Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[RememberSchiff]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Following up on this:

The Insurance companies are now demanding Green's company (Resolutions, LLC) produce any and all documents related to their interactions with the FCR (in particular), the BSA, TCC, and Coalition.

They issued a subpoena yesterday.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/726423f6-16d4-45ab-b601-74f958a938fa_5866.pdf

Is isn't this the same Eric Green who the BSA wanted appointed as a mediator in April/May 2020 but the judge selected retired bankruptcy judge Kevin Carey instead?

BSA proposal and an insurer's opposition to Green's appointment back in May, 2020

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/819015_617A.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/819470_647.pdf

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Is isn't this the same Eric Green who the BSA wanted appointed as a mediator in April/May 2020 but the judge selected retired bankruptcy judge Kevin Carey instead?

From The Mutts back in the day:

On 7/1/2021 at 6:23 PM, CynicalScouter said:

The Settlement Trustee shall be Eric D. Green and will be appointed by the Bankruptcy Court. I assume it is this Eric D. Green. http://www.acctm.org/egreen/

"He’s very close to BSA’s lawyers. He’s done a LOT of mediations for Sidley and Austin which are Lauria and Andolina’s prior firm. Green was rejected by the TCC as a mediation team member for that reason and others. He is said to have a god complex. Lawyers who had dealings with him were not complimentary. A vocal lawyer on the Coalition advocated hard for him a year ago."

[DavidLeeLambert]

On 7/31/2021 at 10:29 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Timothy David Kosnoff is admitted to the practice of law and an active member of the Washington State Bar.

https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000016586

Whoever said he wasn't an attorney any longer was misinformed.

What MAY have happened (pure speculation) is he was admitted to practice in Texas and let that lapse OR he let his Washington State Bar admission lapse and then became active again.

There are a couple of things going on here:

• When the insurance companies first tried to serve Kosnoff, they tried to serve him at his Texas office address (the one on his Washington registration) and at a marina in Puerto Rico where he was believed to keep his yacht. They did not accomplish personal service at either place, and in their report of the attempts they noted that he's not licensed to practice in either of those jurisdictions.
• Kosnoff's divorce papers require him to pay spousal support to his ex-wife as long as he continues to practice law. Before the end of 2019, he sent her a letter saying he was retiring, and he has not paid any spousal support for 2020 or 2021. Yet, here he is on Twitter offering opinions about the case, and being interviewed for infomercials, and having a financial stake in a law firm, and even being counsel of record for thousands of claimants.

At the last hearing, the Judge asked "Who speaks for AIS?" and "So when AIS ... sent out advertisements, what  were they saying? Join something that's leaderless?" After Mr. Wilks' answer, in which he described AIS as "a movement", she said, "Movements have leaders" and "AIS has, in fact, put itself before this court, and I need to know who they are."

Somewhere in there she also said that real attorneys do not ask their clients to write directly to the Court.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Somewhere in there she also said that real attorneys do not ask their clients to write directly to the Court.

Right. That is, in effect, advocating for parties to engage in ex parte communications with the court, especially where the party is represented by counsel who is asking them to do it. That whole process always seemed off (read: unethical) to me for that reason.

[CynicalScouter]

More lawfirms have now been added in support of the RSA AND the 16,869 claimants previously listed as = Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. are NOW listed as "Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. (co-counsel with AVA Law Group, Inc.)"

And AVA Law Group has now been added to the list of lawfirms, with a similar caveat "AVA Law Group, Inc. 16869 (co-counsel with Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck P.C.)"

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e51debb0-5af7-4c97-85fd-13831a20b6f6_5868.pdf

Kosnoff's name still appears absolutely nowhere

Edited August 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

advocating for parties to engage in ex parte communications with the court, especially where the party is represented by counsel who is asking them to do it. That whole process always seemed off (read: unethical) to me for that reason.

As valuable and appreciated as the letters depicting victims personal abuse experiences are, they’re heavily redacted. Yes, they were directed to the judge and she read some, but that was not the only purpose or intent. Regardless, the flooding of the court at the behest of the law firms seemed odd to me, as well. As lead plaintiff in a class action suit, my attorneys certainly never directed or allowed me to “speak” directly to the court, other than in mediation sessions even though I technically spoke for the class. As someone who’s worked in politics for a while, as I step back and consider it, this does feel like a campaign. I think Andrew Van Arsdale’s past experience and expertise drove this entire thing. If you want an idea of what I’m talking about, he is a noted speaker on the website of “Mass Torts Made Perfect, LLC.” Yes. That’s a real thing. For the record, I’m being serious (for a change).

Edited August 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

"He’s very close to BSA’s lawyers. He’s done a LOT of mediations for Sidley and Austin which are Lauria and Andolina’s prior firm. Green was rejected by the TCC as a mediation team member for that reason and others. He is said to have a god complex. Lawyers who had dealings with him were not complimentary. A vocal lawyer on the Coalition advocated hard for him a year ago."

