ThenNow

Question for Scouters: If you made a list of the top 5 things National needs to do to implement transformational change, what would be on it? No need to include elements of YPT. I would like to see if there is significant concurrence among you. From the list I’ve made, there are several elements that have been repeated many times by various of you over the 27 years I’ve been lurking. Thanks.

Fast forward to todays docket…

Ok. The collage is being filled in...note how the text is either faded back or in bold.

57 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

Take an elf forged blade and a large can of bug spray

Ok. One down and I live to tell the tale. The only thing missing from that Sheldon Law Group infomercial - and I was waiting on the edge of my seat - was the backend pitch for a Ginsu Knife Set and/or a pair of Bass-O-Matics. “Call before midnight tonight and you’ll also receive 12 free ShamWows!! That’s right folks...!!” (NO offense to any survivor claimant represented by that law firm. I am merely reacting to the script and two actors who played concerned professionals on my laptop screen. Ack.)

6 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

The Facebook ads were off the charts, as were the television commercials. 

This is one large piece of the ugly collage missing from my knowledge base. I do not have social media accounts (other than this enterprise, if it qualifies), nor do I watch television with commercials, if I can help it. Admittedly, I haven’t looked to find them, but does anyone have a handy link or three so I can take a peek? I will guard myself as I walk carefully into the den of Shelob and Aragog, aka the dark web of claims aggregation and mass tort gillnetting. Forgive me. Was that too strong? 🤔  

4 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Seems to me that the process is deeply flawed.

If you’ve not listened to this, I highly recommend it. Although dated back to July, it is very meaningful. I recognize she doesn’t present a current depiction of YPT, so I know there will be objections. Suffer me or don’t listen. If you do, please make note of her comments about the work they are doing with insurance companies to create a standard for youth organizations to get insurance coverage for child sexual abuse liability. 

I know this organization well and met Marci virtually. She is the founder and CEO of CHILDUSA. She is a law professor with a Vanderbilt undergrad, two Penn State Masters and earned her JD from  the University of Pennsylvania where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review. I have pasted a link to the NPR interview, one to her bio and another to her Wiki page.

https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2021-07-09/what-the-boy-scouts-settlement-says-about-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims/116455

https://childusa.org/management/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marci_Hamilton

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

One would think they could at minimum provide a city/town/state.  That info + date range would give a LC.  38,663 seems incredibly high.  Yes, I can imagine a few ... youth that moved a lot ... that would struggle with this.  But  46% of the claims don't have enough data to provide a council?

This was the number initially logged by the TCC back when. They have begged men to amend with additional data to supplement their initial filing, but I have no update on how many did so.

9 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Is that per POC?

Yup.

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Can they also be fined and/or pay for this case forfeited  and applied to the victims? I'm all for imprisonment, but would rather hit them where it really hurts, money, and benefit the victims.

Proofs of Claim are filed under penalty of perjury subject to a $500,000 fine, 5 years in the hoosegow or both. Also, they have malpractice insurance for the client.  

17 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA councils are saying that they cannot even find the vast majority of claimants on their rosters.  They are also saying they have so many rosters from that time period they cannot possibly scan them all in.  

This has several layers that need to be remembered:

1) 6165 POCs stated no date or date range;

2) 38,663 had no mention of LC or, to my understanding, identifying geographic markers to make the required connection;

3) Did every child get registered without out fail? My Unit was every which way and loose;

4) As stated by one of the LC attorneys, some of the paper rosters are like handling the Dead Sea Scrolls or worse. They turn to ash in your hands like so much magician’s flash paper;

5) No one thought such a record search would ever be needed to this degree and across the entire range of the organization; and

6) As stated many times, some of the claims are fraudulent and/or so badly mishandled on intake as to make them on the one hand facially invalid and on the other subject to exclusion.

Any attorneys found to have improperly vetted otherwise valid claims should be disbarred, regardless if the claim can be cured.

37 minutes ago, MattR said:

A more accurate understanding helps everyone. I'm not sure why it's taken so long to get to the point where this is being looked at but I'm glad it is.

Interesting look back...

https://legalnewsline.com/stories/574366277-hearing-tomorrow-about-possibly-fraudulent-sexual-abuse-claims-against-boy-scouts

4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Nearly every article written blamed our board as one of the key factors.  Our board size was too large ... we had 18 members.

I know little about BSA’s boards or the functions of them. I can say I’ve been on 5 boards and advised another. Four non-profit, one for-profit and the advisory role was a non-profit. Among them, the greatest number of members on an executive board was 192, give or take. The next largest was an non-profit advisory board made up of big donors and political types. It had about 13 and they were titular, but looked swell on the letterhead. Guess which entity had the whopper? 

The permanent survivor seats need to be set at 1/10th of the board, IMNSHO. They should be competent and serious board members and there are many, many who would fit the bill and do an excellent job.

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Please never stop!!

I’m not sure I can top that. It’s already a classic. I might frame it in memory of my life in the BSA Chapter 13 Pit of Despair. Still, I’m only mostly dead...there’s still time, however. 

47 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I wonder if anyone in the BSA is having second thoughts?

