Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[Sentinel947]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

In my unit, the COR has always been a volunteer.

And so, with every signature on an adult application, perhaps the COR has signed on to liability if the adult abuses. And National knew this was a problem, created risk, and gave no warning?

Trustworthy?

Is your Committee appointing the COR, or is the IH? 

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

That a CO failed to do even a minimum of due diligence on what they were signing? Shame on BSA/LCs, but shame on the CO/CORs for signing things they didn't bother to read.

This is likely very true.  Additionally, when a new adult wishing to volunteer approaches the troop/pack/crew/ship leadership, they may not be known.  They may have been a Scout so have program knowledge or have skills.  Most units need more adults and so when the criminal background check comes back without issues, the volunteers will be supportive.  The COR likely has no other information either.  Since most abusers in Scouting have no prior record, it is difficult to impossible to screen them.  My concern is that the criminal background check gives a false sense of everything is OK.  Youth Protection Training is very good to help volunteers to look for signs of abuse potential.

[Gilwell_1919]

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Post please. Thanks. Even just a picture.

Most of us have seen this - or maybe not (*see attached BSA Chapter 11 announcement). 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. A lot of questions came back about just "reporting information" (not necessarily filing a claim), and the official response from our LC, which got clarification from BSA national, was that anyone with information had to file a claim. Again, fairly benign. When scouters in my district, when I was the DC, filed those claims, they got call backs from the AIS coalition who emphatically stated, on recorded lines, that BSA had appointed them to handle the influx of claims. AIS then pushed claimants to individual firms (*see attached).

I am looking for the Nov 2019 RT powerpoint now. It was in the DC google drive that I gave up access to when I left that position, but I am confident I can get a copy. As for the other items, I was approached by a scouter that filed a claim and had recorded the conversation with AIS; I listened to it... and yes, AIS clearly states they were working on behalf of BSA to take claims. 

[ThenNow]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

f BSA National or local councils were doing what @Gilwell_1919 claims (that as part of the bankruptcy proceeding against BSA that BSA was directing claimants to a particular law firm or set of law firms/AIS to file claims/suits against BSA) that gets people in prison or at the very least contempt of court proceedings and disbarment.

Again, @Gilwell_1919: post the slide or a photo of a slide that says "AIS" or "Abused in Scouting".

So it's clear, AIS had it's first video briefing in Aug 7, 2019. During the conference, Stewart Einsenberg announced that a group of law firms (his firm as named at the time, Kosnoff Law, and Andrew van Arsdale/AVA Law Group) had "band together...partnered" under the banner of Abused In Scouting as early as February of 2019. This means, AIS was in existence well before the filing date one year later. What that means, of course, is they certainly COULD have been in a position to take such referrals IF they did, in fact, happen. Just want the timing to be out there and clarified.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abused+in+scouting+announcment&t=brave&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpWjVtxoxZps

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Most of us have seen this - or maybe not (*see attached BSA Chapter 11 announcement). I was given this in Nov 2019 as we were prepping our 2020 IYOS roundtables

Nowhere does any of that mention AIS. Your claims was that BSA was directing claimants to AIS. That photo doesn't show that. Neither does the AIS professional employment agreement.

10 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Again, fairly benign. When scouters in my district, when I was the DC, filed those claims, they got call backs from the AIS coalition who emphatically stated, on recorded lines, that BSA had appointed them to handle the influx of claims. AIS then pushed claimants to individual firms (*see attached).

Again, that's not what you claimed. You claimed that BSA/National had said that.

I'm not asking what AIS said, I am asking what BSA said. And YOU said, quite clearly, that BSA had directed people to AIS.

And I, and others, are here to tell you that is 100% not true. BSA never, ever directed anyone to AIS.

Ever.

If they had, people start going to prison.

And thus far you still have not provided a single thing to indicate BSA has done so.

So I'll ask again:

Show me something from or by BSA that directs people to AIS or even mentions AIS.

This is how misinformation and disinformation happen.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[SiouxRanger]

16 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Is your Committee appointing the COR, or is the IH? 

Generally, the first to volunteer for the job is the only one to volunteer, and the committee then generally acquiesces in the volunteer taking over the role of COR.  We have a small troop;  the active adults is 8 to 10, and most attend troop meetings, so we know each other over many years. The IH's participation or involvement with our Troop is minimal and largely limited to signing the charter application and that is about it.  As Pack and Troop Committee Chairperson for about 20 years, I never had any substantive discussions with the IH.

Edited August 27, 2021 by SiouxRanger
Added a word. Capitalization.

[Gilwell_1919]

43 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Would you please unpack this a little? I'm not sure I'm following the bouncing ball. Thank you muchly.

Sorry, I tend to think faster than I can type. After our Nov 2019 RT, I was working lock-step with my DE to answer questions and point people in the right direction. Ultimately, there were two cases wherein the individuals "remembered something" and simply wanted to give BSA the information to ensure those leaders were no longer in scouting, or at the very least so BSA could look into the allegations. THEY DID NOT WANT TO FILE CLAIMS. The DE elevated it to the LC SE and then a few days later we had a lunch meeting wherein the SC point-blank to me that BSA said they would not look into anything unless someone filed a claim. Once those claims were filed, using the BSA official site, they were contacted by AIS who told them they were appointed as the "intermediary claims agents" to handle this. Again, I heard the recorded phone call that the one claimant shared with me. Afterwards, I was shown the AIS PEA prior to that person being shifted over to AVA law. None of it made sense, so I sought clarification from our LC SE. In Dec 2019, the SE came to our RT with the powerpoint that told people where to go, and it clearly identified AIS as that organization. Again... I am trying to get copies of the NOV and DEC 2019 RT powerpoints and I will share them with you as soon as I do. I've got no skin in this game other than the fact that I love scouting and want to protect the youth under my care. If that makes sense?

