ThenNow

I was pondering this over my first cuppa at 3:26AM. I'm thinking of making a board game based not so loosely on our Animal House Circus. (More on that later.) Here's what I was tinkin. When the lawyers of child sexual abuse victim claimants in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy have lawyers, and groups of those lawyers have groups of lawyers, and when lawyers who were in groups with other lawyers sharing a lawyer find it necessary to fire that lawyer and hire other lawyers, something is wrong. Desperately, desperately wrong.

Thank ye, most kindly.

We have a winner!! J. Wellington Wimpy, to be exact.

May I please get a link to the pdf of this complaint? I would be most grateful and “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a pdf today.” Old guys, name that character.

Not at all. Devang Desai went on and on and on about his illustrious Scouting career during his testimony. I had my hand raised the ENTIRE time he was giving that unnecessary and, quite frankly, borderline nauseating prelude. I matched or exceeded his accomplishments, other than being on the NEB and the BTF and the BLT. No one asked me to share. I say again, Mr. B commemorates. The judge worries out loud about the umpteen active Scouts. Desai drones on and on about the glories of Scouting. As to hearing from the victims in open court? Crickets...it ain’t right. PS - Devang is plenty cute anyway. No uniform, but apparently they just forgot about the power of wardrobe and costuming.

Again, he can have that as he and the TCC desire, but the point is to hear from an actual BSA victim who “represents” and can speak for the rest of us. It was so far requested and denied. Thus, I am grumpy. Well, that’s chronic, unless a joke presents itself as low hanging fruit. Also, this is sausage making on which the TCC is rightly standing back. There is nothing helpful to add to the “process and procedure” battle between the other parties. When the dust clears and the wounded taken to safety, I think they will speak substantively into the fracas. I think it could do more harm than good right now. BUT, they can and should hear from Doug. It’s the least they can (and should) do.

Yes, generally. What I’m saying is, as I understood him, it was agreed to in advance, including by the court. PS - As we know, hearing from “one of us” has dramatically different and greater impact than one of the professionals who is not a BSA sexual abuse survivor.

So, because of my extreme irritation that “we” were slighted and spited by the judge refusing Doug Kennedy the opportunity to speak, I needed to understand the context and story, assuming there was one. Being me, I reached out to the TCC and was able to catch up with Doug. Here’s what I learned. Like me and many victim claimants, David Buchbinder’s request at the outset of a previous hearing for a moment of pause and reverence to recognize the founding of Scouting, Doug and the TCC didn’t take that so well. Maybe it was innocuous and just a matter of, “Hey. Guess what happened on this day in history?” but it felt more like, “in your face!” Following Mr. B’s commemorative moment, the TCC heard from a good number of victim claimants who were less than pleased. Based on his feelings, those of the other members of the TCC and what the heard from us, the decision was made to request “equal time.” The aim being to ask everyone to reflect on the “real reason” we are where we are and acknowledge those who have been sexually abused as children while active in Scouting. Of course, that recognition would include those who aren’t engaged in the circus, living and dead. It was agreed by all concerned that Doug, on behalf of all victim claimants, be granted that time. Apparently, because the hearing was tardy in getting rolling putting the court under an even greater timeline, he was denied. He tried again following, with the same result. Like me, the TCC was a tad shellshocked after the US Trustee’s memorialization and would have otherwise jumped in immediately. Moment lost, but for good and understandable reasons. All that said, like most of us, Doug and the TCC aren’t easily discouraged or thrown off their game. (Admittedly, I’m a little more volatile and likely would’ve taken a less accommodating and gracious tack.) As was oft repeated in this week’s hearings, Doug commented that the process is currently more about the proverbial sausage making that the victims. In his words, “our day will come,” frustrating though it may be for now. The TCC is encouraged and remains fully committed to advocating for all of us. I hope this is of benefit, particularly for my fellows.

As we noted yesterday, David Buchbinder, of the US Trustee’s Office, put a point on it. I’m no analyst, bankruptcy attorney or member of a highflying national board, but I can’t believe they did zero assessment of the reasonableness of the requested fee reimbursement. That speaks to desperation for the votes, which I do understand. But nothing? It wouldn’t have taken 100’s of hours or 1000’s of pages.

