Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[CynicalScouter]

27 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

So here is a question. If, during discovery/deposition of the claims aggregators, they identify fraudulent claims... does anyone have any speculation as to what might happen next? The same question for AIS, which clearly has lawyers/law firms tied to it... what might happen if it comes out that fraudulent claims were filed? Are those claims just tossed out... or would it give the insurers the ammunition they need to be more aggressive with their demands/motions?

You would have to go through claim by claim by claim.

First, keep in mind AIS did NOT use aggregators (so they claim) and Kosnoff insists it was the Coalition and not AIS that is to blame. Moreover, Kosnoff is claiming his signature (e-signature) was applied to many of these claims.

So far, the evidence presented shows that to be the case.

In other words, the only “tie to it” may be that the Coalition and their lawyers used the AIS lawyers signatures improperly and NOT that AIS and Kosnoff were the ones acting improperly.

Second, keep in mind that fraud/invalid distinction. Some claims may be invalid but not fraudulent. The example I used before is the victim who was sexually abused by two scout leaders and therefore filed two claims. The insurance companies want BOTH claims declared “fraudulent”. No, what should be allowed to happen is a) Claim #1 is declare an invalid duplicate and b) Claim #2 amended to include the information from Claim #1.

Third, their definition of "fraudulent" also includes claims with incomplete data. For example, and this was common, the victim filling out the form would put in their narrative description (I was abused in Waco, TX) BUT in the form for the blank for "State" then left it blank.

Ah ha! The insurers claimed Fraud! Fake claim!

No, it was an error.

Similar to the now legendary 1909 claim. Of course BSA didn't exist in 1909. One of the claims was supposedly from 1909. It was a fat-fingered data entry error. Ah ha the insurers claimed. Fraud! Again, no.

Third, it will depend on how prevalent. Again, the insurers wanted an "omnibus" rejection of ALL CLAIMS if they could find so much as ONE fraudulent claim or all claims with a similar characteristic. As the judge noted, that just isn't something that exists.

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientId=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d%3e).&tagId=1153&noFrom=1972

Again, look at the example above. The claim failed to put in the state BUT wrote in the space "Describe your abuse" that "I was abused in Waco, TX". They wanted ALL such claims immediately declared "Fraudulent".

Etc.

So let me very, very clear here. There is a light-year of difference between

a) an accident on the part of a claimant on their proof of claim (e.g filing two claims involving two scout leaders when it should have been one claim naming both leaders) or other de minimum mistakes and errors and

b) people outright lying and deliberately filing knowingly inaccurate information.

The insurers want to use evidence of a) and b) to imply that ALL errors/mistakes (a) are "fraudulent" (b).

Edited August 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Gilwell_1919]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurers want to use evidence of a) and b) to imply that ALL errors/mistakes (a) and "fraudulent" (b).

So, in your opinion... if they found "fraud" or even "mistakes" they are claiming as fraud... this could turn into a very, very long battle if they can convince the court to allow them vet each claim... one by one? Or is that not how it would work? I ain't a lawyer... but I saw a couple episodes of Law & Order once...  

[Gilwell_1919]

I'm asking how the process would go... if the insurers got their way. We know BSA cannot afford to stay in bankruptcy limbo for much longer. At what point, or rough timeline, would they need to throw their hands in the air and say fine... bring on Chapter 7... it was nice knowing everyone. I'm interested in this because I am about to start putting a lot of effort into helping to promote my national-level CO to be a bastion for units that lose their COs at re-charter and need a place to hang their hats. I never like being a pessimist, but I also don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time setting up a support mechanism if there is no hope for BSA. Not that anyone is clairvoyant and can predict what will happen... but an analytically thought-out guesstimate would be helpful. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Gilwell_1919

[fred8033]

46 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

First, keep in mind AIS did NOT use aggregators (so they claim) and Kosnoff insists it was the Coalition and not AIS that is to blame. Moreover, Kosnoff is claiming his signature (e-signature) was applied to many of these claims.

So far, the evidence presented shows that to be the case.

In other words, the only “tie to it” may be that the Coalition and their lawyers used the AIS lawyers signatures improperly and NOT that AIS and Kosnoff were the ones acting improperly.

Something doesn't smell right or is not fully explained.  Can someone explain why a 2nd set of lawyers would use the signature of someone from the first?  Or were they formally or informally partnered in this at that time or during a transition?  Something just does not smell right about the complaint?   