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Show me something from or by BSA that directs people to AIS.

Was the retainer agreement attached or included with any BSA presentation or materials? 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

In Dec 2019, the SE came to our RT with the powerpoint that told people where to go, and it clearly identified AIS as that organization.

Your SE was wrong and if that slide exists people are going to prison and/or being disbarred.

BSA cannot colluded with its creditors or claimants to direct people to a particular lawfirm.

Be very careful here because again we know this forum is monitored by law firms and Kosnoff and the TCC.

I want you to be aware that if what you are saying is true and your Scout Executive told claimants to go to a particular lawfirm or AIS in general, this will (likely) be brought up before the bankruptcy court.

[Gilwell_1919]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So it's clear, AIS had it's first video briefing in Aug 7, 2019. During the conference, Stewart Einsenberg announced that a group of law firms (his firm as named at the time, Kosnoff Law, and Andrew van Arsdale/AVA Law Group) had "band together...partnered" under the banner of Abused In Scouting as early as February of 2019. This means, AIS was in existence well before the filing date one year later. What that means, of course, is they certainly COULD have been in a position to take such referrals IF they did, in fact, happen. Just want the timing to be out there and clarified.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abused+in+scouting+announcment&t=brave&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpWjVtxoxZps

Yes, this is the unravelling that I was talking about. I, for one, and glad the insurers are digging in and that the judge approved to have AIS disclose its Jenga-like structure. I know, for a fact, that someone in my council sent a mound of documentation to the lead attorneys for the insurers because it is apparent that neither BSA or the AIS conglomerate of slip-and-fall vultures are willing to tell the truth. 

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Was the retainer agreement attached or included with any BSA presentation or materials? 

That's my question or next question as well.

This sounds like a Scout Executive who didn't know what he/she was talking about directing victims/claimants to a particular law firm/AIS to file claims against BSA/the LC.

That means a debtor, through an employee/officer/agent, was directing claimants to a particular law firm.

That will go before the judge in a red-hot heartbeat since we know this forum is monitored.

I've seen people get disbarred for directing clients to a particular friendly lawyer to play lets-make-a-deal with.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Gilwell_1919]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Was the retainer agreement attached or included with any BSA presentation or materials? 

No, just the Chapter 11 announcement that sent people to the official BSA claimants page. I received the AIS PEA from one of the individuals that didn't want to file a claim, but were forced to if they wanted to disclose any information to BSA. It was after that.... they were approached by AIS that they had received the claim and would be working the claims process with them, which is when the AIS PEA was signed. After that, the claimant was kicked over to AVA Law. 

My whole point is that something shady is afoot and I don't feel bad for BSA because they opened up this Pandora's Box... again, based on the first-hand information I have seen and heard for myself. I'm certainly not a lawyer... I just want to do the right thing for all scouts... especially those that are under my guidance (*read protection) in my particular state. I volunteer at my council... and I am the state rep for my national-level CO... so I am really in between a rock and a hard place here. This is why I reached out to this forum. Not to make wild, unfounded accusations... but to seek guidance from older scouters that really seem to have my level of passion... and who want to see everyone (especially BSA) do the right thing. 

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

No, just the Chapter 11 announcement that sent people to the official BSA claimants page. I received the AIS PEA from one of the individuals that didn't want to file a claim, but were forced to if they wanted to disclose any information to BSA. It was after that.... they were approached by AIS that they had received the claim and would be working the claims process with them, which is when the AIS PEA was signed. After that, the claimant was kicked over to AVA Law. 

My whole point is that something shady is afoot and I don't feel bad for BSA because they opened up this Pandora's Box... again, based on the first-hand information I have seen and heard for myself.

I have a string of expletives to unleash when I see the rest of this trail of bread crumbs, er, loaves. Going to get a pillow so my wife doesn't think I cut off some fingers or discovered my old car is missing. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

No, just the Chapter 11 announcement that sent people to the official BSA claimants page.

So, again, absolutely nothing from BSA or the LC directing people to AIS, which was your original claim and for which you STILL have no provided any evidence or proof and what you have says the exact opposite.

I believe a Scout is Honest, and I think you are making an Honest mistake or misunderstanding here OR were fed bad information by your SE.

What I and others are telling you here is that it would be illegal for BSA to enter into any kind of agreement to direct claimants/creditors to a particular law firm. I suspect your SE simply misspoke or AIS was saying things that were not true, but it was NOT BSA that did it.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I suspect your SE simply misspoke or AIS was saying things that were not true, but it was NOT BSA that did it.

If any "official" website for claims registration or reporting lead to AIS contacting a would be claimant, that is the same thing, unless the system was hacked. Redirection of a contact is, effectively, a direction/recommendation. I'll wait on the pillow dealio until I see the rest of the trail.