Legal Costs must be substantially shifted; No Brainer!

Agreed on the 30% reasoning. I suggest the % is the norm but we have the choice to pay our way if we want the % at end claim is our choice as client.
In this case we had 7500 plus all the future guys we could easily have paid the bill. But the key factor is its a risk and no one offered Dennis the money or support to do it so power to him.

Rags, when going in a collective law suit against the queen, no down money is required ones the clas suit has been otherrised. The fies at applying and other stuff is supported one way or the other be the crown. That is maybe one of the reasons we only pay 17% fee. In my last personnel law suit I payed 30% mainly because my lawyer had to support most leglep roceedure.

I just confused why it is not a simple fee calculation like 7.5% on your total take up to settlement 2012. Yes the ones getting the 2 year gift get to pay less over others but % is the same be it 7 cents on the dollar of $100 bucks or 7 cents on the dollar at 100,000 bucks. By % one pays more fees. In this type of case that is just the way it is. Personally we would have been better off chipping in 1500 each at start of this and paid counsel. But we did not cause Dennis did this on his own. No one rushed to pony up for him. Lets not argue negatively at each other with insults it is emotional. Vall ya got great points Dennis you have great points. Let us learn from each others angles and arguments to perfect a better position.
I hate to say it but there is an appeal avenue and an avenue to delay settlement on 14th so dont get to excited if it occurs.
2 thumbs up to everyone right wrong half wrong or just lost everyone gets there say and a pat on the back.

LTD4 I agree with your way of seing the hole thing, I was in your situation only 6 weeks ago. I had accepted the way things are but did not agree with it. Unfortunately a % is the only way that can be used in this situation, it's 17.83% now, and it was the same before I was determined LTD. As I said before I think using the 7% example was a bad idle but it was a honest way of presenting the situation. Please send your consernes to the judge if you havent so far. Some times life mile at us, some times!

Dennis I agree 17.83% is 17.83% in any calculation, I surmise that the issue is that although 17.83% is 17.83% for you, me and any other current or past claimant it is NOT 17.83% for future claimants because of the law firm NOT seeking any fees for any on going payments, Thus the burden of payment is non existing for future claimants, in plain English we the current claimants pay and the future claimants do not have to pay.

Vall stop, you look stupid now. You did very good work but you were rong. It hapens to all of us. By the way there is NO apeal. stop!

Dennis, to things happen here all the time, to many or not enough pills. I personnaly fogot them yesterday and yes I hade a very bad day. I think some forget them every day. Vall2012, georges here remember me, ya it's me, not so funny now hey!

Don t Worry for me Dennis -

I will, I repeat, I will appeal the settlement judgement in the federal court of appeal.

There is a twisted game to screw up veteran like me. With the less to gain from this lawsuit, vulnerable, which are not claiming large amount. But for some magic reason, we are all imposed the largest % of legal fees...Go figure !

Let me give you a VISUAL example - like we give to a 7 years old:

When you go to the ATM to withdraw money, They charge you a fee, the less you withdraw the Highest is you cost percentage is

In this settlement - that is exactly what is happening for most of us us.

And you did not see it coming so, sitting with all the lawyers at MC, You did not intervene, and you told me kindly to "go to hell" when I raised it - because I don't understand this -and put my personnel name on the forum.

Someone who does something like that has something to loose. I use everything to avoid loosing it. Tonight you demonstrated to me that you had something to loose.

Don t worry - I will fixed everythingthis for you. And will give you all the credit you - As long as you don't mentioned my name again.

Vall2012

Dennis I want every member of the class to speak up and know they were listened too if they wish...its healthy for them....we may disagree and they may not get their wish ...but its helpful to most for their recovery process to be respected and held in high regard......Cause I dream all vets will be healthy ....Again! - Not realistic dream ....but its a happy ending!

If anyone can tell me what is different from a class member paying 17.5% of 100 000 or a class member paying 17.5 % on 10 000, other than the totals let me know.

It is a percentage taken off a number, it fluctuates depending upon your number, up or down or wherever, but it is the same % for everyone, the difference is what you are owed. (your start number)

Sorry honoring your pm request to "not write" you anymore

Your no different than anyone on here, no one, especially me, is better than anyone else, nor should they try and cloud issues. I didn't get involved to make, keep, or dream up friends or people to think I am anything special. I am not. This is all getting old because I've been engaged in the process far longer, because I had to be, i chose to be, and that gives me the right where I come from to voice my opinion or counter opinions. So many come and go from here, like a revolving door....

I said all along opinions are fine if they are based in fact. So we agree to disagree, i hope and move on,
but for the last time you and Sgt Robinson are named as per legal laws of Canada on the federal court docket. THAT IS A VERY PUBLIC SITE AND HAD YOU HAVE DONE YOUR RESEARCH AND HOMEWORK YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. By writing the federal court directly your name will become public, as it will if you stand before the court and address it. This is not some feeble attempt at intimidation like Vall2012 has expressed but a true picture of a factual thing. Courts don't do anonymity. Thank God
Dennis

Dennis has a new buddy ....how do you do that ...over and over...the American state Dept needs your skills!

Sorry Dennis

Have a nice evening

Vall2012

Spell my name right Dennis
and nice