Embarrassing: The Lawyers in GSUSA v. BSA

[qwazse]

27 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

... What Scouting purpose does it serve to look for fault here?

I think the main purpose is to again demand that GS/USA and BSA get beyond all of their marketing doublespeak and serve the youth of this nation.

Not a single Eagle-bound girl who has joined our program cares what we call it. Nor does any Gold-bound girl give two-hoots if they were called "guides" in any other country.

Spell out the facts, have the judge determine fair use, and get beyond these shenanigans.

[T2Eagle]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

This hardly seems like improper behavior.  If the lawyers had hidden information or not properly disclosed what is required than that is improper.  But, stalling is simply a tactic.  Yes, the lawyers employed tactics to make it more difficult for the opposing side to make their case.  There was nothing illegal here as far as I can tell.  In sports, this is simply playing defense.   "The best offense is a good defense".  The judge finally had enough and told them to stop - so what?

Yes, the Oath & Law provides us guidance on how to conduct ourselves.  This line of thought suggests to follow the Oath and Law an athlete should not try play aggressive defense.  a business person should not try to take market share from a rival.  A solider should not take advantage of available means to defeat the other side.

If there was true illegal or immoral activity here, then call them out.  But, the complaint here is akin to criticizing a basketball player for throwing an elbow in a game.

What Scouting purpose does it serve to look for fault here?

The longer than dkurtenbach , but still short answer here is that no, stalling is not an acceptable tactic, making it more difficult for the other side to make their case by being untimely or uncooperative is in fact strictly prohibited under various court rules and the general rules of ethical behavior that govern the profession.

Unlike what may be portrayed on TV or in the media, there aren't supposed to be surprises in legal cases.  The point of the process of Discovery is that both sides are supposed to have the same full set of all the information relevant to a case.  Each side has an affirmative obligation, that is its obligation exists no matter what the behavior of the other side, to fully disclose to the other party, in a timely manner, all the information that it possesses that MIGHT be relevant to the case.  There are specific and tight deadlines on these disclosures, you're not supposed to mess with them in any way.

I clerked for a Federal Magistrate, the language used here by the judge indicates some serious wrongdoing on the part of the attorneys.

If you want to use a sports metaphor, this isn't throwing an elbow, this is refusing to give the ball to the other team so they can properly in bound it.  

There is no day light that I've ever seen between the rules of the court, the Rules of Professional Responsibility, and the Scout Oath and Law.   

[ParkMan]

Ok - uncle.  I give up.

If the BSA basketball team got so ticked off at the GSUSA basketball team that they refused to give them the ball I don't think I'd care either. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by ParkMan
added a few more words