ThenNow Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Court: Onondaga Supreme Court Index Number: 006947/2021 Case Name: DOE, JMAEOC vs. Longhouse Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America et al Case Type: Tort-Child Victims Act https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=Iy3Ryoz50KwQ_PLUS_akQvOJ4ig==&system=prod Thank ye, most kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 10 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said: 2. AVA Law Group has dropped Kosnoff's lawyer (David Wilks) and retained new counsel to represent them (Christopher Simon and Kevin Mann). Yeah, as the judge said: the fact that AIS is a dysfunctional group does NOT mean they aren't still a group (that had to file a Rule 2019 motion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said: 2. AVA Law Group has dropped Kosnoff's lawyer (David Wilks) and retained new counsel to represent them (Christopher Simon and Kevin Mann). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9dad98c0-9b5e-410f-bb72-7757568243a0_6001.pdf I was pondering this over my first cuppa at 3:26AM. I'm thinking of making a board game based not so loosely on our Animal House Circus. (More on that later.) Here's what I was tinkin. When the lawyers of child sexual abuse victim claimants in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy have lawyers, and groups of those lawyers have groups of lawyers, and when lawyers who were in groups with other lawyers sharing a lawyer find it necessary to fire that lawyer and hire other lawyers, something is wrong. Desperately, desperately wrong. Edited August 16, 2021 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 On 8/13/2021 at 5:47 PM, ThenNow said: 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. Was anyone able to log in this morning? I'm getting "meeting not started". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidLeeLambert Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Was anyone able to log in this morning? I'm getting "meeting not started". Started at a little after 10:00. The parties had agreed on what to admit as evidence from depositions over the weekend, so Mosby and Ownsby will not be testifying. Recess at about 10:30 until 12:00, when oral argument will resume. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 35 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said: Started at a little after 10:00. The parties had agreed on what to admit as evidence from depositions over the weekend, so Mosby and Ownsby will not be testifying. Recess at about 10:30 until 12:00, when oral argument will resume. Ok, I logged in around 10:33, so I must have just missed it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Ok, I logged in around 10:33, so I must have just missed it. Thanks. Yup. Quickest hearing on record. She ruled on everything and the money starts flowing tomorrow. JUST KIDDING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said: The parties had agreed on what to admit as evidence from depositions over the weekend, so Mosby and Ownsby will not be testifying. Given the extent to which counsel for the insurance companies (or the portions I heard) kicked the stuffing out of Whitman and others, I don't know why they wouldn't. Whitman admitting the $10.5 million and $900,000 a month numbers for Coalition payments (implicit in the questioning was they were bribes to the Coalition's lawyers) were conjured out of thin air? I remember even saying as Whitman said it: that's it for the fees. And I didn't even hear the Friday hearing but I gather Desai was a disaster. I know why BSA wouldn't want Mosby or Ownby on the stand, but why would the insurers? All I can think 1) The insurers think they have guaranteed the Coalition-fee portion of the RSA is out, no need to "bounce the rubble" and have Mosby and Ownby just repeat what Whitman and Desai said. 2) The insurers think they have item #1 AND that as a result, the RSA will be dead because the Coalition will walk away when the Coalition-fee portion is struck down. Again, if all Mosby/Ownby are there to do is present as stooges (seriously, no resolution of the board? Outright deferral to Whitman and others to cut the deals?) it may backfire? Edited August 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 (edited) Hearing starts: Issue #1 is the Hartford Settlement. Lauria arguing, in effect, the Hartford plan looked good AT THE TIME, but since there's NO way the TCC/FCR/Coalition will every accept it, the plan looks bad now and needs to get junked. Paraphrase: If it is a choice between a) sticking to the Hartford agreement and b) the TCC/FCR/Coalition RSA plan, the RSA plan is infinitely better. Edited August 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: bribes to the Coalition's lawyers Yup. Bribe is the word. 15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Desai...disaster Yup. DDD. Desai Disaster Day. He went from smug to schmuck right quick. He did well recounting his Scouting glory. 16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: I know why BSA wouldn't want Mosby or Ownby on the stand... See below. 16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: present as stooges...it may backfire Huh, huh. I spoke with an attorney friend over the weekend and I have never heard him so totally beside himself and incensed about the case on multiple levels. It sounded like he was spinning around, jumping up and down, and spitting nickels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: Huh, huh. I spoke with an attorney friend over the weekend and I have never heard him so totally beside himself and incensed about the case on multiple levels. It sounded like he was spinning around, jumping up and down, and spitting nickels. Right, so I can see BSA wanting to do whatever they had to in order to keep Ownby and Mosby off the stand, but did the insurers worry that putting them on the stand could backfire? To be clear: I am not an attorney, but I've worked in the court system for a long time. I've seen so many times witnesses get called and then blow up on the stand/backfire. I have to assume that maybe the insurers felt putting them on the stand and beating them up for 3-4 hours would backfire and the judge wouldn't be happy having her time wasted with simply a round of repeats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Hearing starts: Issue #1 is the Hartford Settlement It is 99% about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Right, so I can see BSA wanting to do whatever they had to in order to keep Ownby and Mosby off the stand, but did the insurers worry that putting them on the stand could backfire? To be clear: I am not an attorney, but I've worked in the court system for a long time. I've seen so many times witnesses get called and then blow up on the stand/backfire. I have to assume that maybe the insurers felt putting them on the stand and beating them up for 3-4 hours would backfire and the judge wouldn't be happy having her time wasted with simply a round of repeats. Sorry if you missed one of my earlier post about the time limits she imposed. I think the insurers' sentiment was likely based on: 1) the lack of need to whip the horse; 2) the knowledge that something could take points off their board; 3) the limitation of one hour per witness; and 4) they'd just as soon get on with argument. All may have come into play, but #2 less so. My bet. Edited August 16, 2021 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: time limits she imposed. Ah, time limits. That would explain it. Ok, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 (edited) Lauria raises what I think is a good point: this has taken 18 months or close to it. If the BSA cannot shake off the Hartford deal, the exclusivity period (where BSA has the exclusive right to file a reorg plan) ends in a matter of days/weeks. That means that the TCC/FCR/Coalition will have the right to introduce their own reorg plan and THAT reorg plan will never, ever include the Hartford deal. So, even if the judge makes the BSA stick to the Hartford deal, that nukes the RSA and in 1-2 months we are simply going to see the RSA come back, renamed as the TCC/FCR/Coalition reorganization plan Edited August 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts