Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I hadn’t heard about this “smoking gun” of a coverup. Do you have a source? I haven’t watched the documentary or book or what ever, so maybe I’m missing out on a lot of these types of coverup action. 

I'll see if I can find it. I think I cut and pasted it into a Word file. It was  from another post. Maybe from Muttsy or Cynical? Likely one of them fellas. It talked about the expert they hired to do what I mentioned and how, throughout his period or research and reporting, nothing was disclosed to him about the abuse history, IVF or nuttin' whatsoever. It was all about accidents, deaths, swimming incident, monkey bridge hazards and why dodgeball should be verboten. I just through that last one in there because it was a critical aspect of my Scouting experience and I was aghast it was banned. Jk. 

EDIT: I think it was in the book, Scout's Honor, by Patrick Boyle. That may be correct or it may be my faulty memory, yet again.

Edited July 8, 2021 by ThenNow

[elitts]

11 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Ya know ... many of us ... at the request of other here ... have toned down our comments about the motivations of those diving these cases.  How much they charge.  Potential profits.  etc.  

But yes ... Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.  It ain't just the fish.  

 

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

The request of others (me) and direction of the moderators was regarding global, general aspersions and negative characterizations. They specifically said it can be appropriate and acceptable to comment on the actions, etc., of attorneys and other players as it is relevant to the case, as in this situation. Also, I see no abusive or derogatory language in either of the posts quoted. I may have missed the point you were trying to make.

 

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

My objections were a) the broad brush that all lawyers were vultures just in it for money and/or to destroy BSA and b) that somehow victims shouldn't be allowed to hire lawyers.

If the argument is "this particular lawyer named John Smith is a vulture, here's why" that's a different argument.

 

Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads.  Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I think it was in the book, Scout's Honor, by Patrick Boyle. That may be correct or it may be my faulty memory, yet again.

Ha. I was right (after being wrong the first time). It was in the book, starting at page 134. This, my friends, is concealment plain and simple. A brief excerpt:

Edited July 8, 2021 by ThenNow

[mrjohns2]

Thanks. It is interesting that they had a firewall between CSA and Safety. To me, they are one of the same. With limited resources, we need to tackle the most severe and frequent injuries. If people are being abused, and we are working on poison ivy, that is wrong. 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is interesting that they had a firewall between CSA and Safety. To me, they are one of the same. With limited resources, we need to tackle the most severe and frequent injuries. If people are being abused, and we are working on poison ivy, that is wrong. 

The book is pretty compelling. The following section is about the connection to the religious/faith community (obviously) and that's also really "good." The sections about image and membership protection as the major driver of the firewall/concealment is, I'm sorry, damning. I had none of this information prior to the filing and research for my POC. I've continued to research and study and the quagmire just gets murkier and deeper. Mired in the muck and mire of the quagmire. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by ThenNow

[MattR]

Could someone summarize the "fish smell"? Something to do with the COs, Coalition and TCC. I don't have the time to read the past few days of posts. Thanks.

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

 

Could someone summarize the "fish smell"? Something to do with the COs, Coalition and TCC. I don't have the time to read the past few days of posts. Thanks.

 

It’s only about the insurers wanting to delve into the claims aggregators, high speed POC generation and all. It grew out of Tim Kosnoff’s tweeting and the licking of his chops post. I was expressing my feelings on the claims generation issue and mentioned the smell. It’s a great post. I recommend it highly.  

[CynicalScouter]

26 minutes ago, MattR said:

Could someone summarize the "fish smell"?

There are two, somewhat overlapping issues as near as I can tell.

1) What, precisely, are the financial ties and legal roles of Kosnoff, his lawfirm, "Abused in Scouting", and the Coalition? And what are their legal authorities to speak on behalf of victims?

Going back to at least August 2020, Century insurance has filed a series of "Rule 2019" motions and demands to demand a clear understanding of what Kosnoff's role is, what his firm's role is, and what the Coalition's role is and "Abused in Scouting" is

The August 2020 motion: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842905_1164.pdf

For the specific order they want, see

2) Kosnoff has alluded to the idea that he left the Coalition and the TCC based on his belief that they sold out to Wall Street money in order to mass produce tort claims, etc. Since he's likely still under confidentiality agreements regarding his role in the Coalition and TCC, he cannot just blurt this out. HOWEVER if he is being deposed pursuant to an ongoing proceeding related to the bankruptcy, he can answer questions posed to him. He's indicated he's anxious to do so. This may also include his ongoing accusations that a) the TCC, the Coalition, or both, are in the pockets of Wall Street money who are simply looking to cash in at the expense of the victims and b) that the claims were mass produced so quickly and so questionably as to be impossible.

 

 

[Eagle1993]

31 minutes ago, MattR said:

Could someone summarize the "fish smell"? Something to do with the COs, Coalition and TCC. I don't have the time to read the past few days of posts. Thanks.

My understanding of some of the complaints from Kosnoff, COs & Insurance companies ... they believe the current plan is to:

• get a  settlement now from BSA and BSA LCs by letting the BSA off easy
• have the court ignore proof of claim process ... basically assume everything is legit
• allow the trust to butcher the COs & Insurance Companies long term.  

Kosnoff seems to think that the insurance payout will not be nearly as large as is being claimed and there is a ton of money left in LCs that is being ignored.  I believe he thinks the Coalition is going for the quick settlement because many lawyers took out high interest loans from hedge funds to pay for advertising and other companies to aggregate claims.  These loans are starting to come due and/or have high interest rates so law firms that took them out want to pay them off quickly, regardless of the result on their clients.  Therefore, the Coalition, driven by a need to close on a settlement to pay off these loans, are agreeing to a lower than desired (by some other firms) payout from LCs.  Since the Coalition represent 60,000 claimants, the TCC has to work with them to get the best deal possible.

So, a bit odd, but Kosnoff, COs & Insurance companies are all on the same side.  Basically, don't approve this quick settlement. I use "quick" as relative.  Also, I am not claiming any of this, I am just attempting to summarize my understanding of some of the objections.

[CynicalScouter]

One more note from yesterday: Zalkin (I typed Balkin, my bad) brought up a point that he is in an open state (California) representing open state victims and that, among other things, he will be objecting to victims who have no valid claims (due to SoLs) from voting. ("should claimants without valid claims in state courts get to vote on this plan?")

He posed it as more of a question, but it gets back at a point that the insurance companies have also brought up over and over: before the 82,500 claimants get to vote, should there be some way to ensure they are really entitled to a vote?

To hear a victims lawyer start to say the same things indicates that maybe we will see a skirmish when it comes time to voting about who is allowed to vote.

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This may also include his ongoing accusations that a) the TCC, the Coalition, or both, are in the pockets of Wall Street money who are simply looking to cash in at the expense of the victims

It is VERY important to note that the US Department of Justice career employees (not political appointees) interviewed over a hundred victims and selected the nine it felt most appropriate.   They did this without consideration of how many clients a specific attorney represented.  They wanted nine that would represent ALL victims and not one firm's clients.  None of the nine were Kosnoff's clients.  The  Coalition was self-formed and filed to be recognized as a mediation party.  I bring this up just so that victims recognize that the TCC was selected and instructed to represent ALL victims regardless of the "business" of their attorneys.  Think what you want about the motivation of the coalition but It is grossly unfair and inaccurate for Kosnoff to suggest that the TCC is in the pocket of anyone other than the people it represents. 

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I believe he thinks the Coalition is going for the quick settlement because many lawyers took out high interest loans from hedge funds to pay for advertising and other companies to aggregate claims.  These loans are starting to come due and/or have high interest rates so law firms that took them out want to pay them off quickly, regardless of the result on their clients.  Therefore, the Coalition, driven by a need to close on a settlement to pay off these loans, are agreeing to a lower than desired (by some other firms) payout from LCs.  Since the Coalition represent 60,000 claimants, the TCC has to work with them to get the best deal possible.

If, and I restate IF, there is any truth in this, it will be painfully ironic. They push for deal to pay off loans and simultaneously facilitate millions of dollars in payments for their costs and expenses from the kitty because they were so critical to crafting the deal. I still don’t understand that part and I don’t think it will ever get through the granite that is my skull and into the gray matter. We’ve gone over this in a somewhat cursory and technical fashion, but is it just me? How does this make any sense to pay fees and costs to attorneys who have 60,000 contingent fee clients (40-50% worth) and from a victims fund at that?? Say it ain’t so and “What you talkin’ bout, Willis?!?

