Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    2594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    PS - So a “Working Group” is not some new and fantabulous creation just to engage survivors about YPT and YP. That wasn’t clear to me and now is. How many such BSA Working Groups and Advisory Committees are there? Where can one view such a list? Does each include various and sundry BSA Bigs?

    Help from you Scouter guys in the know? Looking to understand the history and context of these WGs and ACs, as well as how many and varied they are. Many thanks.

  2. Interested to hear from Scouters who know the situation with their LC’s proposed Plan contribution who also watched last night’s TCC presentation of two BRG Dashboards. Per the town hall (again), the LC BRG dashboards are all being released, albeit slowly. The two they reviewed should be up soon, if I understood correctly. Ok. I’m actually interested in any and all thoughts. All comers welcomed. 

  3. 16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:
    26 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    IMHO,  the answer is right there in quote. A BSA Committee is advisory and the Working Group is not yet a Committee.

    So, I’m left with nothing but a very loose goose. Got it.

    PS - So a “Working Group” is not some new and fantabulous creation just to engage survivors about YPT and YP. That wasn’t clear to me and now is. How many such BSA Working Groups and Advisory Committees are there? Where can one view such a list? Does each include various and sundry BSA Bigs?

  4. On 11/2/2021 at 2:33 PM, RememberSchiff said:

    Is there some sort of term sheet that is the framework for what BSA has apparently agreed to do in all of this? I would like to see something more than that loosey goosey PR b’ness. 

  5. On 11/2/2021 at 6:59 PM, MattR said:

    Duration ends after voting is over. Regular meetings and probably regular reports. It will turn into the organization that the bsa and coalition agreed upon.

    Per the excerpt from the press release below, what leverage would the the eventual Child Protection Committee “BSA...has already agreed to form” have over the BSA, post emergence? Who holds Thor’s hammer here? I believe the survivors are serious about this, but is there any indication of ongoing accountability? I have a million questions about this. Does anyone have easy access to CS’s list of TCC non-monetary youth protection demands?

    “The Working Group will begin meeting within the next two weeks and convene regularly until BSA emerges from its Chapter 11 proceedings, at which point its work will be transitioned to the Child Protection Committee, a survivor advisory group which BSA, after negotiations with the Coalition, has already agreed to form pursuant to its Plan of Reorganization.“

  6. 55 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

    Yep, and remember, the TCC has had BRG on the payroll this whole time doing financial analysis.

    Oo. This is gonna be good. I’ve been begging for this for many months. I can’t wait. This wonderful November surprise is appropriate, since it’s a month in advance of the vote tally. I hope many will clearly see that the Emperor has no clothes. This is a metaphor so it does NOT violate YP or any other sense of Scouting and social decorum. 

  7. 20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    For those watching the docket this is an important point.  Someone wrote a letter to the judge saying they are represented by AVA.  They received their package and it didn’t have a ballot.  They called AVA 10 times with no response.   They are very concerned they won’t have a vote counted. 

    I recommend contacting OmniAgent directly and pronto.

  8. 17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    For those watching the docket this is an important point.  Someone wrote a letter to the judge saying they are represented by AVA.  They received their package and it didn’t have a ballot.  They called AVA 10 times with no response.   They are very concerned they won’t have a vote counted. 

    Also, Omni messed up and sent Solicitation packages directly to several thousand survivor claimants whose attorneys had elected either the Master Ballot or “Hybrid Solicitation Method.” As a result, all of those ballots sent to survivor claimants in contravention of the firms’ election have been invalidated. Those two firms are Zuckerman Spaeder (1762 clients) and Andrews Thornton (2826 clients). Just FYI to all. The Doc No. advising of this error is 6821, filed 10.27.21. 

  9. 33 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    Someone saw it and dropped it off at the office. It was left on the floor outside the door of the room in which the church meets. Mail is not ordinarily delivered there. No one seems to know how the person who delivered it got into the building.

    This validates my insistence on residential and commercial front door cameras. I’m not kidding. ;) Well, it was also driven by finding parcels torn asunder in my bushes after thieves opened them, stole jewelry, my Cal cap, and snacks, leaving the rest with the destroyed shipping containers. I’m still puzzled that they left my lovely soil test kit. It’s such an engaging science project and fun for the whole family. 