Ha. “Second Thoughts” is the name of the soup du jour on this Hell’s Kitchen menu:

Kosnoff - Dang. Why did I start the Coalition, again? D-oh!!

The Stang & Lucas - For the love of Pete, what happened with the email list serve?!

BSA C-Suite - I didn’t say, “FIRE MICHAEL JOHNSON,” you ninny! I said, “HIRE CHARLES BRONSON!”

Coalition Attorneys - I signed how many proofs of claim? Dang it. Someone show me those Proofs of Claim, rapido!

Judge Silverstein - I knew I should’ve gone on Covid sick leave. I just knew if.

Closed State Survivors - Mom, dad, why did we move from California to Alabama when I was 10, again? 

BSA Attorneys - Weren’t we going to raise our hourly rates on February 17, 2020? Did someone forget to do that?! Bring them to me NOW!

TCC - Who forgot to give the other mediation parties our digits? Are those emails going into the Junk file or wha? Are phone lines down? I knew we shoulda switched to fiber optic...

Survivors - Would someone, ANYONE, remind me why I decided to do this again? Check with my therapist to see if masochism is in my diagnosis? I better do another assessment this next session. 

David Buchbinder - And to think, I was fully vested in the pension program on 1.1.2020. 

Jessica Lauria - I have no regrets. Look at who I married in the midst of this. I’m set to infinity and beyond, thank you very much. 

Should I go on?

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Richard Pachulski from TCC is stating that the AIS firms are essentially messing up this entire process.  The judge must demand they send a joint letter to their claimants or the entire voting process may end up in being subject to debate.  The judge basically said it may be too late, but she doesn't know what authority she would have to demand this of AIS.  TCC said they would amend their motion.  Expect some fast action over the next week or so over:

1) Demand on AIS to send letter.

2) Possible delay of voting deadline (no delay yet, but being requested)

3) Possible appointment of ombudsman.  

Note that TCC has been excluded from all mediation since Summer (confirmed my mediators).  BSA is all in on the coalition.  If they don't come through, I have a hard time seeing National emerge.  You can blame White  & Case if it comes to that.

The judge did shoot down some objections to discovery (coming from several coalition law firms).  Lawyers who sign off on proof of claims are subject to discovery.

I found the Tweet series interesting. 

One issue ... while there are A LOT of claims ... many times, based on historical info, many do not submit votes.  That means those who are voting are more motivated claimants.  That could be a big factor into what we see.

Another issue ... in addition to BSA and insurance companies, several law firms reps are on the line.  If White & Case oversee the downfall of the BSA ... who would hire them again?  If PSZJ law ends up seeing a crap settlement ... they won't get another big claimant committee deal.  Coalition law firms may be facing legal bills that can't be paid if they don't get a quick payout.  A lot going on, just over 2 weeks left until voting closes (unless something changes).

A few things:

1) Actually, RP stated that Kosnoff and KR had this thing in a knot long before the infamous email snafu by his firm, which he owned;

2) The PSZJ firm was going to pay all cost associated with the Ombudsperson, however;

3) He withdrew that motion and will redraft a new one based around the court’s authority and duty to force the three firms - though AVA just says, “Vote however you want, this firm of one has got new cats to skin” - to speak with through one communication/voice, however conflicting the advice. At least it needs to be in one letter. This is all built on the Code and Code of Ethics that concur as to forcing co-counsel of differing opinions to get their stuff together and act like adults;

4) David Buchbinder recommended both Kosnoff Law and KR’s firm get gagged as to all direct communications about how to vote on the plan. By the by, Kosnoff’s attorney previous approached KR’s to do a joint clarification and the offer was rebuffed. “Some” people LOVE this drama;

5) Molten argued you can’t interfere with an attorney’s right to communicate with their client;

6) The counter argument was these are not mere “communications” between attorney and client, but solicitations on how to vote. And, they are shooting out of the KR firm like so many Gandalf in the Shire fireworks;

7) RP said the TCC attorneys have heard from many AIS clients who turn in “REJECT” votes and get multiple strong-armed follow up calls from KR’s crew trying them to change their vote. I want to hear from some of those clients;

😎 I highly doubt the judge will delay. She’s behind the 8 ball as it is;

9) The ruling on discovery only goes to venue, not substance. She ruled it is permissible and proper to propound discovery on attorneys who signed proofs of claim. She warned them when they begged her to allow them to do it. Now, as she warned, they have made themselves targets. The basis was POCs are evidentiary in nature in a bankruptcy proceeding and the signatories are affirming they have knowledge of the truth of the statements and do so under penalty of perjury punishable by up to $500,000 and 5 years in the slammer or both; and

10) The Coalition has hired a Mr. Robinson, a high-power US Supremes attorney to fight the discovery. He asked for a stay threatening her being overturned on appeal and she denied.

As to firms getting stink on them, I doubt it. History is replete with A-level players in multiple arenas tanking one day and trading up the next. Anyone who knows the case can see it’s an anomaly and a putrid mess of complexity, ill-motive, third party funding and who knows what degree of aggregator shenanigans.

Hello. And good-bye. For now...