And given the case load, I'd really find it hard to believe each person who signed talked to each claimant directly.  I'd expect lots of questionably fast signatures.

[SiouxRanger]

19 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I am about to start putting a lot of effort into helping to promote my national-level CO to be a bastion for units that lose their COs

A big consideration is whether National survives and controls its intellectual property.

If National is liquidated, depending on who purchases National's intellectual property, there may be no Scout Handbooks published in the future until they come into the public domain.  That could be a couple of decades.

Someone seeking to continue a Scouting program in the absence of National will be purchasing Scout Handbooks from eBay.  And rank patches and medals.

And, whomever operates the unit will not have any insurance (they may not have any now).  And they will need to make arrangements for meeting space. There will be no training provided unless volunteers continue to carry the torch, use training materials last available before National's collapse as supplemented by them.

Ad hoc and grassroots. That is where all will be, unless whomever acquires National's intellectual property desires to continue on.

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

A big consideration is whether National survives and controls its intellectual property.

If National is liquidated, depending on who purchases National's intellectual property, there may be no Scout Handbooks published in the future until they come into the public domain.  That could be a couple of decades.

Someone seeking to continue a Scouting program in the absence of National will be purchasing Scout Handbooks from eBay.  And rank patches and medals.

And, whomever operates the unit will not have any insurance (they may not have any now).  And they will need to make arrangements for meeting space. There will be no training provided unless volunteers continue to carry the torch, use training materials last available before National's collapse as supplemented by them.

Ad hoc and grassroots. That is where all will be, unless whomever acquires National's intellectual property desires to continue on.

If national fails, the LCs might have rights to continue IP usage.  The failure of a business partner is not a mutual suicide pact.  Who ever receives the IP ownership would need to partner with those already using the IP.

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If national fails, the LCs might have rights to continue IP usage.  The failure of a business partner is not a mutual suicide pact.  Who ever receives the IP ownership would need to partner with those already using the IP.

We don't know WHAT would happen. Per US law/the Congressional Charter the IP belongs to BSA.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/30905
 

Quote

36 U.S. Code § 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words

The corporation [Boy Scouts of America] has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

 

We have never, ever, had a Congressionally Chartered org go into Chapter 7. The question came up early: can a BANKRUPTCY judge set aside federal law and declare certain provisions like that void? The answer is probably no, she cannot; it would have to go into U.S. District Court.

Edited August 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[David CO]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Ok, I moved some of the non legal discussion to the other thread.  

 

It's time to move more non-legal stuff to the other thread.  I wonder how long it will take before you get tired of doing it.  

[SiouxRanger]

7 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If national fails, the LCs might have rights to continue IP usage.  The failure of a business partner is not a mutual suicide pact.  Who ever receives the IP ownership would need to partner with those already using the IP.

Well, intellectual property rights are no different in legal concept than owning a building or Philmont.  In a Ch 7 liquidation, all would be sold, and the proceeds distributed to creditors  Those assets will not simply pass down by some process to the LC's.  The LC's are separate legal corporations.  The LC's might pool their assets and purchase National's intellectual property rights, but it will not be a gift to them. The new owner could simply discontinue publication of the Scout Handbook.  If I buy a car, I don't have to drive it. The inventory of Scout Handbooks already published and on the market would remain, until consumed, and then there would be no more.

I don't know what the likelihood is that someone would buy those rights and do nothing with them, but my point is that control might be lost to an entity not holding the same beliefs as those in the Movement.

[CynicalScouter]

32 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Something doesn't smell right or is not fully explained.  Can someone explain why a 2nd set of lawyers would use the signature of someone from the first? 

TBD. If I had to guess it was because they wanted to hide the fact they were mass cranking these with only a few lawyers.

[yknot]

22 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

A big consideration is whether National survives and controls its intellectual property.

If National is liquidated, depending on who purchases National's intellectual property, there may be no Scout Handbooks published in the future until they come into the public domain.  That could be a couple of decades.

Someone seeking to continue a Scouting program in the absence of National will be purchasing Scout Handbooks from eBay.  And rank patches and medals.

And, whomever operates the unit will not have any insurance (they may not have any now).  And they will need to make arrangements for meeting space. There will be no training provided unless volunteers continue to carry the torch, use training materials last available before National's collapse as supplemented by them.

Ad hoc and grassroots. That is where all will be, unless whomever acquires National's intellectual property desires to continue on.

