Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[ThenNow]

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think Zalkin is probably the best firm.

How do you define “best”?

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

How do you define “best”?

I guess the few times I listened in to hearings, seeing them on the docket or deposition (that Kosnoff released) I was impressed by their firm.  They were the only one to join the TCC to ask for a status hearing.  Patterson is a great lawyer and expert on bankruptcy.  

[skeptic]

Fair enough; but that will not cure the damage he has done, and may continue to do, with his game.  As it almost seems like one much of the time.  "Poke the bear"; and maybe I have become an annoyed bear?

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I guess the few times I listened in to hearings, seeing them on the docket or deposition (that Kosnoff released) I was impressed by their firm.  They were the only one to join the TCC to ask for a status hearing.  Patterson is a great lawyer and expert on bankruptcy.  

Same. Mr. P is super cool. He seems to be suppressing a smirk many times, as someone that intelligent may be inclined to do when dueling with lesser mortals. AND he only once made a reference to his tenure as an attorney in this arena. (On first appearance, every attorney should be allowed the fleeting opportunity to tell us how many years they’ve been slaving in the coal mines of law practice and then be prohibited to reference it thereafter.) Knowing a few other attorneys on the claimant side, I think they deserve mention. They are not bankruptcy attorneys, but great and highly ethical litigators, like the ZuckermanSpaeder firm, for example. 

[SiouxRanger]

10 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Moderator, why do you allow this BSA troll self-named skeptic to continue here. He should be banished. He exists here only to suppress open honest expression. You are allowing him to destroy this forum. Last post from me if he remains. 

I don't quite know if this fits in here, an important lesson to me back then, so, nevertheless..

During a very stressful scouting time, we had a committee and during meetings, a scouter I considered very astute, upon hearing a comment (likely that he did not agree with) would say:

"Could you say that again?  I'd like to understand you."

A gentle way to suggest a moderation or even an intensification of the speaker's view. Or, at least to elicit specifics with which to take issue.

With respect to your post, quoting the post you take issue with would be helpful to those of us who don't follow day-to-day.

I'd really like to understand your post.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Fair enough; but that will not cure the damage he has done, and may continue to do, with his game.  As it almost seems like one much of the time.  "Poke the bear"; and maybe I have become an annoyed bear?

And exactly what damage has he caused? 

[skeptic]

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

And exactly what damage has he caused? 

I suppose it depends on your definition of damage.  But, he is the one that labeled the IV files the perversion files early on.  He has interfered with the ballots, and he has apparently intruded on other communication of which he is not a part.  Most importantly, he has done all he can to paint the BSA as the predator, rather than those that actually were.  His actions very likely have put the larger case in jeopardy.  Just my interpretation and impression, so take as you will. 

[johnsch322]

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I suppose it depends on your definition of damage.  But, he is the one that labeled the IV files the perversion files early on.  He has interfered with the ballots, and he has apparently intruded on other communication of which he is not a part.  Most importantly, he has done all he can to paint the BSA as the predator, rather than those that actually were.  His actions very likely have put the larger case in jeopardy.  Just my interpretation and impression, so take as you will. 

I have seen no evidence that he interfered with the ballots....has anyone else? So in reality your argument for him being a bad lawyer in the system is because he has made the BSA look bad. LOL I think the BSA has done quite well making itself look bad all by themselves. The larger case in this situation is the one that the BSA created and that is the case of CHILD ABUSE under BSA's watch and those within the BSA's.  And now it is the BSA who is making a mockery of the legal system with the inclusion of the third party releases in their bankruptcy. This is not my interpretation nor my impression it is fact.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I have seen no evidence that he interfered with the ballots....has anyone else?

I might step in it when I assume, but I'll assume away. [This is where we all pause and quietly recite the old adage about "when we assume." Back to b'ness. ] I believe he's speaking about the Kosnoff/TCC letter, which allegedly interfered with voting, which has been equated to ballots. That's a fair point. Also, he quickly called out the e-ballot on lots of anecdotal evidence. That can be seen as messing with voting/ballots, in particular. However unscientific and as yet unproven, he received that evidence from his clients. Totally legit and something he was compelled to report, IMNSHO. 

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

So in reality your argument for him being a bad lawyer in the system is because he has made the BSA look bad.

Litigation attorneys are in the business of making defendants look bad. That's what they try to do. Period. The goal is to demonstrate that they crossed the boundaries of the law and should be incarcerated or made to pay in some way. Has he extended the bounds beyond what is reasonable, genteel and professional? Probably. Does he care? No. (See my answer above regarding being mindful of the context in which TK dwells on the swells of this case and his Bluewater.) Also remember he has been eating sour grapes since he was disallowed from being a Mediation Party. He's not at the table so he's throwing blood-filled water balloons into the negotiation room. (Wow. That's a great visual. Please don't delete this. It's a very effective metaphor. I beg you.)

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I think the BSA has done quite well making itself look bad all by themselves. The larger case in this situation is the one that the BSA created and that is the case of CHILD ABUSE under BSA's watch and those within the BSA's.

If we can hoist the Catholic Church from their own petard, surely it's fair in this context. Do the cases present specific differences? Of course. Has anyone called them "the biggest pedophile ring in history"? Not that I know of. Are they equally deserving, if that's the word? Sure thing. And further, they did a ton of knowing and intentional transferring and relocating of abusers, which looks a lot like a ring and cycle of providing free access to kids.

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

And now it is the BSA who is making a mockery of the legal system with the inclusion of the third party releases in their bankruptcy. This is not my interpretation nor my impression it is fact.

