ThenNow

She’s baaaaack.

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Any update on the hearing today?  When does it start? 

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. 

22 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Claimants prefer a microscope.

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.

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

it seems reasonable to me that boards will approve the final deal that has not yet been approved.  The councils and national council have agreed to the amount.  

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. 

9 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

What? How is that possible? Next I'll be told the National Executive Board never approved mortgaging Philmont.

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. 

11 minutes ago, MattR said:

We need a better title than "part 5 - more of the same".

Episode V: When and How Much?

Brought to you by Black Coffee, Dramamine and Ambien. 

Just now, David CO said:

That would be a first.

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

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I left because I was driving: what happened?

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. 

1 minute ago, David CO said:

Please stop putting words into my mouth.  

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. 

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Random question. Is there a way for me to upvote my downvotes? They make my day.

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? 

1 minute ago, docSquatch said:

Is there a link to watch or keep up with it?

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! 

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

Please stop twisting my words.  They are my political opponents because they want greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I think I made that very clear

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.

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Is the hearing over?

Oh, no. Just back from a break. CO counsel is cross-examining Mr. Whitman of Alvarez and Marsal. 

Comic relief meister that I am, we had a wonderful hot mic moment. Someone yelled, “Kick it! Kick it!”obviously to their child, but it was well timed to fall in dead space. Then their dog barked. Ha.

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Please don't tell me that the numbers one believes have been abused has anything to do with political views.

Or, that those who do “believe” those numbers are your “opponents.” Well, feel free if that’s the case.

4 minutes ago, docSquatch said:

How transparent are they being with the finances? 

To quote my dad, again, they’re “clear as mud.” Nothing new.

1 minute ago, yknot said:

This is high drama

Did you say “drama” or “trauma”?  

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not to quibble, but as an attorney you know that no, he doesn't.

The 9 members of the TCC collectively do and they are represented by counsel of record.

That is a quibble. You know I was not making an officer of the court statement. I will add footnotes and references next time. 

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It’s not, but he only represents the entire group of sexual abuse survivor claimants. An exception should have been made in this case. Two minutes? Give me a break. That would not have slowed her roll at all. 

If Mr. Buchbinder can commemorate the founding of Scouting at the outset of a hearing, surely a representative of the Official Tort Claimants’ Committee can be given two minutes. It would have been nice to hear a simple, direct message from someone who has a huge stake in this, not to mention a ginormous constituency, each member (presumably) having skin in the game. Tsk. Tsk. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Doug Kennedy of the TCC tried to speak for 2 minutes and the judge said no.

He is not an attorney, so that's not un-reasonable.

It’s not, but he only represents the entire group of sexual abuse survivor claimants. An exception should have been made in this case. Two minutes? Give me a break. That would not have slowed her roll at all. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

3:08pm still no judge on Zoom.

For the highest paid at $20+ per minute, delay is not a bad thing, per se. 

24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

That. Is. Positively. Despicable. Dang. My level of cumulated disgust continues to rise. Thank you for that information, though I am really sorry to hear it. I figured it had to be based on nothing more than records. Who would’ve given them the record of Eagle Scouts? I wonder why I was not contacted. I absolutely hate hearing this, as a legit victim and as an attorney. More shame than one can spread around. Gah. I can’t express how disappointing that is, but I’m sure you get it.  Makes me angry and sad. That has been a consistent theme for me over the last year plus. I guess it would be pegged to LC asset trust transfer scuttle last July.

Forgive the misfire, at least as it concerns any court-directed, legit notice for awareness purposes only.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because you can get from NESA their entire directory for a price.

Which directory contains my name and contact information. This is my pernt.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Somehow I suspect it was more "you may be part of this lawsuit" and not "hey, please file a false claim and let us do it for you."

Inquiring minds would love to know the answer to this.

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Big difference of being contacted to be made aware of the bankruptcy and being solicited to file suits. If 95 percent of all men over the age of 55 or older were to be shown to contacted I wonder why I wasn’t?  I wonder how they got contact info?  If they only contacted active or current adult scouts whom BSA would have current contact info that would not sound Kosher to be able to certify anything. 

Agreed. Same. Ditto. From the first posts, I thought it was solicitation contact. Also curious, why a handful of eagles, including Vol Scouter’s son. Not sure of his age, of course.