Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[MattR 2659]

39 minutes ago, MattR said:

We can move them.

I just did move them. Kind surgery with a chain saw. Let me know if I messed up.

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Just a friendly reminder, but we split the ch 11 thread such that topics including tcc and bankruptcy plans would stay in the old one and all the other topics that came up about yp, moral vs legal, the future of scouting, etc, would go here.

Perhaps I'm dense or over-reading this but I've found this recent split confusing.  The title says "bankruptcy" but how that connects to YP, moral vs legal, and the future of scouting seem at times connected and at others disconnected.  Consider this one vote for starting a new thread after the BSA files a new plan to put things on a less confusing track. 

[MattR 2659]

37 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Perhaps I'm dense or over-reading this but I've found this recent split confusing.  The title says "bankruptcy" but how that connects to YP, moral vs legal, and the future of scouting seem at times connected and at others disconnected.  Consider this one vote for starting a new thread after the BSA files a new plan to put things on a less confusing track. 

If the judge is talking about it, put it in the ch11.5 thread. If the judge is not talking about it but you think it's related to ch 11, put it here.

Honestly, the simplest solution is if the judge is talking about it then put it in the ch11.5 thread, if not start a different thread. Unfortunately, we've tried that for about a year and everything keeps going back to the same thread. This is a forum, not just a single thread. To paraphrase an old TV show, we have the technology The problem with jamming a whole lot of threads into one is that there are people that would rather not read every single post trying to find the few subjects they are interested in. There was a post where someone was seriously asking for help deal with their trauma but it got lost in a long argument about legal vs moral. I'm not sure how moral that was.

[MYCVAStory 687]

46 minutes ago, MattR said:

If the judge is talking about it, put it in the ch11.5 thread. If the judge is not talking about it but you think it's related to ch 11, put it here.

I recognize the challenge.  Perhaps we're in the 7th inning stretch (he says optimistically) and when more definitive developments occur we'll be able to focus upon them.  The disclosure statement will produce that focus as will a plan or plans. 

[skeptic 992]

I cannot help but be reminded that dragging out and stalling are standard practice in our messed up legal system here.  One great example might be the seeming indefinite lawsuit against the San Diego Council about use of Balboa Park, and then later Mission Bay.  It took over a decade of wasted time, and then it was finally thrown out be a judge that actually made a decision.  Meanwhile, San Diego paid the ACLU a large sum to get out out of the suit, and many youth were negatively impacted by lack of use in Balboa and for a time Mission Bay.  I have often wondered if the City of San Diego ever sued to get their money back.

But, as noted, I am sure that many can contribute similar stories, not necessarily Scouting related, but legal grandstanding and foot dragging to wear the system down.

Edited September 9, 2021 by skeptic

[CynicalScouter 1434]

54 minutes ago, skeptic said:

One great example might be the seeming indefinite lawsuit against the San Diego Council about use of Balboa Park, and then later Mission Bay.  It took over a decade of wasted time, and then it was finally thrown out be a judge that actually made a decision. 

Let's be clear about what happened here and it wasn't that at all.

The trial level proceedings lasted 3 years. Not a "decade".

https://www.aclusandiego.org/en/news/boy-scouts-balboa-park-lease

https://casetext.com/case/barnes-wallace-v-boy-scouts-of-america#p1276

Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, case # 00cv1726J was filed in 2000 (thus "00cv" = 2000 civil case).

The case was settled as to two of all plaintiffs EXCEPT the Local Council by 2003.

The local council then appealed on several grounds. The WON on some points but lost on others. The 3-judge appellate panel then re-reviewed the points the scouts won on and determined they lost those, too. This was then put before an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit which then "certified the question" to the California Supreme Court as whether the plaintiffs (Barnes-Wallace) even had the RIGHT to bring such a suit. Certifying the question is a process by which a federal appellate court can ask the highest court of a state to interpret that state's laws, in this case whether Plaintiffs had standing to sue in the first place. the Park plan violated the California Constitution's No Aid and No Preference Clauses. The California Supreme Court said no, thanks, you're on your own, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Local Council appeal. The Local Council then tried to take it to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to take it up. Once it was settled that yes, indeed, the plaintiffs had a right to sue the local council, the Ninth Circuit took up the case on the merits.

At every step of the way (except one) it was the local council filing the appeals, asking the court to reconsider decisions, appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, etc.

That's not "Dragging it out". That's one party exercising its right to appellate review of a lower court decision.

54 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I have often wondered if the City of San Diego ever sued to get their money back.

Why would they? They were out of the case by 2003. And the fact that the case was dismissed against the Boy Scouts (due to standing) does NOT mean the plaintiffs lacked standing as to the City.

