally feel a sense of justice, share their stories as adults and hopefully prevent future crimes from taking place.
The bill has been proposed time and again before the Legislature, only to stall in committee. But now that an investigation into sexual abuse by religious leaders has been opened by the state Department of Justice, survivors and their advocates are once again hopeful.
Here's what you need to know about the potential legislation:
What is the Child Victims Act?
The bill would allow survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue civil action against their abuser or the organization that employed the abuser without a time limit to bring the claim to police or the courts. The legislation would not change the amount of time a survivor has to seek criminal action against an abuser.
#####
Has the legislation been reintroduced this year?
Legislators have not formally introduced the Child Victims Act this year, but Sen. Melissa Agard, D-Madison, said she’s working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to re-introduce the measure.
Gov. Tony Evers has signaled he would likely sign the bill if it reached his desk.
-
7 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:
And a shout out around then to "then now" as well!
Finally! I’m famous. I always knew it would happen one day. 😬 Did he comment on my overall gentility, haberdashery and, of course, my coif? Oh, yeah. He can’t see me. Dang it.
My agent will be accepting applications for the T/N Fan Club officer positions starting at 9:00AM ET.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, yknot said:
It's another thing if the relationship turns chilly or even hostile and a facility use agreement might be problematic.
As with my thoughts about Mosby’s “equitable compensation” to “all victims,” they set themselves up for this ire, which I think is already there. They played up how important COs are to the future of Scouting and then failed to include them in this process, as they rushed to the altar. Misters Ryan and Buchbinder made that clear without mincing words. As I probably said, Mr. B. was downright befuddled and seriously agitated about how they could be so dense and wind up fighting with a large group they deemed critical to carrying out their mission. The financial ramifications of mass defection and unwillingness to do even facility use agreements are, well, RIP BSA.
I think it’s 100% an unveiled threat. (Altar...Veil...)
-
8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
Perhaps it will as the Coalition lawyers (I believe many if not all would be paid through the contingency fees) would look pretty dirty if they scuttled the RSA because they personally were not being paid directly out of BSA fees.
Yupper.
-
4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
approves the Collation payments (it is $10M+ ... yes, a lot of money, but in $850M is in discussion right now and rejecting it could stop the process and have BSA wasted many times that amount in getting to a new RSA)
As Mr. B said, they can apply later, once we know what was actually done and accomplished. That is, after all, the norm. Pay for votes is what it was. Desperation breeds concession and surrender, I suppose. I agree, it's a small number, but it's disgusting, especially in light testimony from Whitman (Alvarez & Marsal) and Desai, and the statements by the executives. At least make them vet the numbers, for Pete's sake.
-
1 hour ago, elitts said:
You are an attorney, and as such, arguably, are in the top few percent of the US public when it comes to education and critical thinking skills. You are also well versed in the nuance of language and the importance of using exactly the right terminology when making statements. Thus, when you read the words "equitably compensate", it has a fairly specific meaning to you.
Yup, I am. Education and critical thinking? I'll let you decide on that one.
I suppose that is correct.
1 hour ago, elitts said:That said, do you really think most of the victims out there would really have distinguished between a statement that the BSA wanted to "Equitably compensate victims" and one where they simply said they wanted to "compensate victims"?
I do. I've spoken with at least 10 people about this language, from my mom (HS education), my brother (two masters, one in ESL), lawyer friends, an auto tech, former factory worker and others, most of which admittedly have a college and/or university degree.
You're making one big assumption in your question and it is counter-opposed to your compliment that I am dogged about precision of language. (My spelling stinks, however.) Here it is. You didn't ask me what words I would have advised them to use instead of what they did. You fed me words. I see Mosby's very first public statement as a serious mistake that has lead to all manner of confusion, anger and heartache. This is what he said:
“While we know nothing can undo the tragic abuse that victims suffered, we believe the Chapter 11 process – with the proposed Trust structure – will provide equitable compensation to all victims..."