48 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

I will past your disingenuous comments over to other moderators to review.

I’m clueless. I guess I’m off the forum for a while if this is how it’s going. I am sincerely unsure what you’re saying or trying to indicate. 

26 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

It was business advertisement sent out as an email which was subsequently posted on this forum.

As explained then and I repeat now,

1) You didn’t “explain” at all. You posted the same thing, without any reference to how it applied. I was letting people know this was sent, which is obviously relevant to others;

2) Tim Kosnoff’s Tweets and notes are being posted here over and over;

3) I am not a client of any attorney, nor am soliciting or advertising anything for anyone. I am certainly not looking for clients. Honestly, neither was he. The letter says nothing more than what’s been repeated here innumerable times and reflected in the TK Tweets similarly posted; and

4) Your bounce back echo repeat of what you said you said (but didn’t) is what I referred to as “cryptic.” You don’t explain something by giving a person a rule if it isn’t clear how it applies (or doesn’t). You understand it. I do not. Maybe it is not evident on its face and I’m just a dunce.

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

I received an email today from AIS/Kosnoff addressed to me and captioned "Dear Clients of AIS" (regarding e-ballot).

As I have never been represented, I'm trying to understand what is occurring.  Would one of you legal scholars please advise what this indicates and if I should take any action?

See below.

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

These are getting like "...you got Medicare options.." emails.

Have you received a paper ballot via US Mail, if not I suspect you will soon.

If my message hadn’t been inexplicably deleted, you would see I received the same. The email (and my post) indicated it was sent by The Stang’s firm. BSASurvivors@pszj.com. Check to see if yours is, as well.

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

The rules are for all members.

Yes, but did I violate some rule unwittingly? Just trying to behave myself...thanks. 

14 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

"Posts which advertise products, services, or fund solicitations will be deleted and the member asked to  pm Terry-Scouter regarding paid advertising. "

Is this for me? Some of these directives are a bit cryptic. I never know quite when to fall on my sword, object, plead ignorance, meg for mercy or run for cover.

Letter (email?) sent by Mr. K, as forwarded by The Stang & Co.

Dear Clients of AIS:

Today the e-Ballot went out to you a few minutes ago from Eisenberg Rothweiler. I was not expecting it to be sent by that firm. I was not given an opportunity to review it and the reason is because that firm knew I would have objected to its form and content. It was wholly improper and possibly illegal for them to solicit your vote on a ballot that is supposed to be neutral. Instead they used deceit to spew their patently false and misleading statements. There is a simple word for why lawyers do things like that:  greed.

Please find my October 19, 2021 letter urging you to REJECT the Plan. I ask you respectfully to read my letter again. If you do, I am confident you will reach the same conclusions I did.

                                                         Contact information hidden.

Thank you.

Timothy Kosnoff


TIMOTHY D. KOSNOFF
Licensed Attorney

     Contact information hidden.

Not sure if these have been posted, but here are the first two BRG Dashboards:

https://8ccee3aa-ea25-43bc-b0a6-5e0a565e1bf2.filesusr.com/ugd/c1f98e_b3f0e214c3ab4a70bc1a7c3bd2c9248b.pdf

https://8ccee3aa-ea25-43bc-b0a6-5e0a565e1bf2.filesusr.com/ugd/c1f98e_26837acf3e0e44e09ee662682d901ff5.pdf

Does anyone know the key firms opposing the Plan? I know Zuckerman, Anderson & Associates, and several CA groups. I would love to know the aggregate total clients among them.

5 hours ago, Muttsy said:

More interesting will be to see how the LC Ad Hoc committee responds at the confirmation trial. 

I’m thinking we will hear something before then. I am not in the know, but their butt must be on fire right now. One would think they will seek a bucket of ice water into which they can plunk their cheeks to attempt extinguishment. By that I mean, the will try to put the cat back in the bag or blunt the knife’s edge, to use metaphors more commonly used in such contexts. 

5 hours ago, MattR said:

I've always ignored them. Let's put it this way, if a problem really needs solving then the organization would turn its focus towards it. It would not need a new committee or group. The organization would be the committee. For example, any company that has a "quality committee" is not nearly as interested in quality as an organization that makes quality a day to day subject that everyone is involved in.

So, as has been said by others (and me), your assessment tracks with MYCVA. To whit, this Survivor Working Group is all show and no go, essentially a PR stunt by the two entities who support this Plan. From what I’ve heard from someone who knows, the survivors are very serious and sincere about effecting change and reform. Be that as it may, their belief that this will be a path to real change is likely in ignorance of the nature and history of such “groups” and “committees.” Not to mention toothless if the directives don’t exist within the Plan of Reorganization. Do I read you loud and clear? This is why I wanted to understand what these are and how the BSA has created them, then either validated them/the work or ignored them.

Oh. I also don’t understand why they wouldn’t include LC members, especially volunteers, who have to implement the on the ground measures. I’ve seen that you guys have many great ideas, many of which reinforce the TCC demands. Well, I know why, but it further erodes any confidence I might have in whether the BSA mean anything they’re saying about this SWG/Committee.