ThenNow

Not that I heard, no. Nada. It was a slog. Rolling forward to Monday at 10ET. Will be two witnesses - 1 hour per - and then closing arguments. The “by” boys. Ownby and Mosby. She has an 11:00, so a one hour gap between witnesses. Side note: I would not want to sit for cross by those three insurance attorneys.

You’ve extrapolated my obtuse sputterings very well. How can you not be changed, right? I watched a taped interview he did and, given how successful he’s been — yes in making money — the reporter asked, “Why do you keep doing this...you’ve already done very well for yourself?” You can say he’s an actor or a charlatan, but he teared up and said, “I can’t stop.” At that point I hadn’t personally encountered him and, call me gullible or whatever, but I was touched. I’ve been around a lot of successful people, including attorneys. I’ve not seen one of them cry when discussing their work. Ok. I’ve seen one.

She’s baaaaack.

It started just after 10ET and went pretty quickly to recess. The swings are full so I came here. The court is reviewing the BSA Bylaws and we are arguing about witnesses, conflicts of interest and other such nonsense.

Explain what you mean by this, please? Simply, we want our claims to be examined individually, rather than in the aggregate? That’s what the Trustee process is all about. As we all know, this is not state court and the measure of exactitude will be degraded at least until we get before a Trustee. The process, now, is trying to get there and that requires “batching” as it’s called. And, in my mind, getting there means arriving with as many of us as possible so the claims can be well-examined and vetted, not hosed down the drain of the ME’s lab after the insurers or others put the saw to us. PS - Yes, I understand why victims in a “legally advantaged position” might not want to yield to someone with a position weakened by the arbitrary lines on a map that bless or curse them in their effort to redress their injuries. Still, I hope the Shades of Gray Brigade isn‘t decommission before being allowed to enter the fray. It would be wrong for so many reasons, but I know this is not a morality play. It’s a money play.

I’m not the most seasoned career non-profit board member, but my first seat was in 1989. It’s pretty odd not to have a formal board vote on a “deal point memo” of this magnitude. Who am I kidding? I’ve never been presented with a decision anywhere close to this magnitude, but even the small ones we made sure to have a recorded vote. Maybe everyone’s moving too fast (that doesn’t seem possible at this rate) or it’s another example of what has been said about National’s MO. Dunno. I think it’s a lack of formal process and procedure to have whiffed on this.

Well, we were also advised that no due diligence whatsoever was was done, retrospectively or prospectively, to validate the legitimacy or appropriateness of the mucho dollars promised to the Coalition’s attorneys, Brown Rudnick. How does that happen with Alvarez and Marsal doing your financial analysis and advising? Nothing? Say what? Too busy? They got lit up and taken to the woodshed on cross examination.

Episode V: When and How Much? Brought to you by Black Coffee, Dramamine and Ambien.

Bam! Chalk line dust is floating into the upper deck.

Mr. B. was grilling Whitman about why in the name of all things reasonable and professional did they not do any analysis into the fees being charged by the Coalition firm before they agreed to pay them the big dollars. He was good.

This a comedian’s net smash moment. If I were inclined, this is the perfect moment to refer to your foot, but I will restrain myself.

Another thing. When there are simultaneous up/down votes, I think confetti should flutter down the screen. Who’s in charge of graphics and animation?

You have to preregister and even then they try to bar the door 10 minutes after go time.

Random question. Is there a way for me to upvote my downvotes? They make my day. Oh. I would really like a “You’re Welcome” button, too!

I just try to untwist them. It’s my speciality. I was responding to John and amending his statement, anyway. So, if you read those two together you will see I wasn’t twisting anything, not even your arm.

Oh, no. Just back from a break. CO counsel is cross-examining Mr. Whitman of Alvarez and Marsal. Comic relief meister that I am, we had a wonderful hot mic moment. Someone yelled, “Kick it! Kick it!”obviously to their child, but it was well timed to fall in dead space. Then their dog barked. Ha.

Or, that those who do “believe” those numbers are your “opponents.” Well, feel free if that’s the case.

To quote my dad, again, they’re “clear as mud.” Nothing new.

Did you say “drama” or “trauma”?

That is a quibble. You know I was not making an officer of the court statement. I will add footnotes and references next time.

If Mr. Buchbinder can commemorate the founding of Scouting at the outset of a hearing, surely a representative of the Official Tort Claimants’ Committee can be given two minutes. It would have been nice to hear a simple, direct message from someone who has a huge stake in this, not to mention a ginormous constituency, each member (presumably) having skin in the game. Tsk. Tsk.

It’s not, but he only represents the entire group of sexual abuse survivor claimants. An exception should have been made in this case. Two minutes? Give me a break. That would not have slowed her roll at all.

For the highest paid at $20+ per minute, delay is not a bad thing, per se.

Forgive the misfire, at least as it concerns any court-directed, legit notice for awareness purposes only.

Which directory contains my name and contact information. This is my pernt.