ThenNow

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...

Where do we go with this? I think it’s very important as topics go, tertiary tangents too. Btw, isn’t what we’re talking about the focus of this thread? Meesa cornfusled.

So, not a single itty bitty one of them should be on the Survivor Working Group? Not considered for the board seat? I can hardly take that seriously, and I’m not saying I don’t take your input with sobriety. (I am sober 15.5 years, though, just so you know.) One man has extensive experience at high levels with the BSA. I have emailed and asked the Coalition for very specific details about the selection processes for both appointments. The two men I know of who were selected for the Working Group are definitely not subject matter experts. As to why they were selected, part of it is diversity of background, experience, professions and abuse; varied geographic locations; both open/closed state claims; and a wide availability and willingness to serve all survivors. The Coalition wasn’t even formed or added as a Mediation Party until the case was well underway. They only assumed their role when they knew/thought they could be the 800 pound gorilla on the block. Reread Tim K’s intercepted emails. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s the case unless and until someone proves me wrong. Further, if only survivors supporting this Plan are selected, the entire thing is a shameful sham (and a shame) and a ruse, IMNSHO.

Perhaps. However, if none of the TCC members are invited, that is neither wise nor easily explained away. Those 9 men were selected by the US Trustee to represent ALL BSA child sexual abuse survivors for a reason. That selection and appointment came after a fairly rigorous application and interview process. They have been intimately involved in this case since they were seated. Who, among survivors, knows more about the workings and machinations of this case? No one. Period. I also challenge anyone to say other survivors know or understand more than they do, collectively, about BSA youth protection and YPT. Also, they are the survivors who were instrumental in forwarding and insisting upon the non-monetary YP and YPT demands. My honest opinion, and the media has assisted with this, is the Coalition has co-opted and hijacked TCC work and initiative for their own benefit. They are assuming roles and achievements they should not be granted and have not accomplished (at least not on their own, as they claim).

The most recent sabbatical saw him return with a nice tan, a beach-chill vibe and renewed energy for the scuffle. I love a good melee, but I have plenty of my own mania to go around. That is neither an accusation nor judgment by implication, simply a matter of well-documented fact. As some here know, we ran hard together for many months and I love and respect him. I do worry about people and hope he’s doing well.

As I’ve said before, with obtuse references to Kurt Cobain and Tobi Vail, there whole campaign smells like “teen spirit” (or desperation) to me.

Thanks for your support. I’m pressing up some Willkie buttons as I type. Well, not as I type, but you feel me. I sent an email to BrownRudnick and will keep you posted. (Get it? Posted?)

When there was a whiff of any appointment of any survivor to any such role, board or working group, I submitted my name. No response. Anyone think they’ll be inviting me or Dr. Kennedy or John Humphrey to sit in any of those chairs? Yeah. That’s a big chubby no.

If I recall correctly, stars flame out or implode of their own accord, having exhausted their fuel.

Random note if you’re watching or will watch the Coalition update. Their recently engaged bankruptcy expert, Arik Preis, is speaking on the broadcast. He is attempting to rebut the TCC’s assessment of the Plan and recommended “No!” vote. Arik was one of the attorneys hoping to be hired as counsel to the TCC. He was not selected and, to my knowledge, is not expert in child sexual abuse cases. When I was in Wilmington to apply for the TCC, he lobbied me hard to hire him, if I was selected for the TCC. In so doing, he was very disparaging of current TCC counsel. I think it’s important you know that. It’s no surprise he’s popping up here. Oo. Update. Ann Andrews is now speaking. Interestingly, she cornered me in Wilmington and was likewise not favorable to current TCC counsel. Hm. This is very curious, no?

I’m assuming this will be discussed on tonight’s episode of Ken TV.

8-12 from the Coalition? Um, the TCC? Hello? McFly…?!?! So, I can be on it? Any of you other fellas get an invite??

Does anyone have the link to the Coalition’s first town hall/update? I see the second one on their site, but can’t find the first. Many thanks and may the road rise up to meet you. Just try not to meet it in the middle, which I have famously been known to do.

The firm is representing you in the Chapter 11 and state court, assuming your SoL context allows for that?

Yes. Good reinforcement. I was trying not to disparage the single attorney representing the 7 victims, but I would not have selected him. Not a chance. On that note, anyone who is willing, I would love to know how you feel about your counsel in the case. I have heard about AVA (both sides of the experience), the Coalition, Zuckerman-Spaeder, Jeff Anderson, Tim Kosnoff and a few others. Curious.

Agreed. I am now curious to understand it in greater detail. I contacted news outlets who cover the Chapter 11 to get their take on it, too. It rather doesn’t make sense, cents or dollars, does it? Several Tier One claims with convictions. Something is off...

Interesting. Note the victims’ attorney said the city’s insurer will be paying and implies some cases were time-barred. Oo. And our “pennies on the dollar” reality is reinforced, yet again! Last thing. Tad Thomas is not a seasoned child sexual abuse attorney. That may or may not have contributed to the low settlement, given 7 victims and the nature and duration of the abuse allegations. “Thomas said the city and its insurance company will pay the settlement. He said he would have liked to get more but questions about the statute of limitations may have reduced the value of some of the cases. Thomas said the bankruptcy filing of the Boys Scouts of America last year also affected them. If the suits had been transferred to U.S. Bankruptcy Court, they would have been worth only 10 cents on the dollar.”

And, as part of the settlement, Plaintiffs agree to withdraw their Proofs of Claim in the bk. I just skimmed. It’s a curious settlement agreement. I’ll be back... I also contacted the reporting media outlet to see of they can clarify. https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2021-10-29-executed-settlement-agreement-redacted-redacted-1635796318.pdf

Good points. Danke. I’m trying to determine if my CO is part of the Ad Hoc Committee of Methodist and Catholic Churches, currently in negotiations with the powers that be. I sort of doubt it. As to easing, the thought of suing my mother’s lifelong parish might more accurately be described as nauseating, however. Same holds with pushing them around in the bankruptcy, but if that’s what it takes...

The Metro was the single institutional defendant, I take it? The case clearly didn’t get the benefit of the automatic stay, so that’s my assumption. If true, how/why would the insurer be constrained? I know little or nothing, so I’m just spitballing, while simultaneously herniating my gray matter, striving to avoid dark humor and words with obtuse meaning. I’ve been boning up on language drift and conversational dilution so I know what to do. This will be my modest contribution to the systematic extinction of dictionaries everywhere.

Query: Does anyone have a notion as to how in the blazes a true “global resolution” can be had when COs are so numerous, varied, and in innumerable states of identity crisis - name changes, location changes, transfers and mergers - not to mention other problematic wickets? This has been my latest cerebral vexation at 2:16AM or thereabouts. In the last 25 years, my Catholic CO has changed names twice to my knowledge, more likely three times, and is party to at least one parish consolidation. Riddle me this, if you please. (Nod to the soon and coming film, The Batman.)