ThenNow Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Just now, Sentinel947 said: I don't think the moderators have blocked everything Cynical Scouter has attempted to post, but you're free to think otherwise. He has the ability to post, they just have to be approved first, so unless he's doubling down on problematic comments, his posts would be approved. Um, read my post in light of the post to which I am responding. I think you’re swatting a phantom gnat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Just now, HelpfulTracks said: I don't want to call it a dictatorship (its not), but it is not a democracy either. You can name a thread you start whatever you wish, but the Mods can close it, change it or delete it or hide it. Good grief you guys. Did all your teams lose this weekend and your dog pooped on the bed to make it worse? Just a joke, for Pete’s sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: Um, read my post in light of the post to which I am responding. I think you’re swatting a phantom gnat. Mea maxima culpa. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelpfulTracks Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Good grief you guys. Did all your teams lose this weekend and your dog pooped on the bed to make it worse? Just a joke, for Pete’s sake. No malice or sour mood intended. I was just stating a post can be named as you wish, it's just up to the mods if that name is left as initially created. ( I left out they can just rename it also) FYI - My team won convincingly. 😀 Edited October 18, 2021 by HelpfulTracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 (edited) 37 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said: No malice or sour mood intended. I was just stating a post can be named as you wish, it's just up to the mods if that name is left as initially created. ( I left out they can just rename it also) FYI - My team won convincingly. 😀 I should’ve just said, “I would love to see it named The Force Awakens. Is there anyone else who would like to see it so named and, if so, would you be willing to voice that interest?” Seven of my eight did. Not too shabby. It’s a bunch-a-lota football when you include the kids’ schools, my wife’s and mine. My oldest son’s school had the dubious distinction of being part of the ugliest mess I’ve seen in college football. At least they were on the winning side, though it was the dangerous side for about 20 minutes. Sorry. I am way off topic, though not concerned about it on this cool Monday morning. Edited October 18, 2021 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Kosnoff's letter to AIS claimants: Kosnoff Letter to 15,0000 Abused in Scouting Clients Advising them To Vote NO to the BSA Plan (yumpu.com) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 Reminder Tues Oct 19, 2021, 10am Bankruptcy Court Omnibus Hearing Agenda Zoom link December 14, 2021, at 4:00 pm (Eastern): Deadline to Vote on the Plan January 7, 2022, at 4:00 pm (Eastern): Deadline to Object to the Plan January 24, 2022, at 10:00 am (Eastern): Confirmation Hearing Begins 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeS72 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 31 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: Kosnoff's letter to AIS claimants: Kosnoff Letter to 15,0000 Abused in Scouting Clients Advising them To Vote NO to the BSA Plan (yumpu.com) Interesting how many times he faults the 'mass tort' lawyers, as he calls them (can't say what I would like to call them) "because the will take a piece of your payment which under the current $1.854 billion settlement fund will total more than $425 million." He only once mentions his cut: "Under your engagement letter with AIS, your payment will be reduced by 40% to pay for the attorneys' share of the payment". Not any different than what he is faulting the 'mass tort' lawyers for, other than to whom those $$ are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 (edited) 41 minutes ago, MikeS72 said: He only once mentions his cut: "Under your engagement letter with AIS, your payment will be reduced by 40% to pay for the attorneys' share of the payment". Not any different than what he is faulting the 'mass tort' lawyers for, other than to whom those $$ are going. I beg to differ, as to there being no distinction between their respective “cuts,” as you say. This is an attorney with decades of experience representing Scouting child sexual abuse victims. Those other folks are “Lemme get on the gravy train” Johnnies come lately. Night and day difference. Let’s find out how much experience those who used aggregators have. Being funded by outside money, which a number of judges who do mass tort cases do not like at all, cannot be equated to Tim Kosnoff’s history and experience. I have said this repeatedly here, just so I’m not accused of defending him simply because we have concurring opinions. He doesn’t need this case or this money. The other guys want the money and need it to pay off the loan sharks, thus their ‘quick’ settlements and race to the bottom. Edited October 18, 2021 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 52 minutes ago, MikeS72 said: Interesting how many times he faults the 'mass tort' lawyers, as he calls them (can't say what I would like to call them) "because the will take a piece of your payment which under the current $1.854 billion settlement fund will total more than $425 million." He only once mentions his cut: "Under your engagement letter with AIS, your payment will be reduced by 40% to pay for the attorneys' share of the payment". Not any different than what he is faulting the 'mass tort' lawyers for, other than to whom those $$ are going. You pay a lawyer a contingency fee to fight to get you the best deal possible for you. The Coalition (mass tort) lawyers are fighting now for a settlement that is best for them. Kudos to Tim Kosnoff for coming out so strongly for voting no and a big shout out to him for supporting the TCC members. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelpfulTracks Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 23 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I beg to differ, as to there being no distinction between their respective “cuts,” as you say. This is an attorney with decades of experience representing Scouting child sexual abuse victims. Those other folks are “Lemme get on the gravy train” Johnnies come lately. Night and day difference. Let’s find out how much experience those who used aggregators have. Being funded by outside money, which a number of judges who do mass tort cases do not like at all, cannot be equated to Tim Kosnoff’s history and experience. I have said this repeatedly here, just so I’m not accused of defending him simply because we have concurring opinions. He doesn’t need this case or this money. The other guys want the money and need it to pay off the loan sharks, thus their quick settlements and race to the bottom. Umm. This is not directed at any specific lawyer or even this case. I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me. But when any lawyer starts poking another lawyer in the eye about what he makes and also claims to be in it for the good of their client I am suspicious. Especially if he is taking the same cut, regardless of his experience or skills. If he really wants me to think about believing he is in for something other than the money, then do something like this on billable hours, or better yet at cost of his staff and filing fees or even better yet pro bono. Kosnoff may be the best lawyer in the history of lawyers and is worth every penny, but I find it more than a little disingenuous to say other lawyers are getting too much when he is getting basically the same, perhaps even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said: Kosnoff may be the best lawyer in the history of lawyers and is worth every penny, but I find it more than a little disingenuous to say other lawyers are getting too much when he is getting basically the same, perhaps even more. I believe if you don't look closely at the motivation of individual lawyers their experience in this arena that you are not doing anyone any good. I do not know who your lawyers are but maybe you should consider changing representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 22 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said: Kosnoff may be the best lawyer in the history of lawyers and is worth every penny, but I find it more than a little disingenuous to say other lawyers are getting too much when he is getting basically the same, perhaps even more. That’s not what he said nor what I said. He said, they are racing to the bottom because the need to pay other people off and get theirs. I said, they have no experience and he has bushels full. Comparative, not dispositive nor conclusory. In my view, the single operative point and only relevant presupposition to your post is, “I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me.” Why? They charge a legal contingency on outcome. Solution? Go it alone and never hire one again, if you dislike them (us) so. And, to be consistent, never associate yourself with anyone who works on commission. Don’t buy a new car, sell or buy a house, hold or purchase additional insurance coverage or work with other than a fee-based investment advisor, to name a few. I can come up with a more comprehensive list when you need it. Easy peasy. Let me know when you’re ready to engage the conversation with “clean hands and a pure heart.” I’ll be right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelpfulTracks Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 1 minute ago, johnsch322 said: I believe if you don't look closely at the motivation of individual lawyers their experience in this arena that you are not doing anyone any good. I do not know who your lawyers are but maybe you should consider changing representation. I know who my lawyers are and what their job is. When needed, I hire good ones, but I am under no illusion they are doing it because they like me or believe in my position, nor do I care. I hire them because they win, they represent me because they can make money. 7 minutes ago, ThenNow said: In my view, the single operative point and only relevant presupposition to your post is, “I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me.” Why? They charge a legal contingency on outcome. Solution? Go it alone and never hire one again, if you dislike them (us) so. And, to be consistent, never associate yourself with anyone who works on commission. Don’t buy a new car, sell or buy a house, hold or purchase additional insurance coverage or work with other than a fee-based investment advisor, to name a few. I can come up with a more comprehensive list when you need it. Easy peasy. Let me know when you’re ready to engage the conversation with “clean hands and a pure heart.” I’ll be right here. Just because I don't like them does not mean I don't see a value in using them. I don't like politicians either, but I still vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted October 18, 2021 Share Posted October 18, 2021 11 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said: Just because I don't like them does not mean I don't see a value in using them. I don't like politicians either, but I still vote. That’s fine and I get it. So, you don’t like me? I’ll accept that too. Anyone with a JD or Esq. is anathema. We are the untouchables. Got that, too. To extrapolate your argument, an architect can’t critique another architect who, say, designed a large residential building with defective rebar or concrete. Verboten, self-serving and duplicitous. One physician can’t testify against another physician in a clear cut cut med mal case. Verboten, disingenuous and hypocritical. A used car salesman with high integrity cannot comment on under the table dealings of another, even though he has sound basis and evidence. Verboten, guilty by professional association and insincere. Roger all that. I can go on. PS - Yes. A used car salesman can be of high integrity. He’s a former Eagle Scout, Pack Leader, volunteers without pay to clean and maintain the camp, fights for YP reform and buys his kids ice cream so they won’t stink in his Suburban on the way home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts