ThenNow

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?

MYCVA nailed it, per usual, but I need to respond even though he effectively made moot the discussion. Have you listened to the members of the TCC talk about this topic? Read what they’ve written? Do you think this isn’t a part of the bankruptcy - a big part for them/us - and something they only started thinking about on 2.18.20? Who hosted Michael Johnson on their weekly town hall? (Hint on that one. Not the Coalition.) I think you totally misapprehend the situation. Also, not a jab, but I don’t believe you’re a survivor who has thought about how and why you were able to be abused for 50+/- years, like some of the members of the TCC. And, I think you greatly underestimate the men you’re talking about and who I imagine you do not know. John Humphrey stated he has a new mission in life and it revolves around youth protection and advocacy for survivors. The BSA is a great place for these guys to start, given all their collective knowledge, poise and passion. I just think your missing it here. By a mile. Anyway, it’s a ruse and a distraction so it’s immaterial.

Oo. That sounds like another delightful and confusing effort. Can’t wait to see and hear more. I keep wondering about my little mama’s church that was my CO. Maybe I’ll call the Bishop.

My honor. I’m inexpert at ethical violations. Hopefully that reflects well on me and helps restore my sullied reputation. Seems a very long stretch and the clients would need to initiate, I believe. I think SiouxRanger is much more likely to have good insight on this, based upon his knowledge and not personal encounters with ethical violations! Need to be clear on that.

I threw down some dandy 70’s product back when and all I was offered was a stinky red beret and a rusty belt buckle, as I recall. Still holding my goods. Whatcha got?

Ouchie. I need a tourniquet and an ice cream STAT!! Call my mother to fetch me, while you’re at it. I just showered so the ice cream is a medical necessity only. I beg to differ and I am in no way referring to yours drooly. There are at least four other legally/professionally informed and technically excellent analysts here. Not the volume of my former colleague, but substantively sound, consistently active, highly insightful and typically accurate. Technical content is not the only bell weather of a critical and valuable contribution. Also, if the content and the analysis get clouded by intense emotion and rapid fire, hair trigger reactions, the salience and timely import can be lost. (I stand accused by my own words, but I try to be self-aware and promptly respond to Thor’s hammer.)

Three things: 1) They specifically said the goal was to amass as many clients as they could through the ad and aggregation campaigns so the court (and other MPs) had no choice but to deal with them. To paraphrase, “We can then sit down in the road and obstruct any progress until we get what we want.” That is in no way an exaggeration or extrapolation of their internal communications; 2) If they are acting in the best interest of survivors, why are they so desperately disparaging the TCC, literally lying about what they have done and the TCC not, and now creating entities that are not initiated in corporation with the TCC and, apparently so far, without the participation of the TCC; and 3) They engaged an attorney to publicly articulate a rebuttal of the TCC’s position and recommendation who actively lobbied for his own engagement by the TCC by the following means: running down Jim Stang and his firm, not revealing his CV and having others, who happen to be among the top three law firm members of the Coalition, to do the same. Oh. During the interview for the job, he also asked for a $10M retainer. The Stang’s firm? They committed 10% of their fee to BSA abuse survivors AFTER they were hired. After. After. After. Did I say AFTER? Again, I see no clean hands or a clean heart here. The evidence screams “Houston, we have a problem...”

See above. You’ve missed the point (mine) to which you’re errantly objecting. Errant in my perception. Also, if I recall correctly, they are now saying they have 18,000 client “members.” It’s shrinking.

I tracked that entire process through the docket, online hearings and through offline communications. I don’t necessarily see it that way. I imagine you followed it closely, as well, and grant us the grace to have differing opinions. I don’t think she felt she had a choice, given what they were representing (to her) and the cohort they said they represented. In the light and context of Tim Kosnoff’s intercepted emails, I find it hard to afford them clean hands and a pure heart. She allowed it and thereby gave them leverage to effectively replace or confuse, at least in the minds of many and the media, a “coalition of abused scouts...representing a majority of the survivors” and the TCC. As we know, the Coalition is lawyers, not survivors. There are very legitimate reasons this motion was strongly opposed. Also, the point I was making before you posted this was not regrading their legitimacy as a MP, but whether the clients of the Coalition, as opposed to the actual Coalition attorneys, were as engaged and involved from the outset as the members of the TCC. Through your post, my point was even more effectively solidified.

Still confused. This made my point about the Coalition being a come lately. Just thought I’d get that in before I get ponged...