I recieved an update as to why there is a delay in the acceptance of the final agreement

The hold on legal fees in trust would be 66 million, not 400 million as some suggest. This is about getting our money to us quicker.
The only bitching that would be done, would be by MC, who wants their money first. Can't blame them for that, we all want our money. I just don't see why the retro is being held up. Because of a decision on legal fees, which has no impact on the retro what so ever !!!
I can't make it any clearer!!!!
RETRO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGAL FEES!!!!!

Well put. Because it is this easy.
The agreement is done will not be changed. What don't you get?????
Release the Retro

I like what you tabled wiil

Here is what a sent JB for the hearing. Again, not having a clue as to what JB's jurisdiction or powers were at the time I just wrote MY thoughts. Probably didn't mean a FIDDLERS FUCK then or now but at least I tried.


Justice Barnes,
It with great hesitancy that i write this letter. I have reviewed the proposed settlement that was bought to fruition after numerous bargaining sessions between the plaintiff's and defendant's representatives. I am in agreement with the majority of the agreement, however, I am troubled by the fact that we, the plaintiffs, must assume the huge legal fees resulting from this lawsuit. I am informed that you personally referred to the government's actions in this clawback as being illegal? I have reviewed numerous case files regarding the awarding, or lack thereof, of legal fees in class action lawsuits. It seems to me, a layperson with no experience in your world of legalities, case law reviews etc. that there is always a huge burden to prove that one side or the other in these lawsuits should shoulder all the accumulated legal fees.
My point is that you must have had a very very good reason on which to base your statement that the government acted illegally in continuing the clawback of our LTD payments. Did you base this assertion on sound reasoning after reviewing the complete file, including the files and statements of several inter-governmental departments that ALL advised the government of the day to cease and desist this unlawful clawback? I realize there is a huge burden of proof when awarding legal costs to one side or the other in these legal battles, however, I strongly suspect this burden of proof has been amply met in this case, otherwise you and others would not have utilized the term "ILLEGAL" is discussing GOC's participation.

I do not know what your legal parameters, limits and leeway in bringing this case to closure are, however, I would like to make the following recommendations:
1) Approve this settlement as submitted with the exception of the disposition of legal fees;
2) Have the class members be reimbursed what they are owed with the exception of the legal fees. These fees should be deducted from the members as stated in the agreement, however, the funds should be placed in trust pending final resolution;
3) Conduct or cause to be conducted a full review of the decision to have the class assume these fees;
4) Find in favour of the class and redistribute the funds held in trust back to the members; and
5) Find the GOC liable for all legal fees due to their malicious and illegal participation in these clawbacks.

In summary, I do not know if you have the jurisdiction or power to implement any or all of my recommendations but I hope you give this your full attention and possibly seek other internal avenues which could result in the justice I seek

WOW

I

Let them bash away and for the record the only one inciting the bashing is the guy that told us to answer our own questions, he is not a lawyer but he believes he is better than most, our lead Plaintiff himself, classy but who cares beleaf I am ok, I am Steve Robinson so have your laugh Mr. Manuge.

oh belea everyone blows of a little steam here every now and then.(exept me of corse lmao)but ya know what,even though a part of you feels a little bad about it a part of you probably feels so frackin good you got something off your chest.keep the faith brother this world will turn.

propat

No need beleaf your like most of us here just sick and tired and pissed god bless you and hopefully this will end

Sorry folks, I think the bastards are getting to me!! Sorry to all and especially teentitan, think I'm just so tired of trying to stay positive in a sea of negativity! Sorry again! ;-)

Hold on now Beleaf, this isn't Titans thread, he was just trying to point out that paying out retro before the deal is approved and finalized is a bad idea by using the worst case scenario, which is that money would have to be paid back. And besides, if they did pay out the retro and the judge did decline the proposal, it wouldn't be the judge saying to pay the money back, it would be SISIP, because the next proposal may not extend all the way back to 1976, and SISIP isn't likely to let you keep that money unless they have to. We've all seen the stories of SISIP hounding Veterans about "overpayments", including after the clawback was deemed illegal. So to say that SISIP may demand money, back isn't that far of a stretch.

If you are tired of the rumors, then get upset at the lawyers, since rumors are inevitable among such a wide variety of individuals, when there is no clear and precise information provided by the people that possess the information. The lawyers know about the letter sent from the MP, regarding legal fees, and a possible conflict, but instead of sending out an email or memo stating that there has been or has not been any dialog between the judge and either party about legal fees, they choose to bash the individual who received the letter on Facebook.

OMG, this thread went off the rails when someone thought it was a good idea to issue retro payments and withhold max legal fees and taxes. This was all to be done without a court order and the government would just smile
and deposit 450 million in MC's trust account. Then the person who posted the idea drifted off to rainbow and unicorn land and teentitan tried to explain politely why it made no sense. The more I read on here makes me feel a little less abnormal every day.

I have no idea how you came up with that theory!! JB isn't going to create a scenario whereby payments have been made to people who are in dire straits and then put them through hell by requesting a payback, based upon a modified structural arrangement!! That's off the charts!! I try not to read most of these guesses and theories, posted to these pages because every minute, of every day, of every week there are new and completely unsubstantiated hypothesis submitted, that would make a person dizzy trying to make sense of it all!! So, I gave up on that after JB made his, weeks not months guesstimate! In other words, I'll wait until he releases his decision! In reading your input regarding the above matter, all I could think of was, some poor soul is going to read that, get upset for no good reason that he/she may have to pay back some crazy amount of money, and once again, add to the too, too many other unsubstantiated guesstimates pervasive to this site! I guess it just drives me crazy reading so many ifs, ands, buts, what ifs, I heard, this guy told me, I heard at the legion, and it goes on and on and on and on, good Lord, can't people just let this man do his job?

ok guys i could be wrong here but ive been reading a lot about class actions and it seems there will be a sequence.in my words what is relivent to this conversation.

1.the judge decides on the principles of the deal.

2.if he declines it goes back to the negotiators with a reason and instructions.if he accepts he verifies the language of the deal.by language i dont mean english ore french just how the deal is worded as to what he belives is its intent.

3.once any conflicting language is corrected he then looks at the leagal fees.(if the deal was rejected he will not entertain leagal fees as they may grow)

4.since both sides agreed to abide by the judges decission on fees it is unlikely there will be a long protracted batte over the fees so the judge by no meens entertain such an action as mentioned above.

5.the desision on the deal and fees will likely be released at the same time and if the fee is challanged the judge my verry well entertain such an action.

i very well could have this all fracked up on this but this is how i understand it.

propat

Beleaf I did not say anything about re-instated money I was commenting on the retro money.

My comment was if the Judge says no to retro going back to 1976 only to 2001 (6 years retro from the 1997 filing of the lawsuit) then any vets prior to 2001 would have to return that money.