Again, in fairness, the BSA entered this process prior to Purdue and other tectonic shifts. Paraphrasing Prez The Donald, "I was just taking advantage of the bankruptcy laws in this country. Not to do it would have been a stupid business decision." You don't make the laws, but it's acceptable to use them. Might the recent changes rise up and put canines to the BSA hinterland? Yup.

Edited January 25, 2022 by ThenNow
Oops. Moving too fast.

[fred8033]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

... intentional transferring and relocating of abusers ...

Could you provide a reference to a few?  I know that is a fair representation in the Church abuse scandals.  I am not familiar with case examples here.  IVF was about exclusion; not relocation.  I've seen case files of a few volunteers who subverted their IVF records.  I have not seen examples of BSA moving people after abuse incidents.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

But, he is the one that labeled the IV files the perversion files early on. 

Again, refer to my answer about litigation attorneys wanting to paint defendants in a bad light. That goes double for a plaintiff's attorney in tort cases (and twice on Sundays).

11 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Could you provide a reference to a few?  I know that is a fair representation in the Church abuse scandals.  I am not familiar with case examples here.  IVF was about exclusion; not relocation.  I've seen case files of a few volunteers who subverted their IVF records.  I have not seen examples of BSA moving people after abuse incidents.

I may have been obtuse and/or unclear again, but I was specifically referring to the Catholic Church. I think it flows from my stream of written consciousness, but maybe not. Anywho, that's what I was attempting to say in distinguishing them from BSA. I'm not aware of a historical a pattern of BSA knowingly and intentionally transferring alleged abusers from one place to another. Might it have been done negligently in more than a few cases? From what I've read in other cases, it happened way too many times. There are some guys on here who's abuse was because their abuser was able to move from one place to another with relative impunity.

Edited January 25, 2022 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I may have been obtuse and/or unclear again, but I was specifically referring to the Catholic Church. I think it flows from my stream of written consciousness, but maybe not. Anywho, that's what I was attempting to say in distinguishing them from BSA. I'm not aware of a historical a pattern of knowingly and intentionally transferring alleged abusers from one place to another.

Thank you.  I had not heard that of BSA and glad it's not the case.  My simple reading of your writing inferred BSA did that too.

Edited January 25, 2022 by fred8033

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Thank you.  I had not heard that of BSA and glad it's not the case.  My simple reading of your writing inferred BSA did that too.

Of course. I'm much better live and I get to have a tip jar. (I once asked my Gramps for a tip after holding open the door for him. His reply? "Don't stand up in a canoe." True story.)

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

With respect to your post, quoting the post you take issue with would be helpful to those of us who don't follow day-to-day.

I'd really like to understand your post.

I'm thinking' this will be a hard answer to tease out. While Skeptic is here Muttsy shall be mum. There is an unfortunate circumstantial muting of Muttsy's megaphone. I recommend mediation. Mr. Kevin Carey happens to be available. 

[skeptic]

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Again, refer to my answer about litigation attorneys wanting to paint defendants in a bad light. That goes double for a plaintiff's attorney in tort cases (and twice on Sundays).

I may have been obtuse and/or unclear again, but I was specifically referring to the Catholic Church. I think it flows from my stream of written consciousness, but maybe not. Anywho, that's what I was attempting to say in distinguishing them from BSA. I'm not aware of a historical a pattern of BSA knowingly and intentionally transferring alleged abusers from one place to another. Might it have been done negligently in more than a few cases? From what I've read in other cases, it happened way too many times. There are some guys on here who's abuse was because their abuser was able to move from one place to another with relative impunity.

The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent.  By labeling them as they were, it leaves exactly that impression in the minds of many.  Of course the media loved it, and loves it still, and uses it as often as possible to mislead.  There is evidence the files actually did in some incidences help stop abusers, though unless there was good reason to contact National, nothing was computerized, so it likely easily fell through cracks.  That still seems to ask, for me, what was being done to attempt to respond to these issues by anyone else at the time?  Little, if anything appears to be the answer.  So, the files are forced into the public view and allowed to be mined.  Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns; though apparently some have.  Again, the additional question is what other persons or agencies may have been aware of these things at the time?  How much did the societal taboos affect things at the time.  How many families may have felt the need to not bring things public, nor to fight the practices of the time?  So many other factors involved.  

And we still come back to simple statistical things that indicate, based on incomplete data to be sure, that BSA did better than most at the time.  There is no question that errors in judgment occurred, and unfortunately a few really heinous cases.  And that should not have happened.  But that does not make BSA, as an organization, a purposeful predator.  We always come back to the fact that in the minds of many, somehow NO abuse should ever be perpetrated, and that is a great goal.  But, it is not a real possibility in reality, and even the loudest should recognize that.  

At the same time, the overwhelmingly positive effect of the BSA over the past 110 years has been positive and its tenets are in sore need of larger acceptance within society.  But logic and balance, there's my favorite workd again, does not seem applicable to a few, and that is not something any of us can combat.  

Our goals ahould be to come to the fairest conclusion as possible, and to continue to work on stronger barriers to those who will act in predatory ways.  We certainly see that progress being made; but it will only be as good as those that will pay attention and follow the rules.  Again, human nature may come into play, and when it does, the response needs to be open and immediate.  

For my part, I will do my best to no longer label certain, what I feel are bad actors in this drama.  That does not mean I will not still see them that way, just not pass it along again.  

Do understand that I in no way feel the survivors are not due a settlement.  I just would like it to be in step with the lady and her scale.