I don't think it's the "stuff" that will be the limiter, I think it's public perception. If COs wind up being truly damaged I think there will be little good will for anything scouting. Most people can't differentiate "scouts".. To the CO, the unit level person they had a relationship with was Boy Scouts. They mostly didn't see any difference between the nice folks who meet in their basement and national. If a unit person told them something, it must be true because Boy Scouts is trustworthy. The general public also doesn't differentiate between scouts. To them it's anyone with a neckerchief.  Half of them think Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are one organization. My point is that it might be hard for any scouting entity to continue in the future if some of these doomsday scenarios unfold. This bankruptcy is doing damage to the whole concept. 

[SiouxRanger]

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't think it's the "stuff" that will be the limiter, I think it's public perception. If COs wind up being truly damaged I think there will be little good will for anything scouting. Most people can't differentiate "scouts".. To the CO, the unit level person they had a relationship with was Boy Scouts. They mostly didn't see any difference between the nice folks who meet in their basement and national. If a unit person told them something, it must be true because Boy Scouts is trustworthy. The general public also doesn't differentiate between scouts. To them it's anyone with a neckerchief.  Half of them think Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are one organization. My point is that it might be hard for any scouting entity to continue in the future if some of these doomsday scenarios unfold. This bankruptcy is doing damage to the whole concept. 

I agree with you.  Public sentiment will likely be the controlling power which determines the future of Scouting.  I was just trying to lay out the bare legal mechanism. If control of the intellectual proper ty is lost, the Movement has no handbooks, patches, training materials, etc...  One cannot download a .pdf of the Guide to Safe Scouting if the "lay" owner does not make it available.

All I am pointing out is that if control of the intellectual property escapes the Movement, things will get even more complicated.

And I also agree that the public has little appreciation for the finer points of scouting in its many forms.  If a scout shows up at the front door selling popcorn, well, scouting must be fine, and if no scout appears ever again, they may not be missed.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

So, in your opinion... if they found "fraud" or even "mistakes" they are claiming as fraud... this could turn into a very, very long battle if they can convince the court to allow them vet each claim... one by one? Or is that not how it would work? I ain't a lawyer... but I saw a couple episodes of Law & Order once...  

This is why the court made the point of noting that any fraud (I mean REAL fraud, not "I forgot to dot an i and cross a t" things that the insurers want to lump in) may have to be dealt with now, for the following reason.

1) Fraud on the part OF THE PROCESSING. Let me get real technical here. Normally, when a proof of claim is filed, the claimant signs it. Now, their attorney may do so BUT (and here's the but) BUT the attorney has to examine the proof of claim to determine it meets the bare minimum of validity (prima facie).

Accusation #1 is that the lawyers were just mass-signing these things as fast as their hands could move or their e-signatures get applied. Therefore, the accusations in the CLAIM may or may not be true (don't know at this point, doesn't matter at this point), but the PROCESSING of the claim was fraudulent.

This was a MAJOR, MAJOR issue. The judge was VERY concerned about lawyer signing proofs of claim without doing proper vetting. And in fact, the ORIGINAL plan provided that ONLY claimants could sign

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/820848_695.pdf

Quote

    Sexual Abuse Survivor Proofs of Claim must: (i) be written in the
    English language; (ii) be denominated in lawful currency of the United
    States as of the Petition Date (using the exchange rate, if applicable, as of
    the Petition Date); (iii) conform substantially to the Sexual Abuse
    Survivor Proof of Claim Form annexed to this Order as Exhibit 7; (iv) set
    forth with specificity the legal and factual basis for the alleged claim,
    including all of the information requested in the Sexual Abuse Survivor
    Proof of Claim Form; and (v) be signed by the Sexual Abuse Survivor.

She was later convinced to allow attorneys to sign on behalf of Sexual Abuse Survivors, but she warned she was worried about this.

And it does look like there were mass signings going on.

Quote

Century’s preliminary investigation also uncovered irregularities. Century retained
handwriting and document forensics experts to review a sample of the claims submitted by
attorneys who signed and filed hundreds of claims on a single day. Erich Speckin, the document
forensics expert, describes the approach he took in his supporting declaration to determine who
actually created the proofs of claim and how they were generated. Those findings are set forth in
the accompanying brief seeking discovery from the mass-filing lawyers, particularly in sections E,
F and G.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

 Declaration of Stewart https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/874677_2232.pdf

Declaration of Speckin (First Declaration) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

Quote

The use of the same photocopied signature page on multiple forms. Hundreds
of POCs, all filed by Joseph J. Cappelli of Marc Bern & Partners, contain the exact same
signature page. The exact same signature page appears on all or nearly all of the over-600 POCs
Cappelli purportedly signed on November 14, 2020. The signature on the different forms is
exactly the same, including the form, shape, and size of the signature, as well as the same
photocopy damage pattern on each page.

