Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

CynicalScouter needed a timeout. His behavior was abusive, even if I agree with his points more often than n

You all know CS and I are pretty much in agreement. When not, I reply. Even I felt buried by the speed, high volume and intensity that was being generated, fostered and perpetuated. And, I noted it and asked for a step back and a deep breath. That said, some of the mostly interpersonal, unresolvable conflicts of opinion between select individuals become a recycling of things already said many times, just with increasing volume. Granted, new people enter the conversation all the time, but I’ve found myself wanting to ask people to go shuffle off to DM or request the moderators designate some discussions UCBP (Unresolvable Conflict Between Posters). I have no clue how they do their task and don’t want to try or learn. I would be known as the Red King, if you get my point, er, blade’s edge.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is Doug Kennedy, a member of the TCC.  First, I want to thank all of you for your comments over the past 18 months.  Your comments and those in other forums, whether I disagree with them or not,

Scouter.com is not well liked by National and believe me, while we are all scouters, we have various opinions of BSA.  I think if BSA fails, we will help build up a new scouting organization. If you w

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, Cyni

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Please explain. I get the “not [yours] to give,” but your Council is free to release, compare and rebut, no? It’s hard to feel good about refusing disclosure while saying, “They are clearly wrong” without allowing anyone else the ability to see, assess and come to their own conclusion. Simply, it looks like hiding and hiding usually means something is damaging in the report. Just me? 

No not just you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the hearing agenda (at least the current version).  Basically, from what I can tell, primary battles over discovery requests.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/963b908b-4745-4ddd-8dce-09e0789f8fbd_6635.pdf

  • Moving Insurers vs Eric Green - Discovery
  • BSA vs TCC and many others - Discovery
  • Paul Mones request to no longer be counsel for client 
  • Insurance companies vs aggregators vs Coalition (Discovery of aggregators & Coalition fee request)
  • Law firm fighting against insurance companies over subpoena of aggregators
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

No not just you. 

Whenever I ask for financials, I always get the "Why do you want to know?"  To me, that is the first sign someone is hiding something.  I even got this when I asked for IRS 990s.

At least for the IRS 990s, I wrote back, "Because the law says you have to provide them."  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Whenever I ask for financials, I always get the "Why do you want to know?"  To me, that is the first sign someone is hiding something.  I even got this when I asked for IRS 990s.

At least for the IRS 990s, I wrote back, "Because the law says you have to provide them."  

Lucky they didn't ban you. Amazing for an organization with ideals like Scouting, that so many corners of the org are ran so unethically and secretively. Not just the child abuse, but regarding finances and local politics as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Please explain. I get the “not [yours] to give,” but your Council is free to release, compare and rebut, no? It’s hard to feel good about refusing disclosure while saying, “They are clearly wrong” without allowing anyone else the ability to see, assess and come to their own conclusion. Simply, it looks like hiding and hiding usually means something is damaging in the report. Just me? 

As a board member, I receive council information.  Since this chapter 11, the legal counsel requested that we not release any information.  Whenever the attorney advises that the information can be released, the council will do so.  My actions are in keeping with my obligations as a board member and in keeping with the Scout Law.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

Lucky they didn't ban you. Amazing for an organization with ideals like Scouting, that so many corners of the org are ran so unethically and secretively. Not just the child abuse, but regarding finances and local politics as well. 

My SE did take adverse action...removed me from all council and district positions...and never had the courtesy to let me know...had to hear it from other volunteers when they were submitting rosters for training staffs and renewing district/council positions.

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wondering said:

Article from the L.A. Times today: Boy Scouts payout disputed (pagesuite.com)

Note 4th paragraph 😉 

Has anyone seen an article with actual sex abuse survivors saying to vote for this plan?  Between twitter, Facebook, this forum and news articles .... every single claimant I can find wants to reject this plan.  

Note I still expect a large number of yes votes.  I think a lot of people will just listen to their attorneys and the coalition is telling them to vote yes.  Plus, all who signed over power of attorney to coalition lawyers will be yes votes (unless they take back that power of attorney).  However, the public facing claimants seem to be consistently rejecting the deal.  So, if it passes, would the judge consider that as part of her ruling on the plan? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rabid said:

Just got an email from AIS recommending I vote yes. Repeatedly.

And Tim Kosnoff one of the original AIS lawyers says “ I don’t know what to say, really, about AIS joint venture partner Ken Rothweiler’s statements about this plan. I want you to understand that I repudiate them for being false and misleading. I can’t control what he says but he not being truthful w anybody.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Rabid said:

Just got an email from AIS recommending I vote yes. Repeatedly.

I understand completely if not, but if you would be willing to share any elements of the argument, beneath and between the begging, I would be grateful. I’m grasping to understand how they are building, supporting and sustaining their mantra that this is “the best we can do” and “there’s more to come, pinky swear.” I understand the Consortium that shall not be named is gearing up for an internal dog and pony show. If only I had a ticket. Where is my invisibility cloak when I need it? Meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Ken Rothweiler’s

The Ken Rottweiler of champagne wishes and caviar tears fame? 

TK, if you’re lurking, please feel free to appropriate that line. In all due disregard for modesty, it’s a beaut! It deserves some legs beyond this forum. 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Note I still expect a large number of yes votes.  I think a lot of people will just listen to their attorneys and the coalition is telling them to vote yes.  Plus, all who signed over power of attorney to coalition lawyers will be yes votes (unless they take back that power of attorney). 

My recollection is, the all encompassing numbers tossed about by both AIS and the Consortium that shall not be named have far fewer clients who signed up and gave them powers to act. Anyone know the numbas? I realize the are still seeking POAs, but there were some stats used to refute their previous assertions that they could deliver the votes on a platinum platter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...