ThenNow

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

think at least one or two that follow this thread have Kosnoff as their lawyer.  Do you have any insights into the Kosnoff v Eisenberg fight?  Which one would represent AIS?

Also, please add, do any of you understand how/why either of the firms purport to represent the comprehensive group of AIS clients? I have friends from other AIS firms I know for sure have a goodly batch of clients. It’s been my assumption that those firms have “nominated” someone to speak on behalf of those firms and clients. That said, I’ve not asked them to clarify. We try not to get into any details of their representation, more so general impressions of the circus de jour. 

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Gerard T. Cicero pro hac vice

”Gerard Cicero is an Associate in the Firm's Bankruptcy & Corporate Restructuring Practice Group. He represents tort victims, bondholders, foreign representatives, official and ad hoc committees of creditors and equity interest holders and post-confirmation trustees in both Chapter 11 and 15 cases.

Gerard is recognized by The Legal 500 US for Restructuring (including Bankruptcy): Corporate.

Prior to joining Brown Rudnick, Gerard served as an intern in the Employment Litigation Department at the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.”

7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

However, on that note, would any survivor care to express their hopes for this procedure?

Which procedure? Should I repost my surgery warning? (I couldn’t resist.) Happy to lend thoughts if you clarify a bit. Thanks.

There should’ve been a warning footnote when BSA issued it’s Chapter 11 press release inviting survivors of abuse in Scouting to come forward and be “equitably compensated.” If consulted, I would’ve worded it something like this:

BE IT KNOWN BY ONE AND ALL! THE PROCESS YOU ARE CONSIDERING WILL BE LIKE HAVING OPEN HEART SURGERY WITH A CHAINSAW AND BACKHOE. A NAIL GUN WILL BE DEPLOYED TO CLOSE. EXPECT SIGNIFICANT BLEEDING, SWELLING, BRUISING AND SCARRING, ACCOMPANIED BY THE HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL BE NO DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT AFTER SURGERY, IF THERE IS AN AFTER. CHOOSE WISELY...

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

What an absolute mess. 

Welcome to ZombieLand. Hope you brought your baseball bat. (Nod to Woody H.)

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

RSA 2.0 (hereinafter the Zombie RSA)

YES!! Bam!!

7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I don’t see my law firm on the list and they are supposedly representing 1600 claimants. 

Give them a bell and see what’s what. 

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

That plan was. This is Plan 2.0.

Okay. Whatever.  Just joshing ya. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The point I think is that number reached the 2/3rds needed (82,500*2/3=55,000) in order to approve this plan.

Sounds to me like there are Zombies. Didn’t I hear someone singing, “Ding dong, the Plan is dead”?  I know! It’s FrankenPlan! 

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

This looks like the global deal they've been wanting. This covers almost ALL claimants (67,000 out of 82,500).

So, what does that mean for the balance of claimants? Ciphering isn’t my forte, but those numbers don’t seem to match. Ain’t nuttin global about that to me. If it is, I guess fifteen and a half thousand of us weren’t properly tethered and got plum spun off the orb. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

RSA 1.0 is dead.

Behold: RSA 2.0 was just filed! Reading through it now.

Please advise as to the presence or absence of Zombies. I’m still wary and will await the “all clear” signal. Do use your flags, if you don’t mind. I’d like to test my memory, even though I hated that merit badge. 

8 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, with only the Rule 2019 motion left for tomorrow, let's see what that means.

I apologize for being lazy, but my paralegal is on vacation. Do you have ready access to the document links relevant to tomorrow's mud wrestling tournament? Danke sehr. If not, you've been more than gracious with all you have and do provide!

32 minutes ago, elitts said:

We give our Eagle Scouts a genuine felt Stetson at their Court of Honor.  It's still the single most popular thing that new Cub Scouts talk about when they do the Webelos visit to a Troop Meeting.  Hell, I even kinda wanted one myself when I first saw it, except that I can't tolerate hats in anything above about 65 degrees, so I'd never wear it and I'm too cheap to pay $100 for a hat I won't hardly wear. 

I don't recall getting anything at my Court of Honor save for a cake, which my dad made. Oh. I did get some cash from relatives and a twelve pack of Old Style from my fellows. All seriousness aside, I mean messa got nada from the esteemed Troop. (Btw, I don't like the term Unit. Just putting that out there.)

23 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I was always envious of the Smokey Bear hats. 

Ha! Right? I still have my dad’s, but he had such a tiny bean I can’t get it on my big noggin, other than like a yarmulke. (Forgive me if that is in any way disrespectful. Hope not.)

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Our Society's image of masculinity made that our safe space because it was expected.  It's still a safe place. 

This is not me picking yet another nit, rather speaking to others for whom masculinity has never been a place of refuge or a safe place. Maybe I’m alone. I never found it a shadow to step into as a way to avoid exposure. I found it uncomfortable and unnatural, which created a whole other stigma; going against the grain of the expected. I have never been a man’s man, exuding or wanting to exude machismo. I have always been more inclined to deep conversation and emotional vulnerability. I haven’t alway been fully self-disclosing, of course, but that was shame-based and not related to any projected image. There are many reasons those among us have not stepped forward. I grant any and all reasons as valid. But for some, we have torn ourselves inside out for years and paid a whole other price for it. Abandonment. Magnified shame. Further self-condemnation and I could drone on and on. I’ll spare everyone...for now. 

