ThenNow

I would like to have heard or now see the attorney’s argument given to the clients. My reason is not to question the viability of anyone voting to approve. That is their choice. I want to see if it is so convincing and unequivocal as to compel every single one of their clients. Not a single dissenter. Or, perhaps, was there very little communication and the attorneys merely said, “Trust us. We got your back”?

Kept the phone out of the drink. Also interesting. https://www.theday.com/article/20211225/OP01/211229706

Yes, and amen. Btw, you have five paragraphs of thoughts. There are five letters in “a mess.” I don’t believe in coincidence.

Who knows. Throwing darts. I don’t know if you guys have read this. Just found it https://www.gibsondunn.com/congressional-committees-propose-changes-to-bankruptcy-code-prohibiting-non-consensual-releases-of-third-parties-and-limiting-other-important-bankruptcy-tools/

Anyone know who appointed these judges, as in of what political affiliation? It shouldn’t matter, but it often does.

I would strike “going to be.” Just sayin. If not so terribly sad it would be hilarious.

If I were those firms, I would’ve held them as long as possible. Extra time and new deals were the play to garner more yes votes.

As I heard her, it was pretty clear by implication and tone of voice, she read the opinion doesn’t feel that way at present. Her responses were clipped and emphatic, effectively stating that Circuit Court is not this Circuit Court. JLSS has a lot on her plate, a ton to read, cats, raccoons and honey badgers to wrangle and an awful lot to think about between here and there (wherever that ends up being).

Yeah. I understand. Mine is on my desk not the wall at this point. Was in my office for many years. I pulled it out in the spring of 2020 to scan and further validate my Scouting credentials for the PoC. It’s oddly grounding, in the midst of the whirlwind. It reminds or, better, assures me what happened really happened. The good, the bad and the ugly. (Nod to Sir Eastwood.)

This is only tangentially germane and doesn’t contain any legalese, so it may belong elsewhere. My Eagle certificate just turned 46. He still looks MAH-VELOUS, thank you very much! (Nod to Billy C.) A framed piece of paper containing a few words and icons. I know what it means. Simple, though complicated by the mine field I navigated to capture that particular flag. It represents parts of me that went into “creating” it, taken not given. Other Eagles didn’t have those requirements, thank God. A dark price that is not footnoted other than in my heart and mind. That paper is a deeply personal memento. I’m conflicted when I look at it. There is a significance other people can’t understand. Looking at it has always been bittersweet. Amid the blood and sweat, it surely has tear stains which are not visible to the naked eye nor considered by the casual observer. Contrast that with the reams of documents, some stacked and some in binders, that comprise human efforts to explain this case. Note especially the 140+/- pages that are my Proof of Claim, with amendments and exhibits. All told, innumerable words on God knows how many pages representing warring factions’ efforts to get and/or protect money, while abused Scouts languish. On most days, I don’t know what the bulk of those words mean and can’t find my compass. There is no observation tower in sight from which I could get a bearing. If sentient, what would my Eagle certificate make of all this?

Favorite moment, as I am want to identify: Tanc objects to Kosnoff calling him “entertaining.” Can’t make this stuff up. Gets pretty interesting around 4:20PM+ (clock time), once Hogan takes his turn. Might be later. I didn’t pay too close attention.

One word. “YIKES!” Okay. Two words. “POW!!” (Nod to the Batman.)

Think what you will about TK, but remote video depositions are hereby awful. Screen freezes, echoes and feedback create a terrible circumstance under which to be deposed. Ack. Going back to watching… Add to the awful and unfair, frankly, unmuted (apparently technologically inept) attorneys who keep interrupting with hot mic blather.

My intention was to wish all a sincere Merry Christmas and relay a recent article, without opinion as to its content. Just something I found in my reading. Sorry to have caused tension and churned up the grounds in the bottom of your campfire coffee.

Merry Christmas. Don’t say I didn’t give you anything. It’s a small gift, but shows I’m thinking about you. I’m told that’s what really matters. Besides, Americans spent approximately $6.1B on Christmas trees and $15.2B on unwanted gifts. This was free, didn’t require killing any trees and, best of all, I didn’t have to wrap it! An interesting piece. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-23/the-purdue-bankruptcy-didn-t-work

This is exactly what I set my mind to do (and did) as soon as I knew we would vote. I feared for a bit that I/we would be precluded based on “facially invalid,” closed state claims. I badgered Omni to get the direct contact info for the person in charge and made sure to get confirmation promptly and definitively. It may be just me, but there is no way I would trust an electronic submission on something like this, especially since we were given a hard copy option. See below. I believe Skeptic was, in part, speaking of survivors like me who had resolved to accept no recompense or apology and just forge ahead. Living with my demons is an ongoing process in therapy and through my spiritual journey. As many here know, I had reluctantly arrived at that resolution in November 2019 and the filing came 2+ months later. Now, I find myself in purgatory. (Apologies to my devout Catholic comrades.) I know some attorneys in this case who about ruined themselves interviewing and vetting potential clients PRIOR to allowing them to file a claim naming their firm as counsel. I’m not sure how they did that with privilege issues, but that’s beside the point. I know I repeat myself, but a good number of attorneys are literally doing nothing, allowing the TCC and Coalition to carry the water. Ok. They’re waiting for the dust to settle and the Skiball game to spit out the looooong string of tickets. You may have differing opinions about what the TCC and/or Coalition have done and are doing, but I am certain they are engaged and working. Forget about the hounding clients about the vote for the purpose of this post. That’s inexcusable, as Eagle1993 stated very well.

She’s using a term of art per US Attorneys Manual. She likely has a boatload of information and evidence at this point. I am curious what was gathered through their 1-800 campaign. Anyway, the USAM defines three classes of people -- those who are "witnesses" to an event, and those who are either the "target" or "subject" of an ongoing criminal investigation. USAM section 9-11.151: A "target" is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant. An officer or employee of an organization which is a target is not automatically considered a target even if such officer's or employee's conduct contributed to the commission of the crime by the target organization. The same lack of automatic target status holds true for organizations which employ, or employed, an officer or employee who is a target. A "subject" of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.

That's going to be a big "nothingburger" when it's all done See below… Well, based on the RCC results, I’ll peg it somewhere north of a Big Mac Daddy with the flame-broiled prospect to serve up a Whopper.

From a survivor claimant perspective, with these phased, contingent and tiered settlement structures, let’s say more like 15 years. I’m literally cringing typing this, being forced to see it on the screen. Ever been in surgery and you outrun the anesthesia? Yeah. Exactly. I think I had about a two year concentration of propofol in the bag, and even then the dose was woefully inadequate.

Two parts: (1) confirmation hearing; and (2) trial. Count on a month in total, give or take. My bet is on give, but we shall see.

University of MI grad. Twenty-two years a professional Scouter. BSA told him to “leave town” or the parents were going to meet with the DA. His response? “If I don’t leave town, will BSA pay for my legal representation.” To its credit, the LC and Regional said, “Um. How about, NO!”

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-settlement-hearing-pushed-february-2021-12-21/

Not sure what you mean by the first sentence. I believe criminal can’t be changed to open retroactively. Several experts over in the other thread.

No. Three boys in one city where he was SE and was a professional Scouter in two previous cities and states. In this instance, the first boy was interviewed along with his parents and found to be credible. Scouter resigned after hearing the report. BSA recommended him for a new job with a different company. Haven’t research that at all. Sorry to have posted it. I could state all the relevance, but I’ll retract. Hold up the “little flashy thing” and forget you ever saw me. *poof*

Yes.