Not entirely accurate.  If memory serves, the insurers had significant issues with his appointment.  The TCC if memory serves was strongly advocating for Paul Finn, who had significant experience with abuse cases, so that left the other parties to have a leg up on selecting "their" choices to comprise the three mediators.  We need to remember that this is a pretty small and specialized pool so many bankruptcy and trust professionals work together as partners in the morning and then find themselves as opponents in the afternoon!  This isn't to promote Green's becoming the Trustee but to at least point out that he has experience as one.  Let's hope that whoever becomes the trustee if that becomes reality will understand the importance of communicating with the "classes" he/she oversees.

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Let's hope that whoever becomes the trustee if that becomes reality will understand the importance of communicating with the "classes" he/she oversees.

The big ol’, ever looming, not to be ignored “IF.” [*gulp*]

[MYCVAStory]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

The big ol’, ever looming, not to be ignored “IF.” [*gulp*]

Agreed.  Lots of details looming right now but I suspect down the road many will seem small compared to the details of how any Trust and Awards Process are actually being operated.

[elitts]

22 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve come to “know,” personally and anonymously, a good number of victims over the last fifteen months. For what it’s worth, not a single fact pattern of the abuse fits this hypothetical. Not even close. My bet is these are truly outliers, but what do I know? Oh. That’s right. Not what, but who. Victims of BSA child sexual abuse.

Most of the victims you've met were abused by people who were open about their preference for young children and would have been identified if anyone had asked around about them?  Or were abused by people who had prior public records of CSA?  Or were abused by people who just joined up as an adult leader and immediately began pulling kids off to the side to molest them?

What you've called a "hypothetical" wasn't a hypothetical.  It was a description of the basic MO of pedophiles according to all the documentation on the subject I've ever seen, including YPT.  I mean if there genuinely are troops out there that had an unknown adult wander in asking to be a leader and cheerfully just handed them a badge and put them in charge of kids, I'd agree with you about there being negligence.  But I know in the two troops and the pack I've been involved with as an adult, the only people who got admitted without much investigation were parents or grandparents of scouts, or aged out scouts from within the troop.  Is this truly not the case in most places?

21 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Child maltreatment[edit]

Child sexual abuse has been recognized specifically as a type of child maltreatment in U.S. federal law since the initial Congressional hearings on child abuse in 1973.^[1] Child sexual abuse is illegal in every state,^[2] as well as under federal law.^[3] Among the states, the specifics of child sexual abuse laws vary, but certain features of these laws are common to all states.^[4]

I copied this from Wickpedia. For me it takes away any argument of  “different cultural norms of the day”. Society had laws on the books to punish those who victimized children. It was illegal, in every state period.  If it was known and not reported then those that knew are as guilty as those who abused.  If you have knowledge of a crime and you don't report it you aided and abetted.  They may not have let them be part of BSA but they were free to find other areas to full their pedophilia.  When an organization has a policy of cover up it makes it that much worse.

• So the victim and parents of victims are as guilty as the abusers if they don't go to law enforcement?
• No, having knowledge of a crime and not reporting it is not "aiding and abetting".  There is no general requirement to report crime in the US.  Failing to report as a mandatory reporter is a crime, but it's a different crime than child abuse (of whatever flavor)

14 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I am pretty sure that cultural norms of the time wasn't:

Hey did you hear about Joe down the street?  He abused the little Smith boy.  Oh yeah well lets make sure the police don't know about that!!

No, the way it usually went was: Did you hear about Joe abusing the Smith boy?  The parents aren't making a report to the police because they don't want the child to have to testify and relive the experience.  Oh, well I suppose they know what's best for their child, we should stay out of it.

13 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

One other thing I would like to say is please do not use the line "at the expense, for the most part. the current youth in the program".  In my opinion it makes the current youth to be victims of the survivors when if anything what the are losing is due to the past and recent leadership of the BSA.

Except that the value of the program going forward and it's benefit to youth and the impact of the lawsuits and the bankruptcy upon the program is exactly why we are having a discussion about this at all instead of just liquidating everything and being done with it.  If we were in a victim support group, I'd agree that this would be impolite in the extreme to bring up, but we aren't, we're in a BSA forum.

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Your summary of "cultural norms differences" is what I thought it might be.  Thank you. It comports with my sense of how those matters were treated then.

And I wonder to what degree these matters today are still treated that way-or subject to those same societal pressures..  Even in these more "enlightened" times, look at the emotional energy expended by abuse survivors to overcome their own emotional inertia to step forward to be heard, and the push back from the alleged perpetrator, and the glare of the spotlight created by media exposure of their claim.

I would surmise that not all "authority groups" have advanced at the same pace in their growing awareness of and response to such claims.  Parents perhaps lag way behind, whereas law enforcement, social workers/counselors, legislatures, and the judiciary are further along in their enlightenment.  It is a halting, uneven, and messy process.

