Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm not sure I'd want my lawyers propagandizing on twitter.  We just got done with the mad twitter.  Haven't we learned anything?  ... What was that political guys name?  I can't remember.  

Honestly, I wouldn't mind mine doing it, but he eschews Twitter in favor of betting on vintage episodes of Hollywood Squares, Who's Line Is It Anyway and the Dating Game. There's an app for that. Jk.

But seriously, he's a force. Look how much he's discussed here. Force of nature, legal clout or his wealth and leisure. Maybe all of the above. He's also speaking for and to "his" (someone's?) clients. Having a firebrand isn't bad unless they shoot off their foot and your head with it. Don't ask me to explain the positional physics of that. It just sounded cool. I don't see how his angering or disparaging the "court" (aka, judge) does any harm to his clients at this point. I used to think it harmed them and me, but I've lost my religion. Not generally, but you feel me. Remember, he has a self interest in the outcome and I doubt he would be want to retract the downpayment on the next art collection or that Gulfstream G550. He's a man you love to hate and hate to love. I would take him as my attorney, but my current guy works cheap and would be very sad. 

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I am simply looking to see actual balance in responses to these tragedies. 

Agreed.  I also do believe that change will come from those most impacted, the victims.  We have lived in the shadows for far too long.  Our Society's image of masculinity made that our safe space because it was expected.  It's still a safe place.  But, times have changed and our abuse is known and a part of the "me too" era when sexual abuse is being confronted.  Now, victims who are able must speak out of they expect change.  Documentaries have been made covering the hearings and trial and stories connected to USA Gymnastics.  That was approximately 500 victims and while one is too many BSA victims could understandably be scratching their heads and asking "What about the tens of thousands of men?"  For victims this seems like it's taking forever to reach the end of the story.  But, if real change is going to happen it isn't the end, it's the beginning.  There are stories to tell, documentaries to create, investigations to be completed.  Remember Santayana's words: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  Victims must make sure that what happened is not lost to time.  There is plenty of blame to go around; the BSA, insurers, SOLs, attorneys, bankruptcy system and more.  But if we expect TRUE change then it must be demanded by those who were victims and feel able, and it must happen at the grass-roots level.  If you can, write and call every one of your elected officials.  Better yet, ask to meet with them personally.  Reach out to local media.  Scream, yell.  But in the words attributed to Ghandi, but he never actually said them, "You must be the change in the world you want to see."  Many aren't ready but if you can speak out in your small piece of this world then please do.  If enough of us do the possibility of change only increases.

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I also do believe that change will come from those most impacted, the victims. 

I say again and invite joinders:

”...I have a long memory. I can be strategically patient. I was abused in three states, lived in seven. I have contacts in each.  I know people [including in politics and media]. I can raise money. I will fight...”

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Documentaries have been made covering the hearings and trial and stories connected to USA Gymnastics.  That was approximately 500 victims and while one is too many BSA victims could understandably be scratching their heads and asking "What about the tens of thousands of men?"

I spoke with CHILDUSA about all of this not too long after the case was filed. They had an astute observation. Paraphrasing, they told me, “Boy Scouts is, and has been historically, buttressed and populated by titans of industry, government and philanthropy. They have been insulated and protected. It’s no mystery why this has gone unchallenged for so long.” I don’t disagree. 

[MYCVAStory]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

“Boy Scouts is, and has been historically, buttressed and populated by titans of industry, government and philanthropy. They have been insulated and protected. It’s no mystery why this has gone unchallenged for so long.” I don’t disagree. 

Nor do I.  But, 4 1/2 years ago my wife got on a bus to Washington with 50 other women to meet thousands more.  She put on a funny pink hat and marched.  She came home and volunteered to support a candidate, something she had never done.  That candidate was elected and re-elected and is now effecting change.  That model has been repeated across the Country for all kinds of candidates on both sides of the aisle.  It starts with an unwillingness to accept that things won'tr change.  We all want change in some form so that past victims are treated adequately and there are no victims in the future.  Whether one or both of those are unrealistic, that will only be the case if people don't speak up now at the grassroots level so that those on top hear the rumblings down below.  Let's keep encouraging each other to speak out and respecting those who can't or aren't ready.  Thanks for fighting that fight brother.

