Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    1541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I know you are OK with it, but there are a lot of victims as you know who a) were told they would be 100% confidential and anonymous forever b) that they'd never have to do anything other than file that Proof of Claim and c) would certainly never have to be cross-examined about any of this.

    Yes. Solely and exclusively speaking for myself. I apologize if that post suggested otherwise. 

  2. 36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Item #3 Insurers’ Motion for an Order Authorizing Rule 2004 Discovery of Certain Proofs of Claims (D.I. 1974, Filed 1/22/21).

    Question for my fellow survivor/victim claimants. What say you about this effort? As I’ve said, I hate the prospect of fraudulent claims and unethical attorneys, but have trepidation about letting the camels (Century/Chubb and Hartford) get their nose under the tent. Curious to hear your thoughts and feelings. Both matter to me. 

  3. 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Until such time as there is, I plan on staying safely in my TARDIS and letting the issue drop.

    Dang it. I had my machine on text to audio while swinging in the hammock. Reminiscing about my Gramps listening to baseball on the old transistor, but this was exciting from the first pitch! 

  4. 7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    The OTHER possibility is that people didn't really file at the official BSA claims website run/operated by Omni (which again did not exist until February 18, 2020 at the earliest) but some OTHER website they thought was but in fact was a front for AIS.

    Agreed, but the statement was that the AIS secret agent accessed the POC somehow.

  5. 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I sincerely doubt given that AIS was headed by Kosnoff at the time that BSA would have launched this conspiracy with him/AIS.

    Why do you say that? From the launch press conference, he was clearly the lead dog. Stewart E. was a bit of a mess in terms of moderating and presentation. 

  6. 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I suspect that AIS got claims data from the filings with the court and ran with it.

    How did they do that? The claimant failed to mark the POC confidential, as opposed to publicly available? Not sure how the are accessed. Never asked, since I marked mine for confidentiality. Or, the AIS person, as a Permitted Party (via what group), jumped on a pro se claimant not already represented? Dunno. 

  7. 6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

    debtor in the chapter 11 while the LC's are interested parties (I am sure that there is a correct legal term for them).  So if a LC in some manner mentioned a large list of law firms (not a single one), is there still an issue if the LC is not the debtor.  My guess is yes it would be a problem. 

    Debtor in Possession.

    Yup. That pesky word and legal  concept of agency.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  8. 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. 

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    • Upvote 1
  11. 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.

  12. 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. 

  13. 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. 

    • Upvote 2
  14. 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. 

  15. 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

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...