I don't think we'll ever come up with a perfect solution to the issues surrounding the reporting of child abuse.  Personally, the flaws in our legal system are always something of a concern to me when you start getting people talking about the idea of "people should report anything, even suspicions".  It's an easy call if someone witnesses abuse or if you have a group of kids all telling you something happened or a victim coming forward with a clear story of what happened.  But I start having issues with reporting when you aren't entirely sure what did or didn't happen.  I always tend to think back to situations in my own life that could have easily been misinterpreted into one hell of a problem for me in the current climate even if I did eventually vindicate myself.

Edited August 4, 2021 by elitts

[Eagle94-A1]

13 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

The files were kept secret until 2012 when the Oregon Supreme Court ordered them to made public.  That is only 9 years ago.  Was it a different time in 1981, or 1991, or 2001, or 2011?  The Boy Scouts of America did not advocate to it's membership to go to the police when knowledge of abuse happened period. There were congressional hearings in 1973 and child sexual abuse was part of the hearing.  Yes in the latest incident with the videotaping the police were called but I would bet you donuts to dollars if the pressure wasn't on the BSA it would have been covered up like so many other incidents.  One other thing I would like to say is please do not use the line "at the expense, for the most part. the current youth in the program".  In my opinion it makes the current youth to be victims of the survivors when if anything what the are losing is due to the past and recent leadership of the BSA.

I've commented previously on why the IVF were not widely known, and why information in those files were kept confidential. Not everyone in the files  were arrested and convicted. OldScout448 mentions how one abuser did not have charges pressed by the parents, but was placed in those files. One person I know who was placed in the IVF did have a criminal investigation done, and was essentially exonerated by the investigators. They found enough evidence to support her claim that the teenager was being a peeping Tom while she was showering after the Scout's  lights out in the assigned times for the adults. Even though she was cleared, her reputation was ruined, and she was never allowed back in the BSA.

As for the latest incident, I like chocolate filled donuts thank you.. BSA volunteers have been mandatory reporters for quite some time now.  I can tell you first hand that reporting abusers does indeed happen. I hope I never have to do it again.

[MYCVAStory]

12 minutes ago, elitts said:

It's an easy call if someone witnesses abuse or if you have a group of kids all telling you something happened or a victim coming forward with a clear story of what happened.  But I start having issues with reporting when you aren't entirely sure what did or didn't happen. 

So people should only report when it's obvious, and keep their mouths shut when they aren't sure?  That opinion would make abusers everywhere smile.  It's why we need systems where every concern is raised and if 99 are looked into, and cleared, but the one that is "real" is found then the system works.  I was abused and went on to be an adult volunteer when my children were in scouting.  I was hyper-vigilant never to be in a situation where my behavior could be questioned and I demanded the same of those around me including raising ANY concerns within the troop so they could be addressed immediately.  The issue of what "did or didn't happen" is too important to ever ignore.

[skeptic]

Reading some of this, I was reminded of local experience.  Over my tenure with our unit, the past 40+, we have had likely a dozen non parental or unknown adults try to join.  We have always made sure they were not interacting directly with kids while "visiting", and as soon as possible they were interviewed by other established leaders.  IF they balked in any way at the references, or now the required background checks and so on, they were politely told they were not welcome.  None of them reappeared, though one did make it into another unit but was almost immediately "dropped" and added to the local "not acceptable" list.  No absolute proof, just concerns.  We also had to deal with older youth issues once and told the parents the teen was not welcome anymore, and suggested they get him help.  These are real interactions, but not what we normally would discuss broadly.  Caution, and proper vetting.  And, we had one very respected, at the time, Scouter that was dropped after he was arrested for abuse of his own step child, a girl.  He never had bothered any of the males, and it appeared it was focused on that familial link.  He is either still in jail, or has since passed.  The question with him, of course, is would the male youth have eventually been targets, or was he focused on girls?  I do know that once or twice he made questionable comments about young girls in my own presence, and I mentioned it to another leader who shrugged.  We likely would react differently in today's climate, but it was hidden by the family, and his wife even supported him for a long time.  So, errors in judgment, and family fear or blindness, or simply not connecting the signs?  

Edited August 4, 2021 by skeptic
Clarify the detail on adult applying or offering help.

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, elitts said:

It's an easy call if someone witnesses abuse or if you have a group of kids all telling you something happened or a victim coming forward with a clear story of what happened.  But I start having issues with reporting when you aren't entirely sure what did or didn't happen.

I think we need to keep in mind that fabricating abuse is rare, though I’m happy to exclude political and financial motives in the recent climate. As a victim, I hate it. “Entirely sure” is a very high bar that would likely negate a tremendous number of viable cases, at least before significant investigation. Young boys are quiet  about these things and getting them talking details can be difficult. 

15 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Not everyone in the files  were arrested and convicted.

Successful criminal prosecution just can’t be the determinative factor in viability or grounds for exclusion. Highest standard of proof in our system. 

[johnsch322]

11 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

I also wonder if they are among the 82,000.  

If they are part of 82,000 do you believe they should be compensated for their abuse?