ThenNow

Whew. Good. It’s not just my tormented, jaded and befuddled self who sees it this way. Again, flabbergasted at the error in judgement to prioritize this testimony. I can’t remember when I was taught this, but probably in middle school: know your audience and tailor your message accordingly. Someone doesn’t get this at all. I go back to my weeping, wailing and definitely flailing impression following the first infomercial. T-minus 13 minutes and counting... Anyone else going to watch? I’m not a very good stenographer, as you’ve no doubt noticed.

I’m touching my nose right now. (NOT to be confused with picking, before I hear that. I am not nasal spelunking.)

I contacted them before I filed, as well. Multiple times. It may well be that’s where I got the notion. I wonder if I have an email chain that involved that statement or if it was over the blower. Hm. I will delve into this further....

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is: “I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable. Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse. When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.” EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS https://scoutingabusesurvivors.com/survivors/

Was the statement something to the effect of, “Everyone will receive an award regardless of the state where their abuse occurred”?

Do you mind sharing who told you this? I ask only because it of course isn't true as bankruptcy is practiced and it's important for all of us to know when we can where bad information may be coming from. I absolutely understand if you don't want to share it! Oo. Oo. Let him quote me. I asked first. Fair is fair. 😬

That was a tangential comment I heard, as well. I was a little dubious/concerned, but was hopeful it was correct. For me, it was conversation I read surrounding the potential entry into Chapter 11. Would you be willing to identify your direct source? You may have mentioned this before, but I’d like to confirm. As you know, this whole thing makes me very sad, for all the reasons you expressed very well.

At least you’re only “thought police” and not slouching toward dream police. Cheap Trick would have an infringement suit slapped on you in a NY minute, anyway.

Four questions: 1) Who selects this person? 2) On what basis? 2) Is he already known? (Maybe the fella who spoke on the Coalition Informercial last week?) 4) Do we know if this person is prepared to give $1M annually? If so, I will believe he might have a voice that stands a chance of being heard and making an impact. If not, not so much.

I wonder if there will be guest appearances pretty soon. Oo. I hope so. Rumor has it Jessica Lauria and Peter Anker are fab on a talk show.

Yupper...

Did anyone else watch the Coalition Town Crier event?

If you would, please explain these two sentences. I think I had a Monday afternoon blackout.

To comment briefly, only on the public perception and not the motive, many were confused by this. It was instrumental in securing them a position at the mediation table, imnsho. For many month the media represented them to be, effectively, the replacement entity to the TCC. I, and others, contacted them to object loudly and often. The media have since made it clear they are not, in part by doing a much better job covering what the TCC is saying and doing. For a good stretch there, I was pretty upset about it.

That’s fine and I get it. So, you don’t like me? I’ll accept that too. Anyone with a JD or Esq. is anathema. We are the untouchables. Got that, too. To extrapolate your argument, an architect can’t critique another architect who, say, designed a large residential building with defective rebar or concrete. Verboten, self-serving and duplicitous. One physician can’t testify against another physician in a clear cut cut med mal case. Verboten, disingenuous and hypocritical. A used car salesman with high integrity cannot comment on under the table dealings of another, even though he has sound basis and evidence. Verboten, guilty by professional association and insincere. Roger all that. I can go on. PS - Yes. A used car salesman can be of high integrity. He’s a former Eagle Scout, Pack Leader, volunteers without pay to clean and maintain the camp, fights for YP reform and buys his kids ice cream so they won’t stink in his Suburban on the way home.

That’s not what he said nor what I said. He said, they are racing to the bottom because the need to pay other people off and get theirs. I said, they have no experience and he has bushels full. Comparative, not dispositive nor conclusory. In my view, the single operative point and only relevant presupposition to your post is, “I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me.” Why? They charge a legal contingency on outcome. Solution? Go it alone and never hire one again, if you dislike them (us) so. And, to be consistent, never associate yourself with anyone who works on commission. Don’t buy a new car, sell or buy a house, hold or purchase additional insurance coverage or work with other than a fee-based investment advisor, to name a few. I can come up with a more comprehensive list when you need it. Easy peasy. Let me know when you’re ready to engage the conversation with “clean hands and a pure heart.” I’ll be right here.

I beg to differ, as to there being no distinction between their respective “cuts,” as you say. This is an attorney with decades of experience representing Scouting child sexual abuse victims. Those other folks are “Lemme get on the gravy train” Johnnies come lately. Night and day difference. Let’s find out how much experience those who used aggregators have. Being funded by outside money, which a number of judges who do mass tort cases do not like at all, cannot be equated to Tim Kosnoff’s history and experience. I have said this repeatedly here, just so I’m not accused of defending him simply because we have concurring opinions. He doesn’t need this case or this money. The other guys want the money and need it to pay off the loan sharks, thus their ‘quick’ settlements and race to the bottom.

I should’ve just said, “I would love to see it named The Force Awakens. Is there anyone else who would like to see it so named and, if so, would you be willing to voice that interest?” Seven of my eight did. Not too shabby. It’s a bunch-a-lota football when you include the kids’ schools, my wife’s and mine. My oldest son’s school had the dubious distinction of being part of the ugliest mess I’ve seen in college football. At least they were on the winning side, though it was the dangerous side for about 20 minutes. Sorry. I am way off topic, though not concerned about it on this cool Monday morning.

Good grief you guys. Did all your teams lose this weekend and your dog pooped on the bed to make it worse? Just a joke, for Pete’s sake.

Um, read my post in light of the post to which I am responding. I think you’re swatting a phantom gnat.

I’m fuzzy on the forum law, but I don’t think that can be a fiat decision by the Moderators. I move for a vote to so name it. Do I have a second?

This definitely is the punchline and a succinct summary.

Yup. Same script, different actors. “I hear you have leadership potential…I’m going to let you join early,” followed by an affirming, lingering pat on the noggin.

Hm. Albert Brooks big moment in Network News. Yeah. That works or maybe Anchor Man? It was not pretty. They did speak and none of them did well. I didn’t note the names. They used onscreen teleprompter slides and would get off pace. They’d have to call for, “Last slide…next slide…go back to the last slide.” Reminded me of a shaky politician I once saw. One fella was swiveling back and forth in his desk chair. Looked like a teenager. Ken was pale, parched, puckered and pleading.

I doubt it, but if it is I’m sending it to every media contact I have. It was weak with a capital EEK. I’m serious. If they were representing me, I would have a high degree of disappointment, concern about the focus and preparedness, and no small measure of embarrassment.