I don’t think Devang Desai did a stellar job supporting how the BSA went about this. His firm’s representation of insurance carriers and involvement as consultants to BSA on sexual abuse cases did not look great. I still don’t think (sense?) the judge tanks the RSA, based on what we heard so far about the process and considerations BSA undertook, including allowing them to scrap the Hartford deal. Just my sense. However, the Coalition payments seem in jeopardy. What happens to their resounding support and vote gathering if that is greatly reduced or tossed? Hm. High traumatic drama.

Not that I heard, no. Nada. It was a slog. Rolling forward to Monday at 10ET. Will be two witnesses - 1 hour per - and then closing arguments. The “by” boys. Ownby and Mosby. She has an 11:00, so a one hour gap between witnesses. Side note: I would not want to sit for cross by those three insurance attorneys.

You’ve extrapolated my obtuse sputterings very well. How can you not be changed, right? I watched a taped interview he did and, given how successful he’s been — yes in making money — the reporter asked, “Why do you keep doing this...you’ve already done very well for yourself?” You can say he’s an actor or a charlatan, but he teared up and said, “I can’t stop.” At that point I hadn’t personally encountered him and, call me gullible or whatever, but I was touched. I’ve been around a lot of successful people, including attorneys. I’ve not seen one of them cry when discussing their work. Ok. I’ve seen one.

She’s baaaaack.

It started just after 10ET and went pretty quickly to recess. The swings are full so I came here. The court is reviewing the BSA Bylaws and we are arguing about witnesses, conflicts of interest and other such nonsense.

Explain what you mean by this, please? Simply, we want our claims to be examined individually, rather than in the aggregate? That’s what the Trustee process is all about. As we all know, this is not state court and the measure of exactitude will be degraded at least until we get before a Trustee. The process, now, is trying to get there and that requires “batching” as it’s called. And, in my mind, getting there means arriving with as many of us as possible so the claims can be well-examined and vetted, not hosed down the drain of the ME’s lab after the insurers or others put the saw to us. PS - Yes, I understand why victims in a “legally advantaged position” might not want to yield to someone with a position weakened by the arbitrary lines on a map that bless or curse them in their effort to redress their injuries. Still, I hope the Shades of Gray Brigade isn‘t decommission before being allowed to enter the fray. It would be wrong for so many reasons, but I know this is not a morality play. It’s a money play.

I’m not the most seasoned career non-profit board member, but my first seat was in 1989. It’s pretty odd not to have a formal board vote on a “deal point memo” of this magnitude. Who am I kidding? I’ve never been presented with a decision anywhere close to this magnitude, but even the small ones we made sure to have a recorded vote. Maybe everyone’s moving too fast (that doesn’t seem possible at this rate) or it’s another example of what has been said about National’s MO. Dunno. I think it’s a lack of formal process and procedure to have whiffed on this.

Well, we were also advised that no due diligence whatsoever was was done, retrospectively or prospectively, to validate the legitimacy or appropriateness of the mucho dollars promised to the Coalition’s attorneys, Brown Rudnick. How does that happen with Alvarez and Marsal doing your financial analysis and advising? Nothing? Say what? Too busy? They got lit up and taken to the woodshed on cross examination.

Episode V: When and How Much? Brought to you by Black Coffee, Dramamine and Ambien.

Bam! Chalk line dust is floating into the upper deck.

Mr. B. was grilling Whitman about why in the name of all things reasonable and professional did they not do any analysis into the fees being charged by the Coalition firm before they agreed to pay them the big dollars. He was good.

This a comedian’s net smash moment. If I were inclined, this is the perfect moment to refer to your foot, but I will restrain myself.

Another thing. When there are simultaneous up/down votes, I think confetti should flutter down the screen. Who’s in charge of graphics and animation?

You have to preregister and even then they try to bar the door 10 minutes after go time.

Random question. Is there a way for me to upvote my downvotes? They make my day. Oh. I would really like a “You’re Welcome” button, too!

I just try to untwist them. It’s my speciality. I was responding to John and amending his statement, anyway. So, if you read those two together you will see I wasn’t twisting anything, not even your arm.