Edited July 9, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

It is VERY important to note that the US Department of Justice career employees (not political appointees) interviewed over a hundred victims and selected the nine it felt most appropriate.   They did this without consideration of how many clients a specific attorney represented.  They wanted nine that would represent ALL victims and not one firm's clients.  None of the nine were Kosnoff's clients.  The  Coalition was self-formed and filed to be recognized as a mediation party.  I bring this up just so that victims recognize that the TCC was selected and instructed to represent ALL victims regardless of the "business" of their attorneys.  Think what you want about the motivation of the coalition but It is grossly unfair and inaccurate for Kosnoff to suggest that the TCC is in the pocket of anyone other than the people it represents. 

I know I may sound like either an apologist or an evangelist for the TCC - nine guys chosen from among their peers via a thorough application and interview process - but I know a couple of the key guys. They are legit survivors, businessmen, family men and people committed to this process and their fellows. They have skin in the game and pounds of flesh, sweat and buckets of tears have been expended. They are not paid and I’m not sure how often they are thanked or receive praise. They have fought their tails off while working their own jobs and maintaining their relationships. I applied to be on the TCC and it was a blessing all around that I wasn’t selected. It has been grueling. So, I echo this post and second the motion. I now call the question and see all “yeas.” Let the record reflect that the motion passes without opposition. Next matter...

NOTE: I received no compensation or special treatment for this review and it was not part of any promotion or rewards program.

Edited July 9, 2021 by ThenNow

[Muttsy]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I know I may sound like either an apologist or an evangelist for the TCC - nine guys chosen from among their peers via a thorough application and interview process - but I know a couple of the key guys. They are legit survivors, businessmen, family men and people committed to this process and their fellows. They have skin in the game and pounds of flesh, sweat and buckets of tears have been expended. They are not paid and I’m not sure how often they are thanked or receive praise. They have fought their tails off while working their own jobs and maintaining their relationships. I applied to be on the TCC and it was a blessing all around that I wasn’t selected. It has been grueling. So, I echo this post and second the motion. I now call the question and see all “yeas.” Let the record reflect that the motion passes without opposition. Next matter...

NOTE: I received no compensation or special treatment for this review and it was not part of any promotion or rewards program.

ThenNow, I love you like a brother. I’m so tickled by your brand of reality and humor. But here’s the deal. This bankruptcy is not normal. It’s not about bond holders, corporate vendors, banks and the creditors of the commercial world. Yet this is the bankruptcy code template superimposed on the TCC members. No disrespect but how does sexual victimization qualify a person for this job? Earnestness is not a qualification. These poor men have been manipulated to believe they are equivalent to creditor committee members in commercial bankruptcies. This requires a level of competence that cannot be conferred by don of the sword on each shoulder. 
 

I feel sorry for them. They were used like pawns. They just didn’t understand that having a good heart and sincerity was actually a disability when you are swimming in a shark tank like this. 
 

They are embarrassed and ashamed after yesterday is my assessment. 

[MYCVAStory]

2 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

No disrespect but how does sexual victimization qualify a person for this job? Earnestness is not a qualification. These poor men have been manipulated to believe they are equivalent to creditor committee members in commercial bankruptcies. This requires a level of competence that cannot be conferred by don of the sword on each shoulder. 
 

I feel sorry for them. They were used like pawns. They just didn’t understand that having a good heart and sincerity was actually a disability when you are swimming in a shark tank like this. 
 

They are embarrassed and ashamed after yesterday is my assessment. 

Remember, the TCC works with experienced bankruptcy attorneys, financial;l advisors and analysts, pension experts, insurance litigators, and others versed in bankruptcy.  Its members never purported to be experts or have competence other than try to make the best decisions in consultation with the best experts it could secure.   You're also making the assumption that they rely on heart and sincerity.  We know that they come from business, the military, the legal profession, and others.  I don't suspect they lack in guts.  NONE spoke yesterday because it wasn't appropriate.  My suggestion is that you watch the next Town Hall and pose the question to the members on by asking them directly if they feel used , embarrassed or ashamed.  You might have your opinion but consider the alternative.  Would having NO victims advising any part of this be better?  The situation is horrible because of the number of claims and the limited pot of gold.  That's the fundamental issue and I don't think the nine people trying to make the best of it should be criticized until after this is over and they choose to talk about the decisions made.  Only then, when we know more, should we stand in their shoes and judge.