ThenNow

16 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The wheels of bankruptcy grind on, slowly.

So I’m clear, are them der wheels sporting rubber or marshmallow treads?

23 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Virtual town hall meeting on September 15, 2022 at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

Not sure how many of you logged on for the gathering, but it was informative and anything but celebratory. Just as I anticipated. TCC counsel advised the effective date is 6-18 month out, reasonably. I go with the outside, given the timelines so far. If more dawdling, wrangling, lack of settlements with the holdout insurers and etc., it could be more worser. Wee...

Two relevant news articles I've stumbled across. Ms. Kelly has covered the case since inception. (Not the film. That was 12 years ago. Hm. On second thought, that's a worthy note from where I sit.)

https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/boy-scouts-path-exit-bankruptcy-following-sex-abuse-settlement-approval-2022-09-08/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/09/08/boy-scouts-plan-exit-bankruptcy-historic-sex-abuse-case-ends/8023263001/

38 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Are stays from the Bankruptcy Court still in effect during an appeal to District Court?

As I read the Code, the stays remain until the effective date. The plan cannot be implemented yet, so it makes sense to me. Confirmation is the beginning of the end for the debtor. Okay. I threw my dart and let's see where it landed. 

NB: I am not a bankruptcy attorney and do not play one on TV.

15 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

NO ONE can accurately predict that right now without knowing the exact nature of any appeals and the extent of materials and testimony to be considered.

If he is willing, Eagle1993 would remind us of the timeframes for other cases, perhaps most relevant being Purdue. 

44 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Thread

Can we change that to binder twine? More Scouting flavor that way. 

6 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

"Doors closing...all Aboard! Next Stop, District Court.  Welcome to the Hurry Up and Wait Express"

That departs from Platform 9 3/4, am I correct?

I second the motion for a new thread. Might we have a naming contest? Pretty please?

1 hour ago, SNEScouter said:

It's done. 

Nothing is “done.” The bankruptcy Judge signed the confirmation order. It’s a first down, not a touchdown. More courts, appeals, and for survivors (assuming all that goes well) years of fun with Judge Houser. Miles to go. If it’s determined the 2nd and 3rd Circuits are at loggerheads on non-consensual third-party releases, we may be sitting with the Supremes. I can’t count chickens. I’m still hunting eggs in the tall grass. 

Okay. I happened to be looking at the NESA site because I'm trying to get replacement pins, medal and credentials for a new friend whose ex burned all his memorabilia. Anywho, I noticed an article from those attending NOAC. I  clicked, scanned and my eye was drawn to this line. I'm sorry, but it made me laugh.

"NESA’s newest class for those continuing their educational adventure entitled, “Free Money: A Boy Scouts of America Guide..."

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Yeah....the cringy moment of the day was when one of the attorneys lightheartedly mentioned to the Judge that the proceeding's complexity and reminder of past hearings might be "TRIGGERING" to her.

That was the Guam Committee's attorney and he said it with something bordering on glee, like boys joking in the locker room. I honestly thought the Judge would bodycheck him. I almost went live to chastise all of them for letting it pass without comment. A very tasteless and reprehensible attempt at an inside joke. 

PS - For those who were on the hearing, is anyone able to confirm that for me? I'm 99% sure and you know where that puts me. Tanks, as opposed to Tanc's.

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

It has always run neck-and-neck with "A lot of wood to chop."

Brother you can say that again. On second thought, please don’t. I’m beyond saturated with that attempt to self-coronate, canonize and congratulate. 

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Today's winner were those who bet on "Anticlamactic."

I go with “Delay to Place” and have amassed a fortune.

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Judge said if Archbishop of Agana didn't like it, they should have showed up.

I wonder if failure to make an appearance here can be found to be malpractice. If my attorney said, "No problem. We don't need to appear" and this was said by a judge, I wouldn't be too happy. Granted, I don't think an appearance would've altered the outcome at all.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Hearing in a short recess as we look at Tanc's ceiling fan on the zoom call.

And, it's an appropriately stout model, if I may add some color commentary. 

28 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I can assure you that it would be very labor intensive to develop and would work with questionable results that would have a high degree of measurement error.

Yup. That's what I was tinking. 

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

The Judge approved the trolling for claims, only if lawyers reviewed and signed off on those claim forms. 

And therein lies the source of the problem. Legal and ethical self government is a hard thing to police and even harder when the motive is moolah. 

Note: This is specifically a comment about the judge allowing something dangerous then saying, "You have my permission, but don't be naughty, children." Her admonishing was weak at best. I knew when she aid it during that hearing we had trouble right here in River City. Further, it's commentary on the recent directive to the Trustee to create the processes and begin investigating only AFTER she reviews and approves the means and method of sniffing.