See the difference? "Will provide." An absolute, not qualified with "do our best," or "work diligently" or anything else. Big mistake. "Equitable," which many, many people know means, essentially, "fair." "Compensate." This is a nit I've picked, but poor choice. And, this one is ginormous. "ALL." I don't really have to say how crazy it was to say that. Where were the bloody attorneys and PR wordsmiths? Seriously.
1 hour ago, elitts said:I mean, I send out a tax assessment notice each year to taxpayers that says in bold , red, 28pt font at the top of the page.
THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL
and even then I get a dozen phone calls every year upset about the new tax bill they just got.
Totally apples to oranges. Almost EVERYONE panics when they think something is a tax bill and wants assurance it's not. That's not a matter of education. Being promised money after waiting 50 years? Waaaay waaaay waaaay different.
-
-
16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
Really good article; however, they completely missed the US Trustee’s objection.
As to the RSA or the Coalition fees? He pretty much went dead last (second from last) and the reporters were apparently on deadline. His statements need to be reported somewhere, I think. They were pithy and potent and powerful.
-
-
11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
And again, the messaging got horribly muddle where the BSA was saying (or trying to say) that they would equitably compensate victims. This was take and interpreted, or misinterpreted by some of the lawyer ads, to mean every victim was going to get million dollar checks.
Yeah. We’ve discussed this at great length before and I know it’s of little value to whip it some more. I will anyway. I have lots more coffee to drink, nothing much to do just yet and because the impact of that statement has loomed over the entire process.
I can speak for myself (at least most days) and say the “equitably compensate survivors of abuse in Scouting” message was a huge banner of acknowledgment and hope. It certainly enhanced my desire to file a claim. Did I do any math? Not much. I guessed at potential claims and came up with between 5000 and 10-12,000 on the high end. Knowing a bit about the National asset base, that of my LC, and the deep and wide insurance coverage, I figured that would result in a meaningful award for all of us. Regardless the number of claims, they never should have used the word “equitable” — nor compensate in my book but that’s semantics — or implied that all survivors would get such compensation. It was a horrible unforced error and I can’t believe it wasn’t better thought out. Well, after hearing you guys talk about governance, I can.
-
9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:
As hard as it is for us I can not imagine how heart wrenching it must be for them. They have a large load on their shoulders and I personally am grateful for their service to us.
110%.
-
6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
The way I read it.. the BSA is basically saying this is it. Either approve the deal or the BSA will fold. Is that how it sounded today?
Well, it’s always effective to say, “I’ll just die if you don’t let me go to the game, dad!” but I guess I didn’t hear that degree of desperation or even hyperbole. I had several things going on simultaneously, though. At one point, Tanc Schiavoni was speaking to me from my pocket, jangling along with some loose change and an old pocket knife.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
So what’s next? Bench ruling? If so, any idea when?
I’m guessing not from the bench, but I don know nuttin’. She’s aware it has to be as quickly as possible, but what that means I can’t say. I still think the Coalition fees are on the block. Counsel for the Catholic and Methodist Churches COs was pretty compelling about this not going forward without them. Mr. B also spanked them for walking away from the COs and on the Coalition fees. He was extremely animated and upset, at least his delivery projected the latter.
-
26 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
Pretty abbreviated, but decent. Obviously written before the hearing wrapped, since the Coalition fees issue isn’t there. I want to see Mr. B’s commentary fully transcribed, whether I agree with all of it or not!
-
26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
So I stepped away; I take it the hearing ended for the day?
Nope. You missed Tanc’s PowerPoint and David Buchbinder’s fire breathing. He lit some pants on fire. Ha. Molten back on trying to respond to Mr. B’s assault.
And, that’s a wrap at 8:16PM ET.
-
15 minutes ago, yknot said:
Companies like his that come in and help manage a restructuring often come in cold and have to do some degree of due diligence. It doesn't make any sense.
Admittedly at a lower level, but back in the days of paper and binders, you'd come in, someone would hand you a series of them to study, notate and bring back for a step through review. I'm not sure how many such critical documents those binders would contain for someone in his BSA role.
Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan
in Issues & Politics
Posted · Edited by ThenNow
What if the RSA is rejected for any or all of the seemingly innumerable reasons stated?