Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle1993]

Any update on the hearing today?  When does it start? 

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Any update on the hearing today?  When does it start? 

It started just after 10ET and went pretty quickly to recess. The swings are full so I came here. The court is reviewing the BSA Bylaws and we are arguing about witnesses, conflicts of interest and other such nonsense. 

[ThenNow]

She’s baaaaack.

[elitts]

On 8/11/2021 at 8:33 AM, ThenNow said:

Yup. Here I am.

As I've tried to say, love or hate, this man has represented victims of child sexual abuse against BSA since 1996. That's 25 years. ...

Hundreds of client victims. Hundreds of negotiations with the BSA and its counsel. Thousands of pages of documents and disclosures, including the years he spent reading, researching and reducing to data sheets the 3200 IVFs he dislodged from BSA. He knows this stuff very, very well. If he has decided it's unredeemable darkness, I give that to him. I've not seen, heard or been witness to what he has. Have any of us?

I am not saying his (apparent) endgame is the best for all, because I don't know. I'm just saying let's temper our accusations with fact, history and context.

When you spend a significant portion of your life involved in the more dark and horrible aspects of humanity, even on the side of angels (so to speak), there's just no way you don't come out of it a changed person.  Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if someone like Kosnoff suffered from secondary exposure PTSD himself after that much time being exposed to trauma.

[ThenNow]

55 minutes ago, elitts said:

When you spend a significant portion of your life involved in the more dark and horrible aspects of humanity, even on the side of angels (so to speak), there's just no way you don't come out of it a changed person.  Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if someone like Kosnoff suffered from secondary exposure PTSD himself after that much time being exposed to trauma.

You’ve extrapolated my obtuse sputterings very well. How can you not be changed, right? I watched a taped interview he did and, given how successful he’s been — yes in making money — the reporter asked, “Why do you keep doing this...you’ve already done very well for yourself?” You can say he’s an actor or a charlatan, but he teared up and said, “I can’t stop.” At that point I hadn’t personally encountered him and, call me gullible or whatever, but I was touched. I’ve been around a lot of successful people, including attorneys. I’ve not seen one of them cry when discussing their work. Ok. I’ve seen one. 

[CynicalScouter]

I regret that due to work I have been unable to listen into today’s hearing.
 

Did Kennedy from the TCC ever speak?

I do hope the judge makes a ruling today after the hearing.

[Eagle1993]

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Did Kennedy from the TCC ever speak?

I do hope the judge makes a ruling today after the hearing.

Not that I heard, no. 
 

Nada. It was a slog. Rolling forward to Monday at 10ET. Will be two witnesses - 1 hour per - and then closing arguments. The “by” boys. Ownby and Mosby. She has an 11:00, so a one hour gap between witnesses. 

Side note: I would not want to sit for cross by those three insurance attorneys. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

I don’t think Devang Desai did a stellar job supporting how the BSA went about this. His firm’s representation of insurance carriers and involvement as consultants to BSA on sexual abuse cases did not look great. I still don’t think (sense?) the judge tanks the RSA, based on what we heard so far about the process and considerations BSA undertook, including allowing them to scrap the Hartford deal. Just my sense. However, the Coalition payments seem in jeopardy. What happens to their resounding support and vote gathering if that is greatly reduced or tossed? Hm. High traumatic drama. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[DavidLeeLambert]

10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Document No. 5971, "Massey Law Firm Claimant's  Supplemental Objection..." is a good summary of the complex issues regarding claims and BSA's Plan. (Sorry, but I can't seem to figure out how to copy a link.)

 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6b679ab4-343c-45fc-97b1-a29861a0deec_5971.pdf

Actually, that's not the first, nor the last, of at least a half-dozen objections on the docket that make basically the same argument... down to the table of council with assets above $30 million in paragraph 21. For example, see D.I.5967 and D.I.5968.

10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Claimant A has a claim against Abuser B, Local Council C, and Chartered Organization D.  Perhaps against Insurer E.

Claimant A DOES NOT HAVE a claim against the AVERAGE of Abusers, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and insurers.

That is a good summary.

I would add, in some cases, a claim against "facilities" place F. I think the case of some units regularly meeting at a place that was not owned by the Chartering Organization was already more common than the generalities in the Disclosure suggest, and of course a lot of packs and troops conducted outings at national and state parks, sometimes with the help of private outfitters, or camped on private property at the invitation of the owners ("old Mr. Bob has some rural property where his buddies go deer hunting, he says the Troop can camp there any time except deer season so that's what we do a couple times a year"), or even went "glamping" at private tourist attractions.

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

However, the Coalition payments seem in jeopardy.

 she seemed to quickly gloss over the process question on how they were calculated in addition the US Trustee says they are not legal.  I think you are correct.   

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

she seemed to quickly gloss over the process question on how they were calculated in addition the US Trustee says they are not legal.  I think you are correct.   