 

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Let's keep encouraging each other to speak out and respecting those who can't or aren't ready. 

I agree as to all. But, do I need to wear a funny pink hat and ride a bus? I’m phobic on both fronts. 

Thank you. Back at ya.

[MYCVAStory]

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I agree as to all. But, do I need to wear a funny pink hat and ride a bus? I’m phobic on both fronts.

Reminds me of the funny red berets we wore in Scouting for a while.  I was always envious of the Smokey Bear hats.  Alas, I didn't have a good hat head.  I'm also starting to think that before this is over we need a mass Zoom meeting to watch these hearings live and share commentary!

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Our Society's image of masculinity made that our safe space because it was expected.  It's still a safe place. 

This is not me picking yet another nit, rather speaking to others for whom masculinity has never been a place of refuge or a safe place. Maybe I’m alone. I never found it a shadow to step into as a way to avoid exposure. I found it uncomfortable and unnatural, which created a whole other stigma; going against the grain of the expected. I have never been a man’s man, exuding or wanting to exude machismo. I have always been more inclined to deep conversation and emotional vulnerability. I haven’t alway been fully self-disclosing, of course, but that was shame-based and not related to any projected image. There are many reasons those among us have not stepped forward. I grant any and all reasons as valid. But for some, we have torn ourselves inside out for years and paid a whole other price for it. Abandonment. Magnified shame. Further self-condemnation and I could drone on and on. I’ll spare everyone...for now. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

23 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I was always envious of the Smokey Bear hats. 

Ha! Right? I still have my dad’s, but he had such a tiny bean I can’t get it on my big noggin, other than like a yarmulke. (Forgive me if that is in any way disrespectful. Hope not.)

Edited July 28, 2021 by ThenNow

[Life]

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This is not me picking yet another nit, rather speaking to others for whom masculinity has never been a place of refuge or a safe place. Maybe I’m alone. I never found it a shadow to step into as a way to avoid exposure. I found it uncomfortable and unnatural, which created a whole other stigma; going against the grain of the expected. I have never been a man’s man, exuding or wanting to exude machismo. I have always been more inclined to deep conversation and emotional vulnerability. I haven’t alway been fully self-disclosing, of course, but that was shame-based and not related to any projected image. There are many reasons those among us have not stepped forward. I grant any and all reasons as valid. But for some, we have torn ourselves inside out for years and paid a whole other price for it. Abandonment. Magnified shame. Further self-condemnation and I could drone on and on. I’ll spare everyone...for now. 

Much moved and relate %100. If it weren’t for this job thing I have to be at I would be responding in depth. I shall do that after work. 
 

thanks for the words. 

[elitts]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Reminds me of the funny red berets we wore in Scouting for a while.  I was always envious of the Smokey Bear hats.  Alas, I didn't have a good hat head.  I'm also starting to think that before this is over we need a mass Zoom meeting to watch these hearings live and share commentary!

 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Ha! Right? I still have my dad’s, but he had such a tiny bean I can’t get it on my big noggin, other than like a yarmulke. (Forgive me if that is in any way disrespectful. Hope not.)

We give our Eagle Scouts a genuine felt Stetson at their Court of Honor.  It's still the single most popular thing that new Cub Scouts talk about when they do the Webelos visit to a Troop Meeting.  Hell, I even kinda wanted one myself when I first saw it, except that I can't tolerate hats in anything above about 65 degrees, so I'd never wear it and I'm too cheap to pay $100 for a hat I won't hardly wear. 

[ThenNow]

32 minutes ago, elitts said:

We give our Eagle Scouts a genuine felt Stetson at their Court of Honor.  It's still the single most popular thing that new Cub Scouts talk about when they do the Webelos visit to a Troop Meeting.  Hell, I even kinda wanted one myself when I first saw it, except that I can't tolerate hats in anything above about 65 degrees, so I'd never wear it and I'm too cheap to pay $100 for a hat I won't hardly wear. 

I don't recall getting anything at my Court of Honor save for a cake, which my dad made. Oh. I did get some cash from relatives and a twelve pack of Old Style from my fellows. All seriousness aside, I mean messa got nada from the esteemed Troop. (Btw, I don't like the term Unit. Just putting that out there.)

[ThenNow]

8 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, with only the Rule 2019 motion left for tomorrow, let's see what that means.

