Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[Gilwell_1919]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

Thank you. And I hope it does. As for Tim Kosnoff... I have had direct contact with that vulture (tim@kosnoff.com). He is the #1 perpetrator behind this IMHO. What I think is going on... 

These law firms hired on a third-party CA/MA company to get clients, all under the guise of the loosely pieced together AIS coalition. I am not going to say BSA definitely colluded with AIS, but based on what I have seen and how folks in my LC were being directed to files claims (even if they just want to provide information), makes me think there was something shady going on. Maybe this is just my own conjecture... but... all I can do is use the information and documents I have to analyze and formulate my own take on this situation. Nothing really makes sense... so, again, that is why I am reaching out to this forum. Timmy Kosnoff can monitor all he likes... I hope I am correct and this all comes out and he goes to jail. He is a visceral, rapacious (and repugnant) lawyer that offers nothing to humanity. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I am not going to say BSA definitely colluded with AIS

Except that was literally what you claimed originally.

17 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

BSA and LCs asked people to come forward if they had any knowledge of ANY abuse that may have occurred. BSA then directed those complaints/claims over to the Abused in Scouting Coalition.

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Except that was literally what you claimed originally.

17 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

BSA and LCs asked people to come forward if they had any knowledge of ANY abuse that may have occurred. BSA then directed those complaints/claims over to the Abused in Scouting Coalition.

Digital redirection is, in fact, direction/indirect recommendation, if this is correct. Direct nexus: this --> then that --> then the other thing. I'll wait to see the rest. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[Gilwell_1919]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

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. 

I agree. My wife and I both participate in scouting because we believe in Baden Powell's vision to help turn young people into great human beings. As a corporate executive myself, I can understand the "professional side" of BSA, but... it is now conflicting with the Scout Law and Oath that I have literally followed my entire life since I was a wee cub scout. 

So... any advice on how I should proceed with my support to scouting? Do I 1). protect scouting and the youth I serve, 2). do I protect my national-level CO, 3). do I just sit on my hands and hope it all works out in the end? 🙃

[CynicalScouter]

To be clear: I am not talking about what claims and assertions AIS or its claims aggregators made. They could have been lying like rugs.

What I am saying is that you @Gilwell_1919 asserted BSA and the LCs were "directing those complaints/claims over to the Abused In Scouting Coalition."

Thus far there's still not one bit of evidence and if there was (like a slide from an SE) that said as such it would either be a) a mistake on the part of the SE b) "conjecture" (to use your word) or c) evidence of a bankruptcy claims collusion between debtor and claimant-attorneys.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Digital redirection is, in fact, direction/indirect recommendation, if this is correct. Direct nexus: this --> then that --> then the other thing.

But there's no evidence of that either. The BSA reorg website doesn't mention AIS. None of their materials do. At all.

Unless the accusation is that BSA and the LCs collected confidential claims information or similar data and then directed that information to AIS. Again, if so that's a bankruptcy collusion between debtor and creditor-attorneys.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Gilwell_1919]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Except that was literally what you claimed originally.

I cannot prove what happened in the ether. People filed claims on the Official BSA portal... and then they were contacted by AIS. Does that prove colluding? Maybe... maybe not. But... From my end... sure... I stand by my analysis that BSA was doing this. 

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

1). protect scouting and the youth I serve, 2). do I protect my national-level CO, 3). do I just sit on my hands and hope it all works out in the end? 🙃

I'm not an insider, but yes, no, no.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

But there's no evidence of that either. The BSA reorg website doesn't mention AIS. None of their materials do. At all.

This was initially in 2019, if I understood correctly.

[Gilwell_1919]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To be clear: I am not talking about what claims and assertions AIS or its claims aggregators made. They could have been lying like rugs.

What I am saying is that you @Gilwell_1919 asserted BSA and the LCs were "directing those complaints/claims over to the Abused In Scouting Coalition."

Thus far there's still not one bit of evidence and if there was (like a slide from an SE) that said as such it would either be a) a mistake on the part of the SE b) "conjecture" (to use your word) or c) evidence of a bankruptcy claims collusion between debtor and claimant-attorneys.

Again... I don't have access to that particular google drive anymore... but I have reached out to my DC successor and asked for them. Once I get them... I will glad share with the group. 

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I cannot prove what happened in the ether. People filed claims on the Official BSA portal... and then they were contacted by AIS. Does that prove colluding? Maybe... maybe not. But... From my end... sure... I stand by my analysis that BSA was doing this. 

I'd say, affidavit(s) from those who experienced this firsthand. And, pronto. Sounds like they are there for the asking and a trip to the Notary.

Edited August 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This was initially in 2019, if I understood correctly.

Yep. And that website didn't even EXIST in 2019. While the domain was purchased in May 2019 (indicating BSA knew it was heading for bankruptcy at that point, interesting) it was a blank page until February 2020 when the bankruptcy was filed.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200501000000*/bsarestructuring.org

https://whois.domaintools.com/bsarestructuring.org

Again, note the claim.

26 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

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

A page that didn't exist in 2019.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To be clear: I am not talking about what claims and assertions AIS or its claims aggregators made. They could have been lying like rugs.

That is less egregious and doesn't implicate BSA, but nonetheless very wrong on multiple levels.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

That is less egregious and doesn't implicate BSA, but nonetheless very wrong on multiple levels.

Absolutely. 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, that does NOT demonstrate that BSA was involved, which is what I had questioned.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Gilwell_1919]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I'm not an insider, but yes, no, no.

This was initially in 2019, if I understood correctly.

Yes, to the latter. The original Nov 2019 RT PPP had the chapter 11/claims guidance. In Dec 2019, the RT PPP had the "seek AIS" if you have a claim. This is when the mess started. We had scouters with information, that didn't want to file claims... they just wanted to provide BSA with information. Our LC, after clarifying with BSA, told people they had to file a claim even if they just wanted to give information. Which is how the claimant number went from "maybe BSA was on the hook for 2000-ish plus claims" to the sky-rocketed 95K number, which is slowly being whittled down.... but still astronomical in my opinion. When those people filed their claims on the the BSA portal, they were contacted by AIS who said they were acting on behalf of BSA. As things have progressed... I am piecing it all together and emphatically stating some stinks. 

[Gilwell_1919]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I'd say, affidavit(s) from those who experienced this firsthand. And, pronto. Sounds like they are there for the asking and a trip to the Notary.

So... who would need those Affidavits? I'd say the insurance companies... not that they are bastions of morality... but one certainly can't hope BSA will hand them over to the court.