ThenNow

Here is the entire article, courtesy of a friend at Bloomberg. Worth a read. Makes me crabbier that this judge does not have an eye to the judges overseeing actual mass tort cases, as opposed to the same masquerading as a Chapter 11. Grrrr. Law.com, Mass Tort Attorneys_ Judges Want to Know About Your Outside Financing.pdf

Isn’t the damage TBD, based upon how far under the bus and irretrievable they become? Are they already out of reach, in terms of getting under the channeling injunction? If they start getting named and teed up to be lit up in the window states with no BSA air cover, it’s kaput, ja? It doesn’t feel to me like BSA is going to reach back and fetch COs at this point. If they did opt for a rescue, what would it entail? My view on all this is overly simplistic, I know. Last disjointed thought. Though it may be better for some survivors to have open season on COs, I don’t see it as a great benefit to all. I may be missing it. The whole scenario also looks pretty cold hearted and two-faced from my club chair. Let’s see. A Scout is trustworthy. Strike that. Hm. Loyal? Never mind. Start over. A Scout is helpful. Debatable, but I’ll give them that one through and abundance of grace. Friendly, Courteous and Kind? Nah. No gimmes. I’ll let them run the table from there, with the exception of Brave. Definitely not Brave...

Sorry. I spoke too fast. Yes. That was my multi-headed beast point and confirms my sense of the why. It seemed clearest and most logical to me and the legal makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Thanks. I apologize that my smart alek question made it less than clear. My real question is, knowing how critical the CO relationship is, why the “get off the bus, Gus”? That was even better.

Oops. I just to referred myself, by extension, as a beast. Being an attorney, please don’t censor my comment. I did not intend to revive the now expired and verboten.

Okay. No surprise. Several of you saw this percolating and said as much. I only have old school CO points of reference, now adding those you guys have given me. Other than being engaged in a cage match with a multi-headed beast, is there any good explanation for this redux of “Throw Mama from the Train,” sans Danny and Billy with COs playing the mothers? (It’s strained, I know, but I had to get that film title in somehow!)

Prayers headed your way, brother!

Thanks for the invite. I’m off to Puerto Rico. Hopefully, I’ll do better than Century’s PI in locating him and the boat at his club. In any case, expect my future posts to have a gentle, Coppertone glow about them. I’ll report from seaside…

Arigato!

I don’t know who to quote on this so I’ll just put it here. The entire funding of claims aggregation and mining and whatever you want to call it, coupled with the need to examine lawyers and claims to see what’s hinky, makes me sad and angry. I’m sure that was not apparent in my recent post. Thought I’d clear that right up. Plucked this from law.com, but I no longer have full access, so here’s the banner splash. Best I can do while I appeal to my friend at Bloomberg to let us in. Forgive this jumbo font. Still waiting for that tech consultant following my appointment to the entire C Suite for all things BSA Chapter 11 and BSA overall. My wife asked twice about her island. Can anyone expedite my elevation and coronation? Please? Without further ado, this is the extent of my web plucking: May 02, 2019 at 08:12 PM https://www.law.com/2019/05/02/mass-tort-attorneys-judges-want-to-know-about-your-outside-financing/

Yup. AND, sloppy lawyering that utterly flaunted the judge’s admonition, toothless I might add in retrospect, that she “better not see a hundred signatures by attorneys...I never signed for my client in all my years of practice,” to paraphrase her statement. Looming bar date or not, get your poo-poo together and prepare your signing hand for a two month recovery from clinical writer’s cramp!

I didn’t say this current examination of the potential shell game isn’t allowed, appropriate or potentially productive in the hands of the insurers. I said (meant) the eventual validation of “all the peanuts, rotten or otherwise,” once this camel does its thing and reveals what it does or doesn’t, is not the insurers’ b’ness. Yes, I assumed that actual transition to the Trustee phase, but my point is they cannot be allowed to play The Great and Powerful. The actual is waiting in the wing somewhere, or maybe the green room, drinking bourbon and talking Cosmos club speak with his fellow play-yahs.

Dunno. My fear has been that the insurers want to use this as the camel’s nose to get under the tent and start turning over every shell to find the rotten peanuts. (Do camel’s like peanuts? I digress.) I don’t want that. It’s now the Trustee’s job. The entire thing, if 13+/- or whatever, launches a stink bomb in the room and sours the process. That’s how I feel as a legitimate victim/claimant. Again, I fear a pallor of illegitimacy will be spread over the case, which is/would be very unfortunate. Is there already one? Some would say, “Yup!” That said, I can’t abide fraud or fast and loose. It goes against my justice and fairness hackles and is disgusting in this context or any like this where someone is riding a money train fulled by truly innocent and badly wronged victims. IF that IS what went on here. I hate the whole mess this represents. Any fraud. Insurers using it as a fulcrum to poke and prod. More delay. Additional grandstanding. “Gag me with a spoon.”

Right or wrong, misguided or on target I can’t say, but if you’ve not read this, I recommend it. At the least, you’ll understand what is being alleged. I still shake my head when I look through it. Given human nature and the power of gold, I default to there being more than just grains of truth contained therein. Even considering the source of the document and their obvious “Don’t touch my $$$!!!” motives, if it’s true then let the chips ahoy fall where they may. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872620_2022.pdf

In fairness, some of them had several seconds between signature stamping to review and vet. (Please reference, the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading & Memory Training class I took freshman year of high school. I'm sure they're graduates, as well.)

My recollection is that AIS is not under the microscope on that score, rather the Coalition and other firms that generated large numbers rapido y furiouso with few attorneys on their letterhead. I may be wrong. I know some of the AIS guys and they are thoroughly legit and upright law practice citizens. Perhaps there are exceptions within that group, as well. Dunno. I'll let others speak to the ramifications.

He's keeping his Tweety Birds fed, me thinks.

For my part, I would look at the calendar. We're a fair piece from August 12th. They've called town halls on short notice and the clock has not struck 8.12 nor nearly.

Same. Eagerly awaiting the news from our resident ace reporter, analyst and town crier.

The pro se claimants here, including me, certainly would. Danke, in advance.

I'm no sooth sayer, but I could see precisely that scenario coming to pass. As always, who knows? As a claimant, it seems like the dangling carrot would be attractive and a flicker of hope. As a person suffering with CPTSD and other co-morbidities caused by the abuse, chasing that carrot for X years of battle with the insurance companies, compounded by who knows how many of the same while the legislature(s) grapple with victims' advocacy groups might be an emotional death knell. Possibly physical, as well.

Take a ticket and get in line.

Because it's particularly near and dear to my heart, er case, I am wondering how the 3 Shades of Gray councils are processing the demands set before them. When we were all young, spry and hopeful, we speculated about the, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances," responses that could be down the road. Well, here we be in the cul-de-sac. Is it just me or does it kinda feel a bit like the OK Coral? I'm trying to figure out who are the Brothers Earp, the legendary Doctor and the notorious Cowboys. I'm hiding under the front decking of the general store across the way. Wave one of those red bandanas the Cowboys wear to signal the all clear. Then we can saunter, gather, gander and perform a proper "crime scene" analysis.

Yeah, but no. Derogatory does not equal "a false statement purporting to be fact." Opinion doesn't rise to the level of defamatory. As to making their living/money by litigating, the last gnat "they" want to pursue is someone on this forum ranting and raving about how bad they are, in whatever respect. Even if it was a false statement, there has to be injury. I don't think anyone, especially a well-compensated personal injury attorney, is trolling this pond for a potential libel action. It may be well stocked, but not many keepers, me thinks. If they put themselves into the line of fire for criticism as to the BSA Chapter 11, they are fair game for examination and, potentially, derogative commentary.

Don’t feel compelled, but if you do, you’ll be forced to edit your comment that nothing you’ve read qualifies as ranting.