Edited September 9, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[skeptic 992]

Actually, the city stood behind the scouts to start, but suddenly, they decided to leave them hanging by paying off the ACLU threats.  So, from my view, when it was thrown out for lack of standing, then the ACLU owed the city the bribe money. Reality is and was that the actual good to the city and the area the Scouts offered with their care and upkeep, including the summer swim access and options for those accepting the rules, was a positive element, and those bringing the suit cared less about the benefit to the city or community.  Selfish and frivolous; but most of these types of attacks, as that is what they are, fall into that category.   JMO of course. 

[fred8033 1591]

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

According to Kosnoff TCC has “caved” in the RSA and forthcoming plan 5.0

Warning foul language ahead 

https://twitter.com/sexabuseattys/status/1436152941468008454?s=21

My guess: the TCC accepted  the rumored $850 million Hartford deal as “best we can hope for”.

... side comment ...  for me, humor comes in strange places.  I looked at the twitter feed above.  I'm used to social media feeds with thousands of likes.  Even our states governor gets 2k+ to 5k+ likes per post.  Above post had three.  ... doesn't mean anything.  I just thought it was funny.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

21 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

ABSOLUTELY untrue.  Spoke to the TCC...they have NOT seen a new plan and are preparing for it as well as other options.

This is Kosnoff's version of events. I am redacting a word.

Quote

The Town Hall tonight. Surprise surprise. They caved on the RSA and they’ve caved on the soon to be unveiled Plan 5.0. Pathetic. Survivors deserved real advocacy. I’m afraid that the [REDACTED] pie is fully baked and ready for the survivors to eat. I’m so sorry.

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

18 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

THIS is an example of Kosnoff really working against the interest of ALL survivors to try and control the narrative for some reason.

Nothing less than complete liquidation is acceptable to him. Anything less, in his view, is a betrayal of victims. And he's convinced many of his clients/followers that total liquidation is a) possible and b) the only fair solution. Thus, in his view, he IS working "in the the interests of ALL survivors" to get the maximum: BSA liquidated, all Local Council assets liquidated, total scorched earth. Anything less is "betraying" the victims.

As I said before: Kosnoff doesn't have the ability to persuade enough people to APPROVE a plan, but with a 2/3rds threshold, he may have enough sway to get any plan other than Chapter 7/liquidation DISAPPROVED.

Then the judge will have a choice: order a cramdown (I know, I know, never happened before in a sexual abuse related bankruptcy) or let BSA die.

Edited September 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

32 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

THIS is an example of Kosnoff really working against the interest of ALL survivors to try and control the narrative for some reason.  Disgusting.  The TCC made it clear it is fighting and will continue to do so.

To come back around to this: Kosnoff's view/narrative

1) The abuse victims who make up the TCC are stooges or useful idiots for the evil Stang and other money hungry lawyers to manipulate. They aren't really fighting for victims, they are fighting to line lawyer pockets.

2) The only "real" fight ends with BSA eliminated from existence. To paraphrase his appearance and other statements: you don't negotiate with evil and the BSA is totally irredeemable. Nothing less than unconditional surrender of all BSA assets (and Local Councils, too) is acceptable.

Etc.

[MYCVAStory 687]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

To come back around to this: Kosnoff's view/narrative

1) The abuse victims who make up the TCC are stooges or useful idiots for the evil Stang and other money hungry lawyers to manipulate. They aren't really fighting for victims, they are fighting to line lawyer pockets.

2) The only "real" fight ends with BSA eliminated from existence. To paraphrase his appearance and other statements: you don't negotiate with evil and the BSA is totally irredeemable. Nothing less than unconditional surrender of all BSA assets (and Local Councils, too) is acceptable.

Good description of his warped view of #1.  When the Town Hall video is posted at tccbsa.com people should watch it and decide for themselves whether the two survivors look and act like guys who are the least bit concerned with making attorneys rich.  I'm working now on getting one to do an "AMA" day on this forum when possible.  The problem is that the TCC is bound by mediation confidentiality and limited on what it can say.  That might frustrate people here who have been paying close attention. 

[MYCVAStory 687]

One other thing discussed last night that Kosnoff hasn't mentioned.  The TCC has posted a statement on mental health to include low-cost or free options for counseling.  It's at TCCBSA.COM  There are others but this is a start if you need help.  It's a good reminder when attorneys start screaming about money that there's real hurt out there that money can't fix and at least the TCC is trying to help that too.

 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

I'm working now on getting one to do an "AMA" day on this forum when possible.  The problem is that the TCC is bound by mediation confidentiality and limited on what it can say. 

While I applaud that effort, I would think it is impossible for the reason you mentioned: mediation and other privileges. I therefore worry that the "Anything" in "Ask Me Anything" will turn into "Anything not covered by mediation privilege"

[ThenNow 1373]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I therefore worry that the "Anything" in "Ask Me Anything" will turn into "Anything not covered by mediation privilege"

AMSMBTN - “Ask Me Something More Better Than Nothing,” works for me.