That doesn't mean the CLAIM is invalid; it may contain perfectly valid info and a perfectly valid claim, but the PROCESS was fraudulent/invalid.

2) Fraud on the part OF THE CLAIM ITSELF. This takes on two parts. A) The Claimant is lying or B) The aggregators manipulated the claims.

Back to Declaration of Speckin (First Declaration) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

Quote

12. POCs with document creation date that is after the signature date. All or
nearly all of the POCs signed and filed by (or on behalf of) Deborah Levy, an attorney with
Junell & Associates who signed many hundreds of POCs in a single day, have a document
creation date that is after the signature date. I reviewed approximately 750 POCs bearing
Levy’s signature that had a signature date of November 3, 2020. The “document created” date in
the document properties box for these POCs is several days later, such as November 10, 2020 or
November 12, 2020.

Speckin (First Declaration) also goes into infinite, gory detail about all 4 aggregators. NOT just that the process was bad, but that the documents themselves and their contents were manipulated. I'm not positing it all, just read.

And the hits kept coming

Speckin (Second Declaration) finds even more outright, no joke manipulation and suggests that Kosnoff was a VICTIM of this.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/874559_2211.pdf

Quote

7. Timothy Kosnoff's digital signatures were created in different locations at
roughly the same time. Timothy Kosnoff submitted hundreds of POCs bearing his digital
signature that contain an audit trail for the digital signature. The audit trail includes, among
other items, the time the digital signature package is created and sent to the signer, the time it is
viewed by the signer, and the time the signature is executed by the signer, as well as the IP
address associated with some or all of these actions.

In other words, either

a) Kosnoff (improperly) allowed people all around the world AT THE EXACT SAME TIME to improperly affix his signature on these documents (which he has gone on record denying) OR

b) Someone without Kosnoff's knowledge and consent went ahead and did it anyway

c) The use of a teleporter

And it wans't just Kosnoff, other AIS lawyers were either having their names misused, with or without their consent.
 

Quote

 

13. I infer from the fact that Kosnoff signatures were apparently executed in different
cities at similar times that there were multiple people executing Kosnoff' s digital signature.
14. The same issue applies to Stewart Eisenberg: his digital signature was executed
on the same day in Los Angeles, CA and Philadelphia, PA.
15. Timothy Kosnoff's digital signatures were created and executed at a pace
strongly suggesting the involvement of multiple people.

 

Again, Fraud Claim #1 is that a lawyer himself/herself was mass signing this. Fraud Claim #2 was that those aggregators were using OTHER lawyers signatures, with or without their consent.

[Gilwell_1919]

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

TBD. If I had to guess it was because they wanted to hide the fact they were mass cranking these with only a few lawyers.

So the way AIS was structured... claimants entered into an agreement with Eisenberg Rothweiler, Kosnoff Law, Hensley Legal Group P.C., and AVA Law Group ("AIS"). If an award is recovered the claimant would pay AIS 40% of the recovered amount... of that 40% amount... Hensley Legal Group would get 50% and the other 50% would be distributed to Eisenberg Rothweiler, Kosnoff Law, and AVA Law Group. Not sure how any of their claimants were divvied amongst the four... but it's apparent Hensley is getting a lion's share compared to the other three. 

[Gilwell_1919]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, Fraud Claim #1 is that a lawyer himself/herself was mass signing this. Fraud Claim #2 was that those aggregators were using OTHER lawyers signatures, with or without their consent.

It's definitely a mess for sure, so I am glad the judge set this on at least some narrow path to get to the bottom of the claims aggregation process. IMHO, if they do get to the bottom of this and their was criminal intent... that party should go to jail and not collect the $200 for passing go.

Having read what the insurers filed WRT to AIS disclosing its structure, which referenced a lot of public social media post by Tim K., sorry compadre... I used to do interviews with bad guys in Afghanistan... the loudest and most adamant were generally the most guilty. I'll eat those words with a big ol' slice of humble pie if I am wrong... but something about this whole AIS structure doesn't smell right. I guess time will tell what comes of all of this.