ThenNow

A few things: 1) Actually, RP stated that Kosnoff and KR had this thing in a knot long before the infamous email snafu by his firm, which he owned; 2) The PSZJ firm was going to pay all cost associated with the Ombudsperson, however; 3) He withdrew that motion and will redraft a new one based around the court’s authority and duty to force the three firms - though AVA just says, “Vote however you want, this firm of one has got new cats to skin” - to speak with through one communication/voice, however conflicting the advice. At least it needs to be in one letter. This is all built on the Code and Code of Ethics that concur as to forcing co-counsel of differing opinions to get their stuff together and act like adults; 4) David Buchbinder recommended both Kosnoff Law and KR’s firm get gagged as to all direct communications about how to vote on the plan. By the by, Kosnoff’s attorney previous approached KR’s to do a joint clarification and the offer was rebuffed. “Some” people LOVE this drama; 5) Molten argued you can’t interfere with an attorney’s right to communicate with their client; 6) The counter argument was these are not mere “communications” between attorney and client, but solicitations on how to vote. And, they are shooting out of the KR firm like so many Gandalf in the Shire fireworks; 7) RP said the TCC attorneys have heard from many AIS clients who turn in “REJECT” votes and get multiple strong-armed follow up calls from KR’s crew trying them to change their vote. I want to hear from some of those clients; 😎 I highly doubt the judge will delay. She’s behind the 8 ball as it is; 9) The ruling on discovery only goes to venue, not substance. She ruled it is permissible and proper to propound discovery on attorneys who signed proofs of claim. She warned them when they begged her to allow them to do it. Now, as she warned, they have made themselves targets. The basis was POCs are evidentiary in nature in a bankruptcy proceeding and the signatories are affirming they have knowledge of the truth of the statements and do so under penalty of perjury punishable by up to $500,000 and 5 years in the slammer or both; and 10) The Coalition has hired a Mr. Robinson, a high-power US Supremes attorney to fight the discovery. He asked for a stay threatening her being overturned on appeal and she denied. As to firms getting stink on them, I doubt it. History is replete with A-level players in multiple arenas tanking one day and trading up the next. Anyone who knows the case can see it’s an anomaly and a putrid mess of complexity, ill-motive, third party funding and who knows what degree of aggregator shenanigans. Hello. And good-bye. For now...

I’m clueless. I guess I’m off the forum for a while if this is how it’s going. I am sincerely unsure what you’re saying or trying to indicate.

1) You didn’t “explain” at all. You posted the same thing, without any reference to how it applied. I was letting people know this was sent, which is obviously relevant to others; 2) Tim Kosnoff’s Tweets and notes are being posted here over and over; 3) I am not a client of any attorney, nor am soliciting or advertising anything for anyone. I am certainly not looking for clients. Honestly, neither was he. The letter says nothing more than what’s been repeated here innumerable times and reflected in the TK Tweets similarly posted; and 4) Your bounce back echo repeat of what you said you said (but didn’t) is what I referred to as “cryptic.” You don’t explain something by giving a person a rule if it isn’t clear how it applies (or doesn’t). You understand it. I do not. Maybe it is not evident on its face and I’m just a dunce.

See below. If my message hadn’t been inexplicably deleted, you would see I received the same. The email (and my post) indicated it was sent by The Stang’s firm. BSASurvivors@pszj.com. Check to see if yours is, as well.

Yes, but did I violate some rule unwittingly? Just trying to behave myself...thanks.

Is this for me? Some of these directives are a bit cryptic. I never know quite when to fall on my sword, object, plead ignorance, meg for mercy or run for cover.

Letter (email?) sent by Mr. K, as forwarded by The Stang & Co. Dear Clients of AIS: Today the e-Ballot went out to you a few minutes ago from Eisenberg Rothweiler. I was not expecting it to be sent by that firm. I was not given an opportunity to review it and the reason is because that firm knew I would have objected to its form and content. It was wholly improper and possibly illegal for them to solicit your vote on a ballot that is supposed to be neutral. Instead they used deceit to spew their patently false and misleading statements. There is a simple word for why lawyers do things like that: greed. Please find my October 19, 2021 letter urging you to REJECT the Plan. I ask you respectfully to read my letter again. If you do, I am confident you will reach the same conclusions I did. Contact information hidden. Thank you. Timothy Kosnoff TIMOTHY D. KOSNOFF Licensed Attorney Contact information hidden.

Not sure if these have been posted, but here are the first two BRG Dashboards: https://8ccee3aa-ea25-43bc-b0a6-5e0a565e1bf2.filesusr.com/ugd/c1f98e_b3f0e214c3ab4a70bc1a7c3bd2c9248b.pdf https://8ccee3aa-ea25-43bc-b0a6-5e0a565e1bf2.filesusr.com/ugd/c1f98e_26837acf3e0e44e09ee662682d901ff5.pdf

Does anyone know the key firms opposing the Plan? I know Zuckerman, Anderson & Associates, and several CA groups. I would love to know the aggregate total clients among them.

