Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[CynicalScouter]

A follow-up to this and the claim(s) made in this forum that the look back windows on the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse are all Democratic trial lawyers.

On 5/3/2021 at 9:45 PM, Eagle1993 said:

They appear to be a gift from Democratic politicians to their trial lawyer donors

Arkansas: SB 676 extend the statute of limitations to allow claims until the victim turns 55.

Primary Sponsor: Republican

Lead Co-Sponsor: Republican

Co-Sponsors: 4 Republicans, 1 Democrat

Passed the Senate 31-1 (GOP holds 27/35 seats)

Passed the House 95-0 (GOP holds 78 out of 100 seats)

This will, in effect, allow about 800 more suits against BSA, LCs, and COs in Arkansas.

Edited May 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

 

8 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The court will appoint an attorney who will likely not be a researcher into child abuse and so not qualified to manage such an effort.

Not sure how that assumption was culled out of the TCC’s demand (as it’s being interpreted), but two things:

1) Some of these lawyers have decades of experience handling sensitive CSA cases and are dedicated, brilliant, compassionate people. They are as qualified as anyone, except maybe...

2) This is the man the TCC engaged to work with them on the Proof of Claim form, perhaps among other things. These are the sorts of professionals we’re talking about, people. Let’s give some credit. The victims and our representatives are not Neanderthals, nincompoops, knuckleheads or nitwits. You be the judge of their judge of character, quality and qualifications. 

https://socialwork.uw.edu/sites/default/files/faculty_cv/cv-conte_jon2012 (1).pdf

[CynicalScouter]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Not sure how that assumption was culled out of the TCC’s demand (as it’s being interpreted), but two things:

Here's another thing: simply because the LEAD monitor is an attorney does not mean he/she won't rely on experts.

The example I think is best is the Chicago Police Department Monitor. The monitor is a lawyer, but she has two "deputy monitors" a former police chief and a PhD/academic who has worked in criminal justice and incarceration for decades.

BSA needs a monitor. It cannot be trusted on YP.

Edited May 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mrjohns2]

On 5/14/2021 at 8:39 PM, ThenNow said:

1) Some of these lawyers have decades of experience handling sensitive CSA cases and are dedicated, brilliant, compassionate people. They are as qualified as anyone, except maybe...

Why would a lawyer be as qualified as say, CSA researchers, CSA focused socialists sociologists *edited by moderator for what I assume to be a mis-chosen word*, and I don't know, anyone who is an expert in the area vs. someone who is a lawyer in the field? I am not saying this as anti-lawyer, but as someone who knows that lawyers who specialize are good at what they do, but CSA programs isn't an area that lawyers specialize in. Can lawyers confirm that the prescribed advice is being carried out? Sure. Know the current best practices in the area? Not likely. 

On 5/14/2021 at 8:51 PM, CynicalScouter said:

LEAD monitor is an attorney

They are the monitor. They are not the one who comes up with the program. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by elitts
edited unfortunately mis-spelled word.

[CynicalScouter]

Video from last night's TCC townhall is live https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0rni9397kume5r/BSA Town Hall 05-13-2021.mp4

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

They are not the one who comes up with the program. 

They are going to be assisted by those with an expertise OR be an expert in their own right. And they are going to make sure that BSA takes YP compliance seriously and that the necessary changes are made to BSA's YP .

They are going to make sure that the court's order(s) are adhered to or else BSA is going into contempt proceedings.

BSA cannot be trusted.

Edited May 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

On 5/14/2021 at 8:39 PM, ThenNow said:

The victims and our representatives are not Neanderthals, nincompoops, knuckleheads or nitwits.

*deleted by moderator as disallowed content*

As for this so called "expert", I mean he only has 40+ years in social work and academia focusing in preventing child sexual abuse and the impact of abuse on children.

There's no WAY he should be a monitor for BSA compliance with YP because he was never an Eagle Scout or went to Wood Badge!

Edited May 16, 2021 by elitts
disallowed comments for this thread.

