ThenNow

The request of others (me) and direction of the moderators was regarding global, general aspersions and negative characterizations. They specifically said it can be appropriate and acceptable to comment on the actions, etc., of attorneys and other players as it is relevant to the case, as in this situation. Also, I see no abusive or derogatory language in either of the posts quoted. I may have missed the point you were trying to make.

I said the same in my initial comment. Hoping for no true calamity or disaster. This was more about her presence vs. today’s. He wasn’t to blame, I was just making note in what was probably a less than sympathetic manner. Apologies.

I’ve been in a good number of diverse contexts with attorneys (not including myself) and I’ve never, ever witnessed the degree of sycophantic, self-congratulatory pandering I’ve experienced on these hearings. I needed Saltines, tums and Ginger Ale to make it through. As I said before, I was proud to be under the TCC’s cover when John Lucas spoke. Class act, IMHO.

I wonder what’s going on in tonight’s post-pushback huddle up. I’m sure all the sectors are scurrying. It has to be a double, “Oh, crap!” for the BSA and Ad Hoc Committee of LCs. Timeline adjustment, hearing on the discovery motions and then the not so subtle tongue-lashing they took from the COs counsel. Maybe Jessica Lauria shouldn’t miss hearings or status conferences. That young fella took a capital B beating today.

You’ve done AMAZING reporting work today. Go easy on yourself. Many of us are most grateful for your diligence and speed.

So, that simplifies it to a lease agreement waiving all liability other than premises? Are any of the 70’s Charter agreements available to view?

I can't wait for the next episode. Is it getting to the good part? Since the mediation parties agreed to pay the Coalition millions of cheddar for their critical role in reaching the deal, sans a hinted at objection by the TCC, do all said parties oppose "exposing" the Coalition? I know it will delay the process, but I will again admit and reiterate my feelings. These are not well thought out as to the impact at this stage, but they arose from about September 2020 through the bar date. I resented and also panicked watching the exponential rise in claims through a process that seemed painless t

Oh, well. No certificate for you, my friend. I'm deeply sorry.

I'm not sure if I'm the one who should be biting my tongue, but I am totally open to correction. On the issues that go to claimants' feelings and state of mind (and heart), I frequently respond. That's especially so when the "information" is wrapped in what could easily be perceived as reactive adamance that might read as hurtful. There are ways to say most things while being mindful of not making the pain worse.

I'm eager to read any communications Scouters and represented claimants receive recapping the status conference. Anyone who is willing to provide such will receive a limited edition commemorative "More Wood to Chop" certificate, suitable for framing.

Please refer to my post that begins, "I drone on..." See above.

Um, the BSA's lead bankruptcy counsel is NOT attending the status conference?! I hope the "unavoidable conflict" is significant and, of course, not a calamity or tragedy. If it's work-related, that's stunning. BSA counsel seems close to the "pass out the cigars and snifters" phase of his celebratory remarks. These attorneys on all sides love to say, "We still have wood to chop." I'd like to see the calluses from their frequent chopping of actual wood. I am very grateful that John Lucas for the TCC didn't engage in 5+ minutes of self-congratulatory commentary. I needed to calm m

Yup. 100%. Almost to a person, every one of my friends and family who know what I'm up to read the headlines and sent me some kind of "Yippee!" text or email. I started just cutting and pasting my stock response, since it was relatively long and involved. The two who didn't asked me if it was good news or a big TBD. They are my two sisters who know the most about the whole thing, from my perspective, and from all the articles and research I fling at them.

I have not heard a full-throated "acknowledgement" of "what they done." Ever. Did I miss it? I don't expect one, either. Like any settlement agreement, it's often entered into with no admission of guilt or liability. Because you cough up money, you aren't shouting to the world, "We really screwed up and a lot of boys paid the price." I know I'm parsing and he's in an interview, but this is more vague, global language that sets us up for another let down. The tank is still technically empty, won't be anywhere close to full and the spigot is being guarded by time, insurance companies, CO

And I, for one, am proud of you for that tenacity. It is not easy in any respect.

I drone on further not to pile on, but to add to my effort in kindness. Please take it that way. The feeling this has elicited in many of us is one of being defrauded and abused, again, now in a very public way. Most of our abuse was "private," to use the best word I can think of at the moment. Many told their stories for the first time, including to loved ones, therapists, attorneys, the court and others. A huge, enormous, immense, momentous and ginormous event. In most cases, no one thing or moment was more difficult or wrenching than that one. Now, exposed and out in the open, we came

I'm sorry, but again, you don't get it and you won't convince claimants by repeating the technical details. Being right is not the same as it feeling right and resting comfortably on one's fragile psyche. I mean no offense, but you simply can't understand or reason it away with legal precision. Sorry.

I'm going with the Child Catcher in Pinocchio.

As I've said in detail several times prior to my above post. Remember the one about, "the documentation burden alone is going to be nearly insurmountable to some claimants" and the ever popular "fulcrum to flip to the Expedited Track"?

And why does the advertising copy and content of the video ads look so similar to that used by other firms? Benevolent sharing of material for the common good? I don’t think so.

As I just posted, I don’t have a clear line of sight on what the heck is going on here. At one point, it seemed like it would be straightforward. As the judge failed to rule and impose some order on the process, it seems like it devolved from there. Now, it feels like no one knows what to make of this, if they are completely candid. I will keep beating this drum, to what end or good I don’t know. The re-traumatization of this process for victims is so hard to accurately state and more so to understand if you’re not in our seat. Vulnerability. Someone else holding the advantage and seeming

Just so my post isn’t misinterpreted, I wasn’t saying I’d like to see or support the rejection of the plan in favor of a state court shoot out and race for the cash. I was just sure Muttsy was locked and loaded to give his view of where the judge would tell us all to go. I couldn’t resist the lob. I’m coming to the conclusion that I have even less control than I thought I did a month, which wasn’t much. Since Deal 4.0 was announced, it’s also becoming clear that I have almost no idea how this is going to play out. I don’t like being out of control and vulnerable to so much uncertainty. I

In case you didn’t recognize that, it was a perfect soft lob to the center of the net. Well played. I think it ended up in John McEnroe’s mouth as he sat in the press booth screaming, “You cannot be serious!?!?”

Do you have a prediction on where that will be? Is it interminably hot with red guys wielding pitchforks?

I believe his question was a compound, including both the severity and the chart issues. He was asking if the Shades of Gray percentages dictate the best case scenario for us with the insurance companies, as well as the BSA. “Are we locked into...,” as in, “Is that all we can possibly get even if our claim is severe?”