ThenNow

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.

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

Yup. That's what I was tinking.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

As well as the number of claims left standing after the JLSS-mandated investigation, ferreting and vetting.

Is that an inflation-adjusted estimate? I need to know how long to make the layaway term for the purchase of my new pair of Red Ball Jets.

Define “many.”

Abuse that occurs after emergence (and Phoenix rising) is new liability with no release protection from the bankruptcy. Also, “claim values” will be referenced in future cases, which is one of the reasons insurers hate that matrix.

Looking backward, no. Forward, yes. Historical liabilities are released by the emergence and Phoenix rising.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-nears-court-approval-23-billion-bankruptcy-settlement-2022-09-01/

What is the typical attendance/use of the HABs by location?

I was 99% sure about something once. That being, I'm wrong about 99% of the time.

Ja. What was the longest hearing we've had to date? 7PM ET or so? Why did BSA proposed Wed? We had multiple hours today AND the mediation parties previously fell all over themselves (and each) lauding their their herculean endurance skills. I'm sure we recall with deep reverence when they labored through the night while [*gasp*] the Super Bowl was being played. I'm shocked beyond recovery. Someone please bring me my fan and spirits of ammonia. Right quick...

By way of court color commentary, we've already had three recesses. One was because the judge had no Zoom feed. Another because we were exceeding online capacity. People were being dropped and/or denied access. Mid-morning, the number of Zoom attendees capped out the 1000 mark and they had to upgrade. The third recess was due to the attorney then appearing and speaking had a hiccup attack. To this humble reporter, the poor fella seemed on the verge of being sick. This post is intended as a substantive process report for those unable to attend this important proceeding.

Yes. The Coalition to the tune of 20M claims. One of the Coalition principals is front row, center in court today.

Debtors' side of the aisle?

I would love to see the breakdown by firm. That's a lot o' photocopies...