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

unless they've been reviewed by an objective entity I don't know how much credence to give to anything that has been said.

Agreed. Let's just get on with it, shall we?! Inquiring minds want to know already.

Oh. I am also wondering about the details of how the pattern analysis would work to suss out memory lags v smell like rotten fish claims. I can guess, but my skill there is akin to the ol' arithmetic chops.

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

What I have hoped is that some kind of corroborative forensics will be done to establish a matrix and depict clusters of cases in time and/or place or other common details. That could lend credence to claims in cases where aging memories are failing. 

Elaborate further, please? I believe a majority of the claims name abusers not previously known and similarly do not show multiple (or even more than one) victim. I may have that upside down and backward. Also, if a claim does not contain name of the abuser or other identifying aspects of Troop, LC, CO or geography, the POC wouldn't lend data to a pattern analysis. True or false? My recollection is, at one point, 30,000 or some big number had notable facial deficiencies. Numbers are not my forte and there are so many in this dervish, not to mention the number of zeros flying about.

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Can those lawyers lose their licenses?

JLSS specifically said she reserves the right to take additional actions against attorneys if malfeasance is found. 

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Is that per signature, lawyer, false claimant, or overall.? And could the $500k per fake claim be used to  reimburse real victim and/or cover the extra legal expenses that their false claims caused?

It's on every Proof of Claim, so I would think each. I have no idea where that money would go, but I do hear the sound of a massive vacuum tracking on the radar as eminating somewhere in the vicinity of the Potomac region. I doubt survivors would see anything from that, but perhaps the judge could direct otherwise. 

31 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I still do not understand why immediate vetting should not have been the case to start,

Simple answer is that the BSA did not want to pay for it and have the process drawn out longer. Wanting vetting was an insurance ploy so that they could keep their money in their investments for a longer period of time.

A couple things:

1. Claimants are supposed to be signing these forms, which they didn't in thousands of cases. When the judge allowed it with the soft admonition of, "and I better not see a 100 Proofs of Claim signed by one attorney...when I was in practice I never signed a filing for a client," the game was on. Did she see 100 from one attorney? No. Hundreds and thousands.

2. Had hard core investigations happened after the "under penalty of perjury, $500,000 fine and prison time" didn't deter people, we would be adding another 6+ months to the process. That said, who knows how long it will take in the Settlement phase once Judge Houser starts her review and initial vetting. 

3. If the insurers got the green light they wanted, there would almost certainly be less money in the pot, along with some reduction in the number of claimants. I have no idea which creates a better outcome for survivors in the end.

4. As an attorney and claimant, the whole thing saddens me to infinity and beyond. I stared at that signature block and the dire warning, taking it seriously. Before I signed, I ran around in my brain like a chicken, pecking at every detail to be sure what I wrote was as it happened to the best of my ability to recall. When you don't have to do that memory and soul-searching, the bar is automatically lowered. Sorry, but it's true. 

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

real vetting happens

Several things:

1. What do you mean by real?

2. How much good money is thrown after bad to accomplish the task? Is it a moral imperative or a legal and pragmatic exercise?

3. Are the judges looking more at the attorney and claims aggregators or the substance of the claims? In this stage, the former me thinks. Remember, this is a preemptory investigation, not necessarily the vetting and scrutiny that happens once a claim passes through the initial decontamination process.

4. I may not know what I'm talking about. Apply this truth liberally to the answers and questions above. 

15 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The first thing I ever bought on layaway was a pair of denim overalls.  It was 1976.

I bought everything on layaway that cost any real money. The super big deal trifecta was my Jansport Mountain Dome, Camp 7 down bag and Hine Snowbridge pack. That was also 1976, based on the fact that is the inception year of my REI membership. Ok. I'm done deviating from the straight and narrow topic. 

6 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It will be interesting to see where they draw the line on vetting.  

I mean no one ill in this process, but I do hope there is a reasonable separation of chaff and grain. It's worth noting (again) that JLSS not only directed Judge Houser to craft the processes and metrics for investigation but ALSO said she (JLSS) wants to see and approve them once JH drafts them. That says huge ton.

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

youth. I wouldn't be surprised to see scouts Canada fees ($150/year), HA bases charge $2K+ for 7 day trips and summer camps head towards $600+ for a week.  BSA will exist, but if our course doesn't change it I fear it will be for those that can afford it. 

For context:

* The Aspen Institute’s study showed that parents with a child in ice hockey spent on average $2,583 per year in 2019. 

* After the gear comes lessons, lift tickets and the cost of getting to and from the mountain. Skiing and snowboarding costs about $2,250 per child in 2019.

* Gymnastics $1200

* Lacrosse $1200

* Tennis $1200

* Flag Football (lowest at) $270