11 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Let's keep encouraging each other to speak out and respecting those who can't or aren't ready. 

I agree as to all. But, do I need to wear a funny pink hat and ride a bus? I’m phobic on both fronts. 

Thank you. Back at ya.

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I also do believe that change will come from those most impacted, the victims. 

I say again and invite joinders:

”...I have a long memory. I can be strategically patient. I was abused in three states, lived in seven. I have contacts in each.  I know people [including in politics and media]. I can raise money. I will fight...”

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Documentaries have been made covering the hearings and trial and stories connected to USA Gymnastics.  That was approximately 500 victims and while one is too many BSA victims could understandably be scratching their heads and asking "What about the tens of thousands of men?"

I spoke with CHILDUSA about all of this not too long after the case was filed. They had an astute observation. Paraphrasing, they told me, “Boy Scouts is, and has been historically, buttressed and populated by titans of industry, government and philanthropy. They have been insulated and protected. It’s no mystery why this has gone unchallenged for so long.” I don’t disagree. 

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm not sure I'd want my lawyers propagandizing on twitter.  We just got done with the mad twitter.  Haven't we learned anything?  ... What was that political guys name?  I can't remember.  

Honestly, I wouldn't mind mine doing it, but he eschews Twitter in favor of betting on vintage episodes of Hollywood Squares, Who's Line Is It Anyway and the Dating Game. There's an app for that. Jk.

But seriously, he's a force. Look how much he's discussed here. Force of nature, legal clout or his wealth and leisure. Maybe all of the above. He's also speaking for and to "his" (someone's?) clients. Having a firebrand isn't bad unless they shoot off their foot and your head with it. Don't ask me to explain the positional physics of that. It just sounded cool. I don't see how his angering or disparaging the "court" (aka, judge) does any harm to his clients at this point. I used to think it harmed them and me, but I've lost my religion. Not generally, but you feel me. Remember, he has a self interest in the outcome and I doubt he would be want to retract the downpayment on the next art collection or that Gulfstream G550. He's a man you love to hate and hate to love. I would take him as my attorney, but my current guy works cheap and would be very sad. 

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Simply ANY acknowledgement that this whole witch hunt pales in comparison to the issues in our Government agencies and connected support groups who "supposedly" are paid to protect children.  I am simply looking to see actual balance in responses to these tragedies.  But, it seems to me, a novice, that few will make the effort to "fix" these shortcomings in Government agencies.  Why?  Lawyers do not feel they can win?  It is cheaper to attack non-governmental groups?  The Government and related groups have the aura of being official, so they cannot be held to the grindstone?  I do not know.  But the imbalance is distressing, and it often appears that our legal system is weighted against actual fairness when it comes to public awareness of their improprieties (to be kind). 

This was wonderfully discussed and debated back when I had dark hair and didn’t need trifocals. I think Qwaze, Cynical, ynot and Fred (?) were the most engaged. Not p-positive on all four. Oh. Perhaps Mr. Lambert, too. I was, but I’m now weary, old and gray and don’t remember what I said. I seem to have run out of Geritol. I inherited my gampa’s bottle. Maybe someone can link back to those days of hail and thunder?

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Have to say I am surprised that the media has not run this story yet. Even the bankruptcy focused media has been from what I can see silent.

I connected with several on this months ago. Other than reporting what’s been said in the pleadings — now in my favorite takeaway carton — they’ve been reluctant to touch it. I gather they’re waiting for something more definitive on the composition of the various attorney groups and the background info we hoped would/will be the result of the TK depo. I offered to take a couple with me to Puerto Rico on the yacht hunt, but they were all busy tapping out the latest hot scoop of hoopla and horse pucky. 

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurance companies have now filed a supplement to their Rule 2019 motion that consists of nothing but Kosnoff's tweets mocking the judge and indicating that he (Kosnoff) is the one truly in charge of the 17000 clients.

Sweet. Now I have them all in one, uber convenient document. Not being a citizen of the Tweeterverse, I genuinely appreciate this compilation. I think it’s suitable for framing. 

6 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Remember, in bankruptcy, like politics, a day is a year.  Much can and often changes quickly.  "Dead" deals are resurrected miraculously. 

Hm. I hadn’t known. It makes sense I couldn’t remember. I feel better. Thank you. Now I “know” something else about a subject and context I hope I never need to remember, even though I now know it in my knower. 

As to death, resurrection and miracles, I’m getting a Zombie Apocalypse vibe. I think I’ll prepare accordingly. Not sure if we’re in the Walking Dead, Zombieland, Resident Evil, Night of the Living Dead or Train to Busan. I’ll give it some thought and report back.

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

So, I am curious as to what the loudest on here may have to say in this regard.  Again, no abuse is acceptable, but should not the responses be similar?  Can anyone give a rational and balanced response?

As I’m a titch dim, what are you looking for, specifically? 

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don’t understand how the RSA could have expired.   Didn’t the main groups just file documents supporting the RSA?  I’m struggling to understand what could have changed. 

Someone among the RSA parties won’t agree to extend the expiration date, which is tomorrow. I heard no indication during the hearing as to which party or parties. If they won’t agree to extend, they don’t want to be in the deal, as cut. That’s my take.