As we noted yesterday, David Buchbinder, of the US Trustee’s Office, put a point on it. I’m no analyst, bankruptcy attorney or member of a highflying national board, but I can’t believe they did zero assessment of the reasonableness of the requested fee reimbursement. That speaks to desperation for the votes, which I do understand. But nothing? It wouldn’t have taken 100’s of hours or 1000’s of pages.

Edited August 13, 2021 by ThenNow
To tired too tipe property twonight.

[ThenNow]

21 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Did Kennedy from the TCC ever speak?

So, because of my extreme irritation that “we” were slighted and spited by the judge refusing Doug Kennedy the opportunity to speak, I needed to understand the context and story, assuming there was one. Being me, I reached out to the TCC and was able to catch up with Doug. Here’s what I learned.

Like me and many victim claimants, David Buchbinder’s request  at the outset of a previous hearing for a moment of pause and reverence to recognize the founding of Scouting, Doug and the TCC didn’t take that so well. Maybe it was innocuous and just a matter of, “Hey. Guess what happened on this day in history?” but it felt more like,  “in your face!” Following Mr. B’s commemorative moment, the TCC heard from a good number of victim claimants who were less than pleased. Based on his feelings, those of the other members of the TCC and what the heard from us, the decision was made to request “equal time.” The aim being to ask everyone to reflect on the “real reason” we are where we are and acknowledge those who have been sexually abused as children while active in Scouting. Of course, that recognition would include those who aren’t engaged in the circus, living and dead.

It was agreed by all concerned that Doug, on behalf of all victim claimants, be granted that time. Apparently, because the hearing was tardy in getting rolling putting the court under an even greater timeline, he was denied. He tried again following, with the same result. Like me, the TCC was a tad shellshocked after the US Trustee’s memorialization and would have otherwise jumped in immediately. Moment lost, but for good and understandable reasons. All that said, like most of us, Doug and the TCC aren’t easily discouraged or thrown off their game. (Admittedly, I’m a little more volatile and likely would’ve taken a less accommodating and gracious tack.) As was oft repeated in this week’s hearings, Doug commented that the process is currently more about the proverbial sausage making that the victims. In his words, “our day will come,” frustrating though it may be for now. The TCC is encouraged and remains fully committed to advocating for all of us.

I hope this is of benefit, particularly for my fellows.

Edited August 14, 2021 by ThenNow

[Life]

25 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So, because of my extreme irritation that “we” were slighted and spited by the judge refusing Doug Kennedy the opportunity to speak, I needed to understand the context and story, assuming there was one. Being me, I reached out to the TCC and was able to catch up with Doug. Here’s what I learned.

Like me and many victim claimants, David Buchbinder’s request  at the outset of a previous hearing for a moment of pause and reverence to recognize the founding of Scouting, Doug and the TCC didn’t take that so well. Maybe it was innocuous and just a matter of, “Hey. Guess what happened on this day in history?” but it felt more like,  “in your face!” Following Mr. B’s commemorative moment, the TCC heard from a good number of victim claimants who were less than pleased. Based on his feelings, those of the other members of the TCC and what the heard from us, the decision was made to request “equal time.” The aim being to ask everyone to reflect on the “real reason” we are where we are and acknowledge those who have been sexually abused as children while active in Scouting. Of course, that recognition would include those who aren’t engaged in the circus, living and dead.

It was agreed by all concerned that Doug, on behalf of all victim claimants, be granted that time. Apparently, because the hearing was tardy in getting rolling putting the court under an even greater timeline, he was denied. He tried again following, with the same result. Like me, the TCC was a tad shellshocked after the US Trustee’s memorialization and would have otherwise jumped in immediately. Moment lost, but for good and understandable reasons. All that said, like most of us, Doug and the TCC aren’t easily discouraged or thrown off their game. (Admittedly, I’m a little more volatile and likely would’ve taken a less accommodating and gracious tack.) As was oft repeated in this week’s hearings, Doug commented that the process is currently more about the proverbial sausage making that the victims. In his words, “our day will come,”frustrating though it may be for now. The TCC is encouraged and remains fully committed to advocating for all of us.

I hope this is of benefit, particularly for my fellows.

Thanks for this. Thank you for your foot work. At first read it feels a bit gut punchy. And it still really does. The action of taking a moment, in the heat of a case involving sexual assault on children (I like truthy statements) (and ending them in Y, or why?) to recognize the birth of so many soul deaths is not only tone deaf, and dumb, but really a shed of light onto the actual mindset. Sad really. That was a perfect opportunity to an apology that could have been felt. At times I wish these proceedings were in person. In that fantasy I picture us all showing up for court, silently and in mass. I just finished reading Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘David and Goliath’ for some reason, for me, it relates to our plight. 
we don’t take a moment to recognize the birth of the World Trade Center, despite how many did well as a result of its conception, we memorialize the tragic loss of life that came as a result of the assault. 
extreme comparison? I think not. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Life

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

It was agreed by all concerned that Doug, on behalf of all victim claimants, be granted that time.

And that is the problem: the judge is not going to let a party represented by counsel make a statement to the court (generally).

If Stang had asked for 2 minutes he would have gotten it.