ThenNow

Yup, I am. Education and critical thinking? I'll let you decide on that one. I suppose that is correct. I do. I've spoken with at least 10 people about this language, from my mom (HS education), my brother (two masters, one in ESL), lawyer friends, an auto tech, former factory worker and others, most of which admittedly have a college and/or university degree. You're making one big assumption in your question and it is counter-opposed to your compliment that I am dogged about precision of language. (My spelling stinks, however.) Here it is. You didn't ask me what words I would have advised them to use instead of what they did. You fed me words. I see Mosby's very first public statement as a serious mistake that has lead to all manner of confusion, anger and heartache. This is what he said: “While we know nothing can undo the tragic abuse that victims suffered, we believe the Chapter 11 process – with the proposed Trust structure – will provide equitable compensation to all victims..." See the difference? "Will provide." An absolute, not qualified with "do our best," or "work diligently" or anything else. Big mistake. "Equitable," which many, many people know means, essentially, "fair." "Compensate." This is a nit I've picked, but poor choice. And, this one is ginormous. "ALL." I don't really have to say how crazy it was to say that. Where were the bloody attorneys and PR wordsmiths? Seriously. Totally apples to oranges. Almost EVERYONE panics when they think something is a tax bill and wants assurance it's not. That's not a matter of education. Being promised money after waiting 50 years? Waaaay waaaay waaaay different.

FYI. Shared with permission. https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/rec/share/JfKB6sEqkyXxp3zIc4oEvcSC8TXsZEYrMmJOSCA_F1jFTFNeUBjfJDVW_z-kIjEp.ND9BCyD1lDjnFBzn

As to the RSA or the Coalition fees? He pretty much went dead last (second from last) and the reporters were apparently on deadline. His statements need to be reported somewhere, I think. They were pithy and potent and powerful.

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2021/08/16/305433.htm

Yeah. We’ve discussed this at great length before and I know it’s of little value to whip it some more. I will anyway. I have lots more coffee to drink, nothing much to do just yet and because the impact of that statement has loomed over the entire process. I can speak for myself (at least most days) and say the “equitably compensate survivors of abuse in Scouting” message was a huge banner of acknowledgment and hope. It certainly enhanced my desire to file a claim. Did I do any math? Not much. I guessed at potential claims and came up with between 5000 and 10-12,000 on the high end. Knowing a bit about the National asset base, that of my LC, and the deep and wide insurance coverage, I figured that would result in a meaningful award for all of us. Regardless the number of claims, they never should have used the word “equitable” — nor compensate in my book but that’s semantics — or implied that all survivors would get such compensation. It was a horrible unforced error and I can’t believe it wasn’t better thought out. Well, after hearing you guys talk about governance, I can.

110%.

Well, it’s always effective to say, “I’ll just die if you don’t let me go to the game, dad!” but I guess I didn’t hear that degree of desperation or even hyperbole. I had several things going on simultaneously, though. At one point, Tanc Schiavoni was speaking to me from my pocket, jangling along with some loose change and an old pocket knife.

I’m guessing not from the bench, but I don know nuttin’. She’s aware it has to be as quickly as possible, but what that means I can’t say. I still think the Coalition fees are on the block. Counsel for the Catholic and Methodist Churches COs was pretty compelling about this not going forward without them. Mr. B also spanked them for walking away from the COs and on the Coalition fees. He was extremely animated and upset, at least his delivery projected the latter.

Pretty abbreviated, but decent. Obviously written before the hearing wrapped, since the Coalition fees issue isn’t there. I want to see Mr. B’s commentary fully transcribed, whether I agree with all of it or not!

Nope. You missed Tanc’s PowerPoint and David Buchbinder’s fire breathing. He lit some pants on fire. Ha. Molten back on trying to respond to Mr. B’s assault. And, that’s a wrap at 8:16PM ET.

Admittedly at a lower level, but back in the days of paper and binders, you'd come in, someone would hand you a series of them to study, notate and bring back for a step through review. I'm not sure how many such critical documents those binders would contain for someone in his BSA role.

That was certainly my immediate reaction, from the standpoint of the duty of the top executive. No one briefed him on the history and evolution, at least?

Ah. Probably had a couple other things to read.

Comedy Update/Hot mic moment of the day: "I plead the blood of Jesus over you Satan!" I don't make this stuff up.

I appreciate the point. When was he hired? I ask because the CO agreements are rather fundamental to the relationship with a vital, related entity which has its own liability AND claims to indemnification by BSA. He really shoulda read a couple and not the current iteration. My take.

Ahh. Ryan did it again. More coins swirling the porcelain.

Lo and behold. This just in. See P5. 6043 - Zuckerman Claimants' Objection to Adequacy of Amended DS to Debtors' Fourth Amended Plan.pdf

Well, dang it. We had gone almost 24 hours of court time without one blasted "wood to chop" reference. David Molten had to blow it. I just lost a ton of money betting against the house. So very, very close.

Here is the giant wasp that keeps threatening to sting my hope on this all going well, even if the judge spanks the RSA on the tuchus and allows it to breath fresh air. As Eagle1993 briefly summarized several pages ago, Fuller-Austin is an incredible threat to the "big dollars" most of us perceive as coming from the insurers through the Settlement Trustee process. Dunno.

He eviscerated the notion that BSA can ditch the Hartford deal, based on comparisons to other contractual contexts. They should have been concurrently negotiating with the other parties in light of their intentions to strike the much maligned Hartford sweetheart deal. You just don't present it out of the blue - Hey! Lookie what we did...accepted pennies on the dollar from a key insurer! - with no active participation by the other mediation parties and being aware of the plethora of likely objectors. That said, maybe it was someone else. I'm cognitively snow blind by the "rigorous, robust discussion" on both sides. Ugh.

Oh, my. A bearded man with a scary mask just did some sort of magic. [*Poof*] Back on.

Oops. We completely lost the court feed. The insurance attorneys are riffing. Not a good moment for the court's tech crew or those attorneys. Stick to your day job and leave the comedy to me. Just sayin'...

Sorry if you missed one of my earlier post about the time limits she imposed. I think the insurers' sentiment was likely based on: 1) the lack of need to whip the horse; 2) the knowledge that something could take points off their board; 3) the limitation of one hour per witness; and 4) they'd just as soon get on with argument. All may have come into play, but #2 less so. My bet.

Yup. Bribe is the word. Yup. DDD. Desai Disaster Day. He went from smug to schmuck right quick. He did well recounting his Scouting glory. See below. Huh, huh. I spoke with an attorney friend over the weekend and I have never heard him so totally beside himself and incensed about the case on multiple levels. It sounded like he was spinning around, jumping up and down, and spitting nickels.

Yup. Quickest hearing on record. She ruled on everything and the money starts flowing tomorrow. JUST KIDDING!!!