ThenNow

Admittedly at a lower level, but back in the days of paper and binders, you'd come in, someone would hand you a series of them to study, notate and bring back for a step through review. I'm not sure how many such critical documents those binders would contain for someone in his BSA role.

That was certainly my immediate reaction, from the standpoint of the duty of the top executive. No one briefed him on the history and evolution, at least?

Ah. Probably had a couple other things to read.

Comedy Update/Hot mic moment of the day: "I plead the blood of Jesus over you Satan!" I don't make this stuff up.

I appreciate the point. When was he hired? I ask because the CO agreements are rather fundamental to the relationship with a vital, related entity which has its own liability AND claims to indemnification by BSA. He really shoulda read a couple and not the current iteration. My take.

Ahh. Ryan did it again. More coins swirling the porcelain.

Lo and behold. This just in. See P5. 6043 - Zuckerman Claimants' Objection to Adequacy of Amended DS to Debtors' Fourth Amended Plan.pdf

Well, dang it. We had gone almost 24 hours of court time without one blasted "wood to chop" reference. David Molten had to blow it. I just lost a ton of money betting against the house. So very, very close.

Here is the giant wasp that keeps threatening to sting my hope on this all going well, even if the judge spanks the RSA on the tuchus and allows it to breath fresh air. As Eagle1993 briefly summarized several pages ago, Fuller-Austin is an incredible threat to the "big dollars" most of us perceive as coming from the insurers through the Settlement Trustee process. Dunno.

He eviscerated the notion that BSA can ditch the Hartford deal, based on comparisons to other contractual contexts. They should have been concurrently negotiating with the other parties in light of their intentions to strike the much maligned Hartford sweetheart deal. You just don't present it out of the blue - Hey! Lookie what we did...accepted pennies on the dollar from a key insurer! - with no active participation by the other mediation parties and being aware of the plethora of likely objectors. That said, maybe it was someone else. I'm cognitively snow blind by the "rigorous, robust discussion" on both sides. Ugh.

Oh, my. A bearded man with a scary mask just did some sort of magic. [*Poof*] Back on.

Oops. We completely lost the court feed. The insurance attorneys are riffing. Not a good moment for the court's tech crew or those attorneys. Stick to your day job and leave the comedy to me. Just sayin'...

Sorry if you missed one of my earlier post about the time limits she imposed. I think the insurers' sentiment was likely based on: 1) the lack of need to whip the horse; 2) the knowledge that something could take points off their board; 3) the limitation of one hour per witness; and 4) they'd just as soon get on with argument. All may have come into play, but #2 less so. My bet.

Yup. Bribe is the word. Yup. DDD. Desai Disaster Day. He went from smug to schmuck right quick. He did well recounting his Scouting glory. See below. Huh, huh. I spoke with an attorney friend over the weekend and I have never heard him so totally beside himself and incensed about the case on multiple levels. It sounded like he was spinning around, jumping up and down, and spitting nickels.

Yup. Quickest hearing on record. She ruled on everything and the money starts flowing tomorrow. JUST KIDDING!!!

I was pondering this over my first cuppa at 3:26AM. I'm thinking of making a board game based not so loosely on our Animal House Circus. (More on that later.) Here's what I was tinkin. When the lawyers of child sexual abuse victim claimants in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy have lawyers, and groups of those lawyers have groups of lawyers, and when lawyers who were in groups with other lawyers sharing a lawyer find it necessary to fire that lawyer and hire other lawyers, something is wrong. Desperately, desperately wrong.

Thank ye, most kindly.

We have a winner!! J. Wellington Wimpy, to be exact.

May I please get a link to the pdf of this complaint? I would be most grateful and “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a pdf today.” Old guys, name that character.

Not at all. Devang Desai went on and on and on about his illustrious Scouting career during his testimony. I had my hand raised the ENTIRE time he was giving that unnecessary and, quite frankly, borderline nauseating prelude. I matched or exceeded his accomplishments, other than being on the NEB and the BTF and the BLT. No one asked me to share. I say again, Mr. B commemorates. The judge worries out loud about the umpteen active Scouts. Desai drones on and on about the glories of Scouting. As to hearing from the victims in open court? Crickets...it ain’t right. PS - Devang is plenty cute anyway. No uniform, but apparently they just forgot about the power of wardrobe and costuming.

Again, he can have that as he and the TCC desire, but the point is to hear from an actual BSA victim who “represents” and can speak for the rest of us. It was so far requested and denied. Thus, I am grumpy. Well, that’s chronic, unless a joke presents itself as low hanging fruit. Also, this is sausage making on which the TCC is rightly standing back. There is nothing helpful to add to the “process and procedure” battle between the other parties. When the dust clears and the wounded taken to safety, I think they will speak substantively into the fracas. I think it could do more harm than good right now. BUT, they can and should hear from Doug. It’s the least they can (and should) do.

Yes, generally. What I’m saying is, as I understood him, it was agreed to in advance, including by the court. PS - As we know, hearing from “one of us” has dramatically different and greater impact than one of the professionals who is not a BSA sexual abuse survivor.

So, because of my extreme irritation that “we” were slighted and spited by the judge refusing Doug Kennedy the opportunity to speak, I needed to understand the context and story, assuming there was one. Being me, I reached out to the TCC and was able to catch up with Doug. Here’s what I learned. Like me and many victim claimants, David Buchbinder’s request at the outset of a previous hearing for a moment of pause and reverence to recognize the founding of Scouting, Doug and the TCC didn’t take that so well. Maybe it was innocuous and just a matter of, “Hey. Guess what happened on this day in history?” but it felt more like, “in your face!” Following Mr. B’s commemorative moment, the TCC heard from a good number of victim claimants who were less than pleased. Based on his feelings, those of the other members of the TCC and what the heard from us, the decision was made to request “equal time.” The aim being to ask everyone to reflect on the “real reason” we are where we are and acknowledge those who have been sexually abused as children while active in Scouting. Of course, that recognition would include those who aren’t engaged in the circus, living and dead. It was agreed by all concerned that Doug, on behalf of all victim claimants, be granted that time. Apparently, because the hearing was tardy in getting rolling putting the court under an even greater timeline, he was denied. He tried again following, with the same result. Like me, the TCC was a tad shellshocked after the US Trustee’s memorialization and would have otherwise jumped in immediately. Moment lost, but for good and understandable reasons. All that said, like most of us, Doug and the TCC aren’t easily discouraged or thrown off their game. (Admittedly, I’m a little more volatile and likely would’ve taken a less accommodating and gracious tack.) As was oft repeated in this week’s hearings, Doug commented that the process is currently more about the proverbial sausage making that the victims. In his words, “our day will come,” frustrating though it may be for now. The TCC is encouraged and remains fully committed to advocating for all of us. I hope this is of benefit, particularly for my fellows.

As we noted yesterday, David Buchbinder, of the US Trustee’s Office, put a point on it. I’m no analyst, bankruptcy attorney or member of a highflying national board, but I can’t believe they did zero assessment of the reasonableness of the requested fee reimbursement. That speaks to desperation for the votes, which I do understand. But nothing? It wouldn’t have taken 100’s of hours or 1000’s of pages.

I don’t think Devang Desai did a stellar job supporting how the BSA went about this. His firm’s representation of insurance carriers and involvement as consultants to BSA on sexual abuse cases did not look great. I still don’t think (sense?) the judge tanks the RSA, based on what we heard so far about the process and considerations BSA undertook, including allowing them to scrap the Hartford deal. Just my sense. However, the Coalition payments seem in jeopardy. What happens to their resounding support and vote gathering if that is greatly reduced or tossed? Hm. High traumatic drama.