  10. 9 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

    My sense is that the documents might have been put into envelopes out of order, leading to some confusion.  

    Thanks for this.

    Do you mean put into envelopes “in error” or “incorrectly,” such that COs are getting what was intended to go to the LC? Regardless, this leads me to believe something must be going to the COs at some point. Am I misunderstanding? Again, I’m trying to figure out where/how my CO might be engaged or not. Thanks.

  11. 5 hours ago, elitts said:

    They were selected to represent survivors as one side of a fairly contentious bankruptcy proceeding.  But nothing about the "Survivor Advisory working group" is directly related to bankruptcy other than the fact that something of it's nature was desired by the TCC.  Knowledge of the workings and machinations of the case isn't relevant to what the group should be working on and shouldn't really be viewed as an asset in my mind.

    MYCVA nailed it, per usual, but I need to respond even though he effectively made moot the discussion. 

    Have you listened to the members of the TCC talk about this topic? Read what they’ve written? Do you think this isn’t a part of the bankruptcy - a big part for them/us - and something they only started thinking about on 2.18.20? Who hosted Michael Johnson on their weekly town hall? (Hint on that one. Not the Coalition.) I think you totally misapprehend the situation. Also, not a jab, but I don’t believe you’re a survivor who has thought about how and why you were able to be abused for 50+/- years, like some of the members of the TCC.

    5 hours ago, elitts said:

    Not because I'd be looking for stooges that would let me get away with anything, but because I truly don't think any actively involved victim could come out of 2 years of emotionally taxing contention in a bankruptcy case and be able to switch to a "lets work together to make it happen" role instead. 

    And, I think you greatly underestimate the men you’re talking about and who I imagine you do not know. John Humphrey stated he has a new mission in life and it revolves around youth protection and advocacy for survivors. The BSA is a great place for these guys to start, given all their collective knowledge, poise and passion. I just think your missing it here. By a mile. 

    Anyway, it’s a ruse and a distraction so it’s immaterial.

  12. 41 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Apparently charter organizations are being mailed something by the BSA asking for donations to the survivors fund.  This was mentioned before, but now more and more updates are coming confirming something was mailed out.

    Some charter orgs seem to be confused as they are sending it to the unit (Pack/Troop).

    Some have indicated it is asking about Charter Org, Troop/Pack assets.  I'll post more info if anyone actual scans in what is being sent.

    Oo. That sounds like another delightful and confusing effort. Can’t wait to see and hear more. I keep wondering about my little mama’s church that was my CO. Maybe I’ll call the Bishop.

  13. 16 minutes ago, MattR said:

    This wasn't brought up before very well. Thanks for that.

    Lawyers that don't represent their clients very well is wrong, but is it legally wrong? And if so, what are the consequences? Can it be proven and can the judge remove them from the table?

    My honor.

    I’m inexpert at ethical violations. Hopefully that reflects well on me and helps restore my sullied reputation. Seems a very long stretch and the clients would need to initiate, I believe. I think SiouxRanger is much more likely to have good insight on this, based upon his knowledge and not personal encounters with ethical violations! Need to be clear on that. 

  14. 48 minutes ago, RobertCalifornia said:

    So how is the patch trading market currently? Have BSA patches increased in value, about the same, or there is lack of interest? I have some to move.

    I threw down some dandy 70’s product back when and all I was offered was a stinky red beret and a rusty belt buckle, as I recall. Still holding my goods. Whatcha got? :) 

    • Haha 1
  15. 18 minutes ago, RobertCalifornia said:

    CS is the only reason this topic has educated anyone to the extent that it has.  

    Some of you are witty and knowledgeable, but not very analytical at a USAToday level. 

    Ouchie. I need a tourniquet and an ice cream STAT!! Call my mother to fetch me, while you’re at it. I just showered so the ice cream is a medical necessity only.

    I beg to differ and I am in no way referring to yours drooly. There are at least four other legally/professionally informed and technically excellent analysts here. Not the volume of my former colleague, but substantively sound, consistently active, highly insightful and typically accurate. Technical content is not the only bell weather of a critical and valuable contribution. Also, if the content and the analysis get clouded by intense emotion and rapid fire, hair trigger reactions, the salience and timely import can be lost. (I stand accused by my own words, but I try to be self-aware and promptly respond to Thor’s hammer.)