I apologize for being lazy, but my paralegal is on vacation. Do you have ready access to the document links relevant to tomorrow's mud wrestling tournament? Danke sehr. If not, you've been more than gracious with all you have and do provide!

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I apologize for being lazy, but my paralegal is on vacation. Do you have ready access to the document links relevant to tomorrow's mud wrestling tournament? Danke sehr. If not, you've been more than gracious with all you have and do provide!

They are listed and hyperlinked in the Notice as Item #3.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f95e4e86-78ce-4d19-be88-7cb86c87df68_5810.pdf

[CynicalScouter]

Talk about bouncing the rubble here.

More attorneys are filing objections to the (now dead) RSA/joining in on the main objection filed.

My count indicates that attorneys representing at least 1000 claimants have now filed against the RSA. Why? This was the main objection https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/85fba864-aa4d-42f2-b58f-b811b917c9e4_5682.pdf

 

Quote

 

A.  THE RSA FALLS APART IF THIS COURT DOES NOT FIND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER INDEPENDENT CLAIMS AGAINST LOCAL COUNCILS AND CHARTER ORGANIZATIONS.

B.  AS THE INSURERS HAVE ALREADY ARGUED, THE ASSIGNMENT OF LOCAL COUNCIL AND CHARTER ORGANIZATION INSURANCE POLICIES TO THE TRUST RUNS A CONSIDERABLE RISK OF EITHER VOIDING THE POLICIES ENTIRELY OR CAPPING THE POLICY PAYOUTS.
 
C.  FORCING TDP VALUATIONS ON OBJECTING INSURERS WITHOUT ALLOWING THEM TO CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS IS NOT A SOUND STRATEGY ON WHICH TO BASE A PRESUMPTIVELY MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PLAN.
 
D. THE LACK OF POST-CONFIRMATION JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, COMBINED WITH THE ABILITY TO EXPAND THE CHANNELING INJUNCTION WITHOUT JUDICIAL INTERVENTION,  RENDERS THE PLAN ILLEGAL.
 
E. THE STANDARDS FOR THIRD PARTY RELEASES ARE NOT MET, RENDERING THE RSA AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.

F. THE BSA FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE RELEASED AND ENJOINED ARE RECEIVING FAIR AND REASONABLE CONSIDERATION IN EXCHANGE.

G. LACK OF A FUTURE CLAIMS FUND RENDERS THE PLAN PATENTLY UNCONFIRMABLE.
   
H. THE PRESUMPTIVE RELIANCE ON EQUITABLE MOOTNESS PROTECTING THE SETTLEMENT IS FOOLHARDY.

 

Of all these, I'll just focus on two: C and D and I'll take D first.

In short, under D, there is no way a Settlement Trustee should have the unfettered power of a trial judge to decide the value of sexual abuse injuries and whether the claimant has met the burden of proof AND there is no way a Bankruptcy Judge has the authority to create such a system where they just (in effect) hand over a black robe and say "good luck."

Quote

There is no reasonable business judgment, sound business purpose, fairness, or good faith where the RSA requires this Court to delegate its statutory authority and judicial duties to the Settlement Trustee and a stacked committee. It virtually goes without saying that such unlawful delegation is neither “necessary or appropriate” to carry out the provisions of the bankruptcy code. 11 U.S. § 105(a)...

Moreover, under the authority conferred to it under Sections 105(a)  and  524(g),  this  Court  (not  a  trustee)  must  make  specific  factual  findings  in  order  for  a nondebtor to receive a release and injunction of its current and future liabilities...

Where  a  statute  requires  or  authorizes  a  judicial  officer  to  make  a  ruling,  that judicial power cannot be delegated.

As for C, the argument is that this entire system: the RSA, the Reorg plan, everything that is premised on the idea of BSA (and LCs?) pay now, stick it to the insurance companies later is just illegal as all get out.

It is also note that at least as to California claims, such a scheme is patently afoul of state insurance laws and case law. In short, any attempt to move this plan will not only violate rights California claimants have under CA's laws but won't work in the the states either.

Edited July 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Final note: even though the RSA is dead, more and more attorneys for victims are continuing the file objections to it in case it comes back.

I count at least 18 filed objections or joinders to the main objection with as I said 1000+ claimants.

This plan is dead folks.