ThenNow Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: If AIS or the Coalition or some claims aggregators were giving people the impression that they were acting on behalf of the court or BSA, that's a whole other issue. I have no doubt that based on the evidence that the insurance companies already put in, including from a person in one of these claims call centers, there were shady practices by some of these firms I don't care what is there to be revealed, only that it become known and widely distributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: In Dec 2019, the RT PPP had the "seek AIS" if you have a claim. This is when the mess started. Again, produce the slide. I've never, ever heard anything in my council like this at all. Again, if this were so then surely it would have been mentioned in some other council. I suspect a SE shared bad information in one RT. That is all. Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell_1919 Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Absolutely. If AIS or its claims aggregators were giving people the impression that they were acting on behalf of the court or BSA, that's a whole other issue. I have no doubt that based on the evidence that the insurance companies already put in, including from a person in one of these claims call centers, there were shady practices by some of these firms, that does NOT demonstrate that BSA was involved, which is what I had questioned. You are correct. Which is why I am waiting on those RT PPP provided by our LC back in 2019. At the very least, it shows at least one LC SE was point folks towards AIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: Nov 2019 RT PPP had the chapter 11/claims guidance. Which is impossible since the Chapter 11 didn't even exist/get filed until February 2020. Thus there would not have BEEN any "chapter 11/claims guidance" until, at the earliest, that month. Again, I suspect you are conflating a series of dates, times, and years together here. Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: I suspect you are conflating a series of dates, times, and years together here. I'm glad you used the word "conflate" as opposed to anything accusatory. I'm not sure if you looked at his profile, but I highly doubt there is any malicious intent or volitional deception. My take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said: I was given this in Nov 2019 as we were prepping our 2020 IYOS roundtables. At first, it seems benign and it points the person to https://www.bsarestructuring.org/. When scrolling down the page, it tells individuals to go to file claims at www.OfficialBSAClaims.com. I want to be clear here about these two websites and why your timeline is literally impossible. 1) As I noted, https://www.bsarestructuring.org/ was a nonexistent website when these supposed November 2019 and December 2019 roundtables occurred. The domain was purchased in May 2019, but the site was a blank page until February 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/*/bsarestructuring.org https://whois.domaintools.com/bsarestructuring.org 2) www.OfficialBSAClaims.com is even more bizarre and impossible. The domain didn't even exist until February 7, 2020. The ONLY thing that domain does is redirect to the Omni Agent website (the official claims portal for all claims). Not BSA. Unless now the claim is the Omni is in cahoots with AIS and BSA and somehow got a time machine/TARDIS to travel back to November and December 2019 to share claims data? https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.OfficialBSAClaims.com https://whois.domaintools.com/officialbsaclaims.com Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 3 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I'm glad you used the word "conflate" as opposed to anything accusatory. I'm not sure if you looked at his profile, but I highly doubt there is any malicious intent or volitional deception. My take. Yes, I firmly and totally believe everyone here is being honest. I 100% believe that he believes what he is saying and that he may have in fact been told what he was told by his SE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell_1919 Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Again, produce the slide. I've never, ever heard anything in my council like this at all. Again, if this were so then surely it would have been mentioned in some other council. I suspect a SE shared bad information in one RT. That is all. Analyze and interpret... right? We know LCs and national are "less than honest" based on what I've read within this forum.... and what I have seen first hand from WAG'd financials from my own LC. Would it be out of the realm of possibility that BSA was working with AIS to get the numbers so astronomically high that it puts them in the position of being able to pay a very large "speeding fine", and then come out on the other end with no more lingering claims to hold them back from being able to get back into the fast lane again? As in... "AIS... you bring a ton of claimants to the table and we'll make sure you get paid a lot of money. We'll pay your fees, and then you can also hit your clients with a 40% bill, take even more money, and then we get to proceed without any worry of old claims coming back to haunt us in the future." Look, I agree that sounds like a tin-foil hat conspiracy... but things just aren't adding up. Again, I am glad the insurance companies aren't just rolling over. Whatever is going on... needs to come out into the open. If it is just repugnant lawyers lying to people, then they need a big dose of karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: Would it be out of the realm of possibility that BSA was working with AIS to get the