2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Someone let Kosnoff know he can tweet his apology re the TCC not holding meetings when he thinks best.

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…

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Edited 2 hours ago by elitts
just minor editing for appearance

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:

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Some of this is just sloppy lawyering (mass approval of the claims in a frenzy of last minute signing)

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!

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But the point of the insurers, and I'd point out some of the victims lawyers now, is that it isn't the Trustee's job yet. The Trustee doesn't have a job until 2/3rds of (voting) claimants approve the plan and that at least some (many? most?) of those 82,500 voters shouldn't be voting in the first place.

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.

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

That said, this document still only represents, at most, 13k cases out of 82k. Do you think that 16% is the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? 

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.”

16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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.)

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

52 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

and/or failure to adequately review the proof of claim  prior to the lawyer signing on behalf of his or her client.

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.)

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Can someone help me out understanding what the ramifications would be if true that AIS and other lawyers may have been funded by Wall Street and that the loans are due?

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.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, that's why I said this seems off.

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

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The TCC is not planning to do a town hall until August 12 until AFTER the plan disclosure statement hearing where the statement would be approved (or rejected).

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. 

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Wondering how the deposition of Mosby is going.

Wondering too how the Kosnoff deposition is going to go.

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

19 minutes ago, AnonEagle said:

Would you guys be interested in me posting some relevant portions from my AIS update email? (Recieved 7/9).

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

7 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

SE nightmare scenario.  I'm in a 3 shades of grey state.  We contribute 75% or more of reserves to a settlement.   Only .01% of my funds go to our local victims.  In next decade, state re-opens SOL.  Victims now claim that they were not compensated because it was not worth revisiting the damage for pennies on the dollar.  Or claim they were not compensated fairly now that the window is open.    I could see the concrete settlement shield begin to crack.  As a scout exec, I'd want to see most of my contributions to go local to build up that future shield.  ... Seriously ... it would be hard to claim you already paid your victims if none of the local victims were compensated fairly or similar to victims in other states.

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. 

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I really, really want to see the LC breakdowns.

Take a ticket and get in line. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Councils putting in conditions: there have been councils that have put conditions on payment. Some wanted to try and put assurances their payments would only go to pay claims arising from their council. There is a big worry some councils will be bailing out other councils. This is apparently a sticking point.

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.

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not?  Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be."

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. 

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I have not had a chance to work backward into prior comments, nor your specific history, though I shall do so.

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

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

The insurance companies fought hard with the asbestos case ... from what I can see, 7+ years post plan approval. 

That is a knife twister of a thought. Ack! And, double Ack!

56 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

All that aside, I've heard many here grouse about the very issue of juicy cuts and wine on the table and crumbs and scraps for foot soldiers and their critical field kits. 

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

This makes me wonder how Friends of Scouting ever became part of scouting to the degree where it is utilized to fund salaries rather than specific needs. 

Legitimate "grousing" confirmed. 

Author's Note: The use of a term that also refers to a bird that flies loudly into your face when you flush it and subsequently make a feeble effort to get a bead on it is intended to be taken in the best possible way. It does not imply whining, rather intelligent objections based on analysis and personal experience.  

23 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

If councils were truly seeking to benefit youth by providing program, donations would be used to provide those programs to more youth. But I don't see that happening.  After some years on the council executive board, I do not recall one second's discussion of budget issues-how much to spend on program as opposed to salaries, or long-term investments. Those issues disappear into a black hole.

Has anyone done a thorough review of the LCs (or BSA overall) on the various NGO/NPO watchdog sites to see how they rate? I just did a very quick look on Charity Navigator, picking LCs by random. There is a common denominator: lower ratings on "Accountability and Transparency." Each one was marked down for a lack of available Donor Privacy Policy, Audited Financials and Form 990s. I don't know about any of this, since I didn't bother to dig further. The same could be done on Charity Watch, Guide Star and BBB Wise Giving Alliance. All that aside, I've heard many here grouse about the very issue of juicy cuts and wine on the table and crumbs and scraps for foot soldiers and their critical field kits. 

On 7/11/2021 at 11:22 AM, CynicalScouter said:

https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2021-07-09/what-the-boy-scouts-settlement-says-about-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims/116455

Thank you so much for posting this. Truly. Excellent interview. She has my vote to be the overseer of the new YPT!!!!!!!! 

1 hour ago, elitts said:

I simply can't believe that there wasn't some kind of instructions in place making that a quasi-official church policy.  Even if they couldn't make the charges stick, making a go at prying the lid off the church would have been worthwhile.

This is why I posted the excerpt from Scout’s Honor when we were discussing fraudulent concealment and AG investigations. I think the case against BSA is much stronger than diocese by diocese. Much. It appears so to me, anyway. Who were the National decision-makers during that Menninger Committee period and before? They clearly decided to withhold the data even from their own safety studies, much less the Scouting community and public. That is some gag-worthy smelly cheese in my book. If it happened then, into the 80’s, what went down prior? 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Latest filing from claimant asks he be named as "Financial Master" for BSA case, including being named "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA".

His plan to rescue BSA is to get a $100 billion (with a B, billion) PPP loan repayable over the next 50 years. All scouts will be assessed $1200 in fees per year (he thinks current fees are $600 per year) which the scouts will have to pay off via selling...something. Oh, and scouting will overnight go back to 2 million scouts.

And for his services as "Financial Master" "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA" claimant wants $8.4 billion in payment.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ffc33d5b-b35a-4d1d-9027-3d0d76905d31_5552.p

 

C’mon now guys. Don’t make fun of me. Mama needs a new pair of shoes (and a yacht and an island and a fleet of cars, servants, penthouses in all cosmopolitan centers and…a new printer and technology consultant for her hubby).

27 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that the TCC signed off on the RSA tells me that the TCC at least sees the LC contributions ($300 million cash, $200 million in property OR cash; $100 million loan) as at least reasonable.

Yup. That is what I've been told, as well. But, that is not to be taken as an agreement that the numbers given by the Ad Hoc Committee or BSA accurately reflect what the TCC discovered through the work of BRG. That's the basis for my "Where's the beef?" beef.