Re: MY GUESS WHAT THE JUSTICE WILL APPROVE $31,879,200.00 MILLION DOLLARS or 3.59% of 888 million for 8591.5 hours hours of work= $3710.55 per hour

by **bigrex** Sun 17 Feb 2013, 20:03

I'm sorry but no meeting is complete without Moose Milk, and since the moose wasn't going to be loose, I couldn't attend.

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:55

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:53

Night all

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:50

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:49

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:38

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:34

ThomasCruiseAkaTopGunner wrote:Ward Branch stated ,( his closing remarks after justifying the fees charged)

Justice Barnes we will accept what ever you decide regarding fees without argument.

Additionally Mr Paul Vickery,Lori Rasmussen,Travis Henderson (DofJustice) -paul.vickery at justice gc ca -Helped Justice Barnes with a balanced view of the fees being charged.

The disabled veterans were heard, the letters were read and he J Barnes was moved by us.

The federal court has every detail in order now to make a great decision!

With my guess $31879200.00 million or 3.59% of 888 million for 8591.5 hours hours of work= $3710.55 per hour

I think it is safe to say 2 out of the 3 lawyers here will become Multi-Millionaires from this one case even after the law firm MC gets their percentage fee , and after all disbursements paid and after Revenue Canada taxes them.

I am glad they will be multimillionaires! << All our lawyers Dan Wallace,Ward Branch,Peter Driscoll (McInnes Cooper) deserve millions!

Definition of multimillionaire :

As the term implies, multimillionaire applies to those individuals residing in households with a net worth or wealth of two million or more units of currency. Only a small minority of households are indeed multimillionaire households. The term also has a more prestigious connotation than millionaire.

Stay focus on the Topic ..I want people to guess at the settlement like a hockey pool....I will be awarding a prize in Halifax at the 2nd annual Settlement hearing in Halifax 14th-15th of Feb 2014

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:31

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 19:28

Navrat“-Do you remember what you told me once? That every passing minute is a another chance to turn it all around.”

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 16:41

bigrex, you and I have disagreed over many things, but I stand with you on your position that this suit should have, and should be, only about the retro, and that the fees should be calculated ONLY on the retro amount, and paid out of the RETRO amount, only.

Once the clawback was ruled on, nobody but us disabled people, for as long as we are disabled, have any claim on those payments. This is horseshit, pure and simple, and I have seen horse shit, that they are even trying to claim the future money.

It reminds me of Germany, heaven forbid you run over a chicken in your track, because now you're paying for that chicken, that chicken's chickens and that chicken's chickens' chickens, ad nauseum. Crazy.

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 16:33

thank you, rex, thank you, Rex thank you,REX , I have been hearing about paying legal fees out of future payments which is BS and I am glad the judge sees that. One thing I think you are too generous with the fees, I believe 5 percent which would still make a lot of millionaries at the firm>

by **bigrex** Sun 17 Feb 2013, 15:01

I have stated that 10% including HST, costs and disbursement would be a fair amount to pay the lawyers, and that this should be based on retro only. Since even the judge said that the lawfirm has absolutely nothing to do with the future payments, or even sees that money, so their fees should be based on the money that they have control over under the lawsuit. This is different from other lawsuits where a account was set up and the class members were paid out of that fund including future payments, and the law firm had control the fund and were responsible for the administrative burden of controlling it.

by peep Sun 17 Feb 2013, 14:58

Where is acerman1234 or Cozula (tuppe) on this

by Guest Sun 17 Feb 2013, 14:51

What remedy then do your propose bigrex for a solution?

by **bigrex** Sun 17 Feb 2013, 14:46

Well Sparrow, seeing as when this action was started back in 2007, the Statement of Claim, which is what most class members would have read when making the decision whether to join the class or not, did not say they were seeking reinstatement of any benefits, only that they were seeking reimbursement of funds previously deducted, but it did include several types of damages and costs. So over the several years, the class size has tripled in size at 7500 members, and the scope of the litigation was changed to include reinstatement and future payments for those who qualify and to exclude damages and costs for anyone. So the class members who were added to the class later cannot be held accountable for something that was agreed to before joining the class and those, and those Veterans who did agree to 30% did so under the assumption our lawyers were seeking what was included in the statement of claim, so by changing what they were seeking without advising or asking the class, should effectively void any preconceived notion of a legal obligation of the class to pay that 30%. And according to the lawyers, only the Veterans who have recently been identified once they decided to backdate to 1976, still have the option to opt out at this stage.

by Sponsored content