I’m thinking we will hear something before then. I am not in the know, but their butt must be on fire right now. One would think they will seek a bucket of ice water into which they can plunk their cheeks to attempt extinguishment. By that I mean, the will try to put the cat back in the bag or blunt the knife’s edge, to use metaphors more commonly used in such contexts.

So, as has been said by others (and me), your assessment tracks with MYCVA. To whit, this Survivor Working Group is all show and no go, essentially a PR stunt by the two entities who support this Plan. From what I’ve heard from someone who knows, the survivors are very serious and sincere about effecting change and reform. Be that as it may, their belief that this will be a path to real change is likely in ignorance of the nature and history of such “groups” and “committees.” Not to mention toothless if the directives don’t exist within the Plan of Reorganization. Do I read you loud and clear? This is why I wanted to understand what these are and how the BSA has created them, then either validated them/the work or ignored them. Oh. I also don’t understand why they wouldn’t include LC members, especially volunteers, who have to implement the on the ground measures. I’ve seen that you guys have many great ideas, many of which reinforce the TCC demands. Well, I know why, but it further erodes any confidence I might have in whether the BSA mean anything they’re saying about this SWG/Committee.

I think you can count on a counter point presentation from Arik Preis.

Help from you Scouter guys in the know? Looking to understand the history and context of these WGs and ACs, as well as how many and varied they are. Many thanks.

Interested to hear from Scouters who know the situation with their LC’s proposed Plan contribution who also watched last night’s TCC presentation of two BRG Dashboards. Per the town hall (again), the LC BRG dashboards are all being released, albeit slowly. The two they reviewed should be up soon, if I understood correctly. Ok. I’m actually interested in any and all thoughts. All comers welcomed.

Blech. You guys would know better than I, says I. My guess at the answer (from all I’ve heard hear) is, “You gotta be kiddin’ me, right?”

So, I’m left with nothing but a very loose goose. Got it. PS - So a “Working Group” is not some new and fantabulous creation just to engage survivors about YPT and YP. That wasn’t clear to me and now is. How many such BSA Working Groups and Advisory Committees are there? Where can one view such a list? Does each include various and sundry BSA Bigs?

So, I’m left with nothing but a very loose goose. Got it.

Is there some sort of term sheet that is the framework for what BSA has apparently agreed to do in all of this? I would like to see something more than that loosey goosey PR b’ness.

Per the excerpt from the press release below, what leverage would the the eventual Child Protection Committee “BSA...has already agreed to form” have over the BSA, post emergence? Who holds Thor’s hammer here? I believe the survivors are serious about this, but is there any indication of ongoing accountability? I have a million questions about this. Does anyone have easy access to CS’s list of TCC non-monetary youth protection demands? “The Working Group will begin meeting within the next two weeks and convene regularly until BSA emerges from its Chapter 11 proceedings, at which point its work will be transitioned to the Child Protection Committee, a survivor advisory group which BSA, after negotiations with the Coalition, has already agreed to form pursuant to its Plan of Reorganization.“

Oo. This is gonna be good. I’ve been begging for this for many months. I can’t wait. This wonderful November surprise is appropriate, since it’s a month in advance of the vote tally. I hope many will clearly see that the Emperor has no clothes. This is a metaphor so it does NOT violate YP or any other sense of Scouting and social decorum.

I recommend contacting OmniAgent directly and pronto.

Also, Omni messed up and sent Solicitation packages directly to several thousand survivor claimants whose attorneys had elected either the Master Ballot or “Hybrid Solicitation Method.” As a result, all of those ballots sent to survivor claimants in contravention of the firms’ election have been invalidated. Those two firms are Zuckerman Spaeder (1762 clients) and Andrews Thornton (2826 clients). Just FYI to all. The Doc No. advising of this error is 6821, filed 10.27.21.

This validates my insistence on residential and commercial front door cameras. I’m not kidding. Well, it was also driven by finding parcels torn asunder in my bushes after thieves opened them, stole jewelry, my Cal cap, and snacks, leaving the rest with the destroyed shipping containers. I’m still puzzled that they left my lovely soil test kit. It’s such an engaging science project and fun for the whole family.

Thanks for this. Do you mean put into envelopes “in error” or “incorrectly,” such that COs are getting what was intended to go to the LC? Regardless, this leads me to believe something must be going to the COs at some point. Am I misunderstanding? Again, I’m trying to figure out where/how my CO might be engaged or not. Thanks.

Are we talking about Muttsy’s BMW again?