We need everyone's support "1%4DennisM" Robert L. Barnes, Federal Court, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9

would truly love to vote on the issue as to whether or not the deal, is a good one! The problem I have with voting is that I can honestly state, without reservation or embarrassment, is that I don't know exactly what to vote, yes or no! The overwhelming amount of conflicting advice and massive confusion regarding the proposed settlement, is simply, depressing! One could argue the case, that those affected, should employ independent counsel so as to untangle the web of complexities posted to this site! It befuddles me as to why there isn't some representation from the legal team advising affected members about their options, concerns, confusions, hopes and fears! Why not, for example, hold extensive forums on this site and let the legal team field questions from the affected members over an extensive period of time frames, not 1 or two hours on the day of the release of the proposed settlement! Additionally, why not hold a closed meeting somewhere in the great city of Halifax where affected members of the class can ask questions and get some clarifications regarding their situations? This is nearly a one billion dollar suit! It would seem to me, that a comprehensive and personal explanation to those affected would be common sense! I'm more confused than ever and I've followed this issue much earlier than the certification proceedings! I've read countless articles and analyzed dozens of opinion pieces over the years. I was completely familiar with the issue at hand and believe it or not, was one of the affected persons who complained to the President of SISIP and then Defense Minister, Bill Graham, way back in 2004 when I became one of the so called zero summed! I simply can't vote yes or no, because I'm being asked to vote on something that I, and I would dare to guess, the majority could not accurately explain with regard to how this settlement will play out when talking the practical considerations of tax implications, retro calculations or associated legal fees.
Notwithstanding my concerns, I must say that I was elated when Mr. Manuge, garnered the impressive courage to fight this battle on my, and others behalf, who were unable to do so, due to multiple health issues. It still amazes me, sitting here tonight, how that gentleman managed to gather the intestinal fortitude, and decided that he was going to fight this fight! It's not like he was losing a great amount of money, and in the end, he wasn't going to win a great amount of money! His only explanation for doing this was, principle! Imagine, principle! I don't know this gentleman, never met him, never spoke to him and I have had zero communication with him over the years! Yet, this man stands up, tells his story, looks into a TV camera and tells me, and others like me, that he's going to do this for those who can't fight the fight! Amazing! I still can't believe that people like this still exist in today's world. Just when you you're about to lose faith in humanity and in the basic goodness of people, this gentleman stands up and states, that he's going to fight for others, based on principle! It's almost surreal in a way! I never thought that I would see the day, when this unfair practice would be terminated! But, here we are!
Meeting Mr. Manuge would be an honor and a privilege to say the least. I'm sure his wife and children must be very proud and elated with his stance and his determination in defending what was the right thing to do! I would like to make the suggestion that this gentleman must have been raised in an extremely grounded and nurturing environment! His parents and community must have instituted wonderful values. How else to explain the sacrifices of time, energy, stress, health and reputation in tackling such an issue simply based on the time honored premise of, principle! I find that this man's efforts has reinvigorated the sense of purpose in my own life. Not because I may end up with some financial resources that I felt were unjustly expropriated from me and my family and now will be returned at some point, but rather, this gentleman has demonstrated what it means to take and make a stand for those less able or capable! Mr. Manuge, I thank you in part for fronting this Class Action Suit, but mostly for affecting me personally by your selfless efforts in pursuing what was the right thing to do! Thank You!

beleaf67

yes i think this thred was originally ment for something elce.

propat

To many 1% for Dennis Topics.Great idea but overwhelming the forum.

Thanks Nav for your comments, I agree with you on most of them. I like most will be glad when this whole thing is over and it will not be over soon enough for many of us. War is hell and the fight that must of us have had and continue to have with our own government is prolonging the healing. Let's get this done and put behind us. It perhaps is for those that are not deemed permanently disabled to disturbing the proposed fee payout schedule but I have to support the law firm in wanting there money now. Extending payments into the future could have huge monetary repercussions for the law firm unless everyone involved in the class lived until age 65. It is pretty much impossible to broach a deal with this many plaintiffs and diverse portfolio's and have it so everyone is 100 percent satisfied. Looking forward to the end.

MC any comments on the letters posted here. Can it make a difference?