    • Upvote 1
  16. 28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    My belief is that they are acting in the best interest of the BSA and themselves first. 

    Three things: 

    1) They specifically said the goal was to amass as many clients as they could through the ad and aggregation campaigns so the court (and other MPs) had no choice but to deal with them. To paraphrase, “We can then sit down in the road and obstruct any progress until we get what we want.” That is in no way an exaggeration or extrapolation of their internal communications; 

    2) If they are acting in the best interest of survivors, why are they so desperately disparaging the TCC, literally lying about what they have done and the TCC not, and now creating entities that are not initiated in corporation with the TCC and, apparently so far, without the participation of the TCC; and

    3) They engaged an attorney to publicly articulate a rebuttal of the TCC’s position and recommendation who actively lobbied for his own engagement by the TCC by the following means: running down Jim Stang and his firm, not revealing his CV and having others, who happen to be among the top three law firm members of the Coalition, to do the same. Oh. During the interview for the job, he also asked for a $10M retainer. The Stang’s firm? They committed 10% of their fee to BSA abuse survivors AFTER they were hired. After. After. After. Did I say AFTER?

    Again, I see no clean hands or a clean heart here. The evidence screams “Houston, we have a problem...”

  17. 5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    The Coalition of Abused Scouts has represented clients and been involved in this case for more than a year. Hardly lately.

    See above. You’ve missed the point (mine) to which you’re errantly objecting. Errant in my perception. Also, if I recall correctly, they are now saying they have 18,000 client “members.” It’s shrinking.

  18. 34 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    Looking back, the Coalition grew their client base such that Judge Silverstein felt they deserved a place in the mediation.

    I tracked that entire process through the docket, online hearings and through offline communications. I don’t necessarily see it that way. I imagine you followed it closely, as well, and grant us the grace to have differing opinions. I don’t think she felt she had a choice, given what they were representing (to her) and the cohort they said they represented. In the light and context of Tim Kosnoff’s intercepted emails, I find it hard to afford them clean hands and a pure heart. She allowed it and thereby gave them leverage to effectively replace or confuse, at least in the minds of many and the media, a “coalition of abused scouts...representing a majority of the survivors” and the TCC. As we know, the Coalition is lawyers, not survivors. There are very legitimate reasons this motion was strongly opposed. Also, the point I was making before you posted this was not regrading their legitimacy as a MP, but whether the clients of the Coalition, as opposed to the actual Coalition attorneys, were as engaged and involved from the outset as the members of the TCC. Through your post, my point was even more effectively solidified. 

  19. 45 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

    Presumably the US Trustee, who is an expert in bankruptcy, but not necessarily in Youth Protection, believed they would be best equipped to represent survivors in a bankruptcy. The skills necessary to excel at that may or may not be the same ones necessary to excel in another role.  It's not clear to me that at least the most public facing members of the TCC were subject matter experts prior to now. 

    So, not a single itty bitty one of them should be on the Survivor Working Group? Not considered for the board seat? I can hardly take that seriously, and I’m not saying I don’t take your input with sobriety. (I am sober 15.5 years, though, just so you know.) One man has extensive experience at high levels with the BSA. I have emailed and asked the Coalition for very specific details about the selection processes for both appointments. The two men I know of who were selected for the Working Group are definitely not subject matter experts. As to why they were selected, part of it is diversity of background, experience, professions and abuse; varied geographic locations; both open/closed state claims; and a wide availability and willingness to serve all survivors. 

    45 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

    My understanding, which may be flawed, is that the members of the TCC have been participants, but not exclusive participants, in all the proceedings so far.  Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe the same could be said for members of the coalition.  So at least some of the clients of the coalition could have been privy to all the same information as the TCC.

    The Coalition wasn’t even formed or added as a Mediation Party until the case was well underway. They only assumed their role when they knew/thought they could be the 800 pound gorilla on the block. Reread Tim K’s intercepted emails.

    45 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

    There are some 82,000+ claimants, it would be an extraordinary feat of selection and organizational design if an already selected nine of those folks are without doubt better than all 81,991+ people at two different roles.

    I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s the case unless and until someone proves me wrong. Further, if only survivors supporting this Plan are selected, the entire thing is a shameful sham (and a shame) and a ruse, IMNSHO.

×
×
  • Create New...