numbers so astronomically high that it puts them in the position of being able to pay a very large "speeding fine", and then come out on the other end with no more lingering claims to hold them back from being able to get back into the fast lane again? As in... "AIS... you bring a ton of claimants to the table and we'll make sure you get paid a lot of money. We'll pay your fees, and then you can also hit your clients with a 40% bill, take even more money, and then we get to proceed without any worry of old claims coming back to haunt us in the future." Sounds very much like out of the realm of realistic probabilities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: Look, I agree that sounds like a tin-foil hat conspiracy... but things just aren't adding up. ECREE: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” What you are alleging is a vast criminal conspiracy (to defraud claimants and the court), including the use of a time machine to get websites into your November/December 2019 Roundtable presentations that didn't exist until February 2020. Things are not adding up because your dates are off your data is wrong, and your recollection is faulty unless somehow a TARDIS is involved. Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 44 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: As for Tim Kosnoff... I have had direct contact with that vulture (tim@kosnoff.com). What kind of contact did you if you do not mind me asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHopkins Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said: This is a 1926 Troop Charter Renewal http://www.troop17bsa.com/uploads/4/5/8/4/4584404/1926.pdf Interesting. On the last page of the PDF titled General Information, we see this question and answer: 9. What part does the head of the institution take in the work of the troop? Inspirational 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeS72 Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said: Both IH and COR, or just only one? I seem to recall obtaining the IH signature years ago, but not sure if the IH signature is still required. The adult application currently has a box asking for "signature of chartered organization head or representative". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell_1919 Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 40 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Which is impossible since the Chapter 11 didn't even exist/get filed until February 2020. Thus there would not have BEEN any "chapter 11/claims guidance" until, at the earliest, that month. Again, I suspect you are conflating a series of dates, times, and years together here. I am looking through all my emails... but was something we got from the google drive from the NOV 2019 RT when we were gearing up with for our 2020 IYOS. I will never say I am infallible, and it is certainly well within the realm of possibility "conflating" dates... but I am almost certain about the timeline because I was having monthly Key 3 meetings all throughout 2019 with my DE and the topic of chapter 11 was part of all of them as I was being bombarded by UCs, leaders, and scouters for more information (which I really didn't have). I worked with my LC at that time to pull together our IYOS and I emphatically said we needed to address chapter 11 in our district's RT. That was in Nov 2019. The chapter 11 info form is what I got from the google drive. Before Christmas of 2019, which would have been our DEC 2019 RT... that is when our LC SE came and addressed chapter 11 and the claims process. Perhaps the LC SE wasn't supposed to disclose that, as BSA hadn't announced it officially, but that is what we got on our end. Personally, I like our LC SE.... and I don't think there was any malicious intent there other than to calm everyone's nerves. It wasn't until I started getting inundated with questions by scouters that I had the lunch with our LC SE to get clarification as to what people should be doing. However... as a person with the utmost integrity... I would hold a virtual meeting with all of you, share my computer screen and we can pour through all of this together... to include my 2019 & 2020 calendars... and mounds of emails. I've certainly got nothing to hide. If I have, indeed, conflated the dates... that was certainly not my intention. I do pride myself on having a locked tight mind when it comes to numbers and dates as they pertain to specific activities... but... as a matter of "verification"... I have an incredibly detailed calendar and I NEVER delete emails (other than Spam). My entire intent to coming to this forum... is for guidance. I have been a scout my entire life... and I am now conflicted because something just isn't adding up and it is making me feel really uncomfortable at the moment. Does that make sense to anyone?🙃 Or... do they just need to bring me to a padded room and throw away the key? Scouting is, and always has been, my life... and I will defend the merits of this program to my last breath. But, if there are Machiavellian things happening behind the scenes... I want it called out... and I want those people to no longer have any part of the program I love dearly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David CO Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 24 minutes ago, MikeS72 said: The adult application currently has a box asking for "signature of chartered organization head or representative". Yes. Obviously, the COR cannot sign off on his own application. In that case, the IH signature is required. In my unit, the COR signed off on all applications other than his own. He brought them to me for review. I initialed them to indicate my approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts