Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[Gilwell_1919 42]

26 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

And, he substantively responded?

no, he wanted to jump on a call. after being persistent... and me not biting to take it from a paper-trail mode of communication... he called me a bunch of expletive words. nothing substantive... but... it clearly showed his character... or lack thereof. 

[ThenNow 1373]

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. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow 1373]

Just now, Gilwell_1919 said:

he called me a bunch of expletive words.

I take it no pillow was deployed? 

[vol_scouter 365]

@Gilwell_1919,

The BSA has its own legal department that would have carefully reviewed any materials that were released.  The BSA also has an IT department that would have likely developed the website a month or so prior to the release.  I have seen many materials from the BSA and none have ever discussed, named, or otherwise identified claimants attorneys.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

3 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

The main issue is that the some claimants, as far as I know, were told to file their claims online at the official BSA site. They told me they did just that. Afterwards... they were contacted by AIS who was representing themselves as agents of BSA.

No, the main issue was your claim that

19 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

in 2019/2020, 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.

To date, you still have not provided a scrap of proof of that. You have mentioned several times what AIS phone people said, but not anything BSA ever said or "directed".

Moreover, as explained, if BSA had "directed those complaints/claims over to the Abused in Scouting Coalition" at any point after February 18, 2020 (bankruptcy filing date) it were are talking bankruptcy fraud and collusion between debtor and creditor-attorneys.

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

[ThenNow 1373]

I don’t know if this happened, but I’m seriously enjoying this rabbit hole right now! I had a crap day yesterday, slept poorly, woke up early and went straight into wrangling and vexing over a matter of no eternal consequence. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Or, the AIS person, as a Permitted Party (via what group), jumped on a pro se claimant not already represented? 

I've got to think that is a maybe at best?

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.

[ThenNow 1373]

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. 

[Gilwell_1919 42]

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@Gilwell_1919,

The BSA has its own legal department that would have carefully reviewed any materials that were released.  The BSA also has an IT department that would have likely developed the website a month or so prior to the release.  I have seen many materials from the BSA and none have ever discussed, named, or otherwise identified claimants attorneys.

I certainly concur with what you are saying... but... I will wait for the RT PPPs. If I am wrong... I promise. I will eat my words and apologize. If I am right... well... what difference does it make. It wouldn't be the first time something was shared before its intended release date. Again, my main concern is why AIS was telling people they were acting on behalf of BSA to intake claims. If they were misleading people who just wanted to give BSA information, not file a claim, then that needs to come out it court. When I was told, by my LC SE, to direct people to file a claim, even if it was just to give information... why would BSA want that? That sky-rocketed the claims to an astronomical level. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The BSA also has an IT department that would have likely developed the website a month or so prior to the release.

Here's the thing. The webdomain www.OfficialBSAClaims.com simply redirects to Omni's website.

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/content/index?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&vid=792910

Omni, by direction and order of the court, is the official claims agent/taker/collector.

Even if the BSA IT department bought the domain on February 8, 2020 (it likely did) that was February 18, 2020. Not November/December 2019. And no claims data was even possible to be collected on that website until the 18th.

Again, none of this is adding up.

[ThenNow 1373]

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.

Edited August 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:08 PM, ThenNow said:

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. 

Because if BSA was going to collude with any group of lawyers, they wouldn't have picked Kosnoff.

Edited August 30, 2021 by elitts
typo

[yknot 1338]

Just now, Gilwell_1919 said:

I certainly concur with what you are saying... but... I will wait for the RT PPPs. If I am wrong... I promise. I will eat my words and apologize. If I am right... well... what difference does it make. It wouldn't be the first time something was shared before its intended release date. Again, my main concern is why AIS was telling people they were acting on behalf of BSA to intake claims. If they were misleading people who just wanted to give BSA information, not file a claim, then that needs to come out it court. When I was told, by my LC SE, to direct people to file a claim, even if it was just to give information... why would BSA want that? That sky-rocketed the claims to an astronomical level. 

I can't comment on any of the rest of this, it seems farfetched, but what Gilwell describes regarding web site launches is pretty standard. Those sites are often built months ahead oftentimes by subcontractors who are directed by an IT department. Anyone could have been given the link to a beta site and if it looked official wouldn't have known the difference. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

2 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Again, my main concern is why AIS was telling people they were acting on behalf of BSA to intake claims.

And my main concern isn't accusations AIS acted improperly, but you accusation that

19 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

in 2019/2020, 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.

I don't care what AIS did (well I do, not right this second). It is this misinformation that somehow BSA was in some kind of criminal conspiracy with AIS and "directed" bankruptcy claimants to a particular attorney/law firm group.

Again, still waiting on that proof.

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

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

Right, with the AIS time machine that directed people to a web domain that didn't even exist until months after.

Got it.

[Gilwell_1919 42]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To date, you still have not provided a scrap of proof of that. You have mentioned several times what AIS phone people said, but not anything BSA ever said or "directed".

Come on... I have repeatedly said that I am waiting on the RT PPPs that I no longer have access to. Also, I have repeatedly said that my LC SE told me to direct people to file claims online. Two of those folks were contacted by AIS after filing a claim online and then came to me, as the DC, because they were concerned. If they did indeed file a claim on the BSA site... why were they contacted by AIS??? Why the heck would I make that up?? I have no dog in that fight.