RCN, if you look at some of the sticky notes you will see that the Federal Court Rules only permit us to get a costs award against the GOC in the most extraordinary of circumstances and in law that was not available to us in this case. So as a result, we nor the Court have the power to force/order the Government to pay fees.

Question Is the Honorarium of 50,000.00 a 1 time( tax free) payment that Dennis is maybe getting? Btw i Dont begrudge dennis getting this money but if its Tax free, the Lawfirm did him a big favor.

Chief, as always , in my career, when a Chief came to me with advice, I always listened I am not saying you are wrong, nobody wants to pay huge legal fees, but in this case, I believe the law firm had a very good chance if losing this. My point being is at anytime the GOC can and could( look at the RCMP ) change the law or rules and wipe out any retro,interest actually everything. When vac changed the elb , there was and probably won't be any retro, this could very well have been us. This settlement is good because we actually got one, the interest rates are well above Bank of Canada rates,the retro is probably the most fair provision going back to 1976 , the legal fees while high, are still lower than we, in a contract, agreed to. The lawyers did not have to do this. The judge can only accept or reject this deal , if he rejects, we are finished , nothing. Also if anyone doesn't like the agreement so much, than opt out, Peter left that option open!, Chief, I want this situation over with , it's done, it's in the best interest of the class, is it perfect, no, but is it close, yes, For the 93 percent and the most severe disabled veterans this represents a way forward.

rcn i agree but i do think they could have asked for and have a good chance of getting 20% from the retro.that is high but class actions are high as the judge gives a lot for risk.if they went with the 20 ore say 17% from retro a lot of the leagal fee argumants go away so in my oppinion its just a complaint about wording.i may not be correct in this but its just how i feel.i think the total fees are fair not great but fair regardless of the wording.the main issue is the extra tax and i think we are on our own with this so if we can sort this out i think 100% of the class will be happy.

propat

Navrat, I certainly respect your comments regarding the settlement. I too feel that the monitory funds we are to get back are suitable but let's face facts we are only getting back what was stolen from us. If the firm did not seek for government to pay all or part of our legal fees then I agree with those that say they should have. I am also not saying that we change the deal after we won but what we are not being told is that the law firm most likely would not have been awarded the 30% as the judge decides what is fair, our firm new this and took it upon themselves to go forward with proposal that they hope the judge will support. I for one feel 60+million profit is high. After all it is the veterans that have paid once again the ultimate price.

"An excellent letter with class members on it holds more weight then letters not read" I totally agree with this excellent advice.

Peter may truly believe 93% are benefiting from this, but in his opinion, that might mean breaking even, after his fees are paid. he doesn't care about what we may owe in back taxes. I might feel differently if we had sued Sears, and the government was a disinterested third party, but since they were sitting across the table from the government, negotiating the return of money that was stolen by the government, they could have tried to negotiate some sort of tax relief for the class. But since they didn't, in my opinion, that is not a good deal. In his affadavit, it also does not state that our lawyers even broached the subject of paying compensation for the pain and suffering that was knowingly caused by our government as damages, or called something else. It also does not indicate any requests to have the government pay even a portion for our legal fees. As our representative, it was his duty to at least request these criteria, knowing full well that is what we the class were asking for, regardless if he thought they would pay or not. So failure to even to include those major stipulations as part of the negotiations, is not doing their job. How can anyone say this is the best deal possible if our lawyers didn't ask, let alone fight for a better one, on behalf of the entire class and not just the zero sum clients.

Nothing is perfect, but I think you are missing something, something is not right, Peter , our attorney , knows the numbers, the facts, why? Why? Would he ever jeopardize his reputation and the law firms image throwing figures around that are not correct, too unbelievable . Sorry, no matter how you cut it, it's a great deal and we are all paying our fair share

Well, IMO, we did not get the same representation. I didn't get anything that you didn't get, but you certainly get a lot of consideration that I didn't get. The entire class got full retro and interest but Zero sum clients had four different ways to get reinstated negotiated into the proposal. The lawyers had a third party negotiated into the proposal to adjudicate files for reinstatement. The layers decided to double the legal fees on the retro of the entire class, so that there would be no future legal bills owed by those who were reinstated. In fact, the ONLY aspect that didn't have to be negotiated, because it was a given, was a return of the money taken from us. I am positive NAVrat, that if you hadn't been reinstated, and were only getting 24 months back, you would be just as vocal against the proposal as I am.