[ThenNow]

20 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Why would a lawyer be as qualified as say, CSA researchers, CSA focused socialists, and I don't know, anyone who is an expert in the area vs. someone who is a lawyer in the field? I am not saying this as anti-lawyer, but as someone who knows that lawyers who specialize are good at what they do, but CSA programs isn't an area that lawyers specialize in. Can lawyers confirm that the prescribed advice is being carried out? Sure. Know the current best practices in the area? Not likely. 

PS - I wrote this. 1 + 2 = Bingo. Process and Compliance Monitor + Expert Consultant (who has zippo interest in being a monitor, they’re substance experts) = Excellent Team. See how easy that is. We are straining at gnats...

Adding a note at risk of causing heads to exploit. Tim Kosnoff (aka, he who shall not be named) has spent a long, successful career representing child sexual abuse victims. Thousands and thousands and thousands of hours listening to children tell their ugly stories of who, what, where, when and how. Why is inexplicable, other than selfishness, craven appetite, evil and easy access, in multiple contexts. Imagine, if you dare, how much he knows about grooming, predation tactics, methodologies, patterns, points of access, opportunity gaps and all the like. I know he, and other such practitioners, are not Dr. Conte. That’s what we have men like the good doctor who drill down to the core of these issues and make their wisdom available to us. What I’m saying is, you really do yourself and others no fair service by so flippantly discarding the prospect of an attorney being an effective monitor. I’m not for a minute saying that’s who should do it or that the TCC would ever recommend one. Just sayin...you know what I’m sayin. I hope. 

1) Some of these lawyers have decades of experience handling sensitive CSA cases and are dedicated, brilliant, compassionate people. They are as qualified as anyone, except maybe...

2) This is the man the TCC engaged to work with them on the Proof of Claim form, perhaps among other things. These are the sorts of professionals we’re talking about, people. Let’s give some credit. The victims and our representatives are not Neanderthals, nincompoops, knuckleheads or nitwits. You be the judge of their judge of character, quality and qualifications. 

https://socialwork.uw.edu/sites/default/files/faculty_cv/cv-conte_jon2012 (1).pdf

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

3 hours ago, DuctTape said:

I think there has been enough hyperbole, sarcasm and thinly veiled personal attacks recently. Perhaps everyone who has posted in the last 24 hours should take the weekend off.

Enjoy your family, go for a hike. Do something else besides post on this or related threads. 

Perhaps after the weekend folks could return to discuss ideas and not cast aspersions at each other. We can disagree without being disagreeable. 

I will be the first to take my own advice...

This sounds like a great idea. Lets take a weekend break.

@MattR  @Eagle1993 @T2Eagle @elitts @gpurlee @John-in-KC

Edited May 15, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

This sounds like a great idea. Lets takes a weekend break.

If I didn’t engage in hyperbole may I stay by the fire? I’ll tend, monitor and keep clear.

Edited May 15, 2021 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

No.  Lets take a weekend break.

[John-in-KC]

One way to take a weekend break is to close this thread. We will be back Monday

[elitts]

When this topic re-opens I'd like to remind people to read for meaning and not simply react to word choices that might be unfortunate or even accidental.  As an example (and not intended to criticize the author), there was a recent post where someone used the word "socialist" and there was an immediate hostile response.  However careful reading of the tone and context of the post made it clear that the writer was referring to "sociologist" and was not in fact attempting to bring economic theories or communist threats into the conversation.

Also, I'd like to reiterate that in addition to not referring to lawyers using any sort of scavenger terminology or implications, references relating to that whole discussion are also banned as being pointlessly inflammatory.  This is the final warning.  Anyone active on the thread before this point will be assumed to be aware of the restriction and will simply get a time-out.

[CynicalScouter]

BSA released its revised plan and the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils filed a supporting document Sunday.

BSA's revised plan: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a9a4a058-b1c0-4f60-96d0-f9c4a510868b_4107.pdf

Ad Hoc Committee of Local Council's Statement: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/60803144-4f8b-4d9d-98fd-e93ae9818079_4103.pdf

Did the LC's provide detailed information about assets and what they will/will not pay? Goodness no! The LCs did make one thing clear: they will fight tooth and claw any attempt to revoke charters to get at LC assets.

More broadly, under this new BSA plan 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, whatever nothing changes. They still insist they do not need to disclose LC assets at this point and want to go full throttle. All BSA will do is promise to do its very best to get $425 million. All the LCs promise is that they will consider putting in what they feel they can for the abuse settlement. But oh, by the way, all LC funds (or almost all) are restricted ("with the bulk of many Local Councils’ assets legally restricted and unavailable to fund any contribution").

Of course, as the TCC has amply shown, the Ad Hoc Committee is, if not flat out lying, being very sloppy in its work about how "restricted" many of these "restricted" properties are.

And get this: the BSA and Ad Hoc Committee of LCs wants to send this plan to a vote/solicitation BEFORE THEY GET THE BINDING COMMITMENTS. AS THE VOTE IS OCCURRING.

Quote

Given the need for a quick emergence from bankruptcy and the time needed to obtain binding commitments from over 250 boards nationwide, it is reasonable to permit the Debtors to begin solicitation of the Plan while the Ad Hoc Committee is engaged in the task of obtaining binding commitments from Local Councils...The Ad Hoc Committee will work with the Debtors to ensure that binding commitments from Local Councils are in hand prior to the voting deadline.

So, to review. This is the BSA and LCs grand plan:

1. Send out for solicitation/votes on June 2, a plan that has NO details and NO "binding" commitments from ANY LCs other than "We, BSA, promise to ask LCs to give up $425 million. Trust us.
2. While the voting is ongoing, the Ad Hoc committee or someone will send a document to the court (not the victims, just the court) with information of what LCs have agreed to what by June 15. That information MAY be included/ victims informed around July 16 when the Plan Supplement Deadline is, less than 14 days before the voting deadline of July 30.

This is the sum total of EXHIBIT F LOCAL COUNCIL SETTLEMENT CONTRIBUTION. BSA isn't even trying, not that they ever did. The first plan was a blank page. This is not much better.

Quote

The Debtors are committed to ensuring that the aggregate value of the Local Council Settlement Contribution under the Global Resolution Plan is not less than $425,000,000, exclusive of insurance rights proposed to be contributed to the Settlement Trust. The Debtors intend to request the voluntary commitments of Local Councils to make their respective contributions, which contributions shall be set forth in commitment agreements executed by each Local Council. By no later than June 15, 2021, the Debtors shall file a report with the Bankruptcy Court concerning the status of the Debtors’ efforts to obtain contribution commitments from the Local Councils. Such status report shall contain information concerning the form of contributions by the Local Councils (i.e., cash, real property, or other assets) and the timing of such contributions. In addition, the status report will set forth any required amendments the Debtors may propose to the Plan to facilitate the Local Council Settlement Contribution.

"Committed"

"Voluntary commitments"

"Status report"

Child sexual abuse victims: you are being asked to vote with little to no knowledge of what it is you are actually voting to receive/what LCs are going to give. And being asked to trust that BSA will lift a finger to really, really put pressure on those LCs to get that $425 million. And if they don't? Well...I see nothing about any kind of enforcement mechanism. If it comes in at 47 cents and a handful of Skittles, BSA still walks away as does the LCs.

BSA defenders: these are the "noble" leaders of BSA? Trying to ram and jam a plan without even bothering to give victims the information necessary to make an informed vote?

For both sides: remember, this is BSA's "Hail Mary" pass. They absolutely insist they will be out of cash flow by August. Even if the judge, for whatever bizarre reason, agreed to this on May 19, the confirmation hearing is August 30, 2021. And you still, somehow, need to get 2/3rds of all abuse claimants to approve this.

Someone, anyone, help me understand. Does BSA really, truly think this is going to get past a judge? Seriously?

Edited May 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

Century Ins filed a motion to delay the hearing (due to BSA’s document dump yesterday).  I hope the judge denies the request.  We need this hearing so we can see the court rule on this proposal.   Is it even close to good enough to go to a vote?  What is the impact to this case from the DOJ objection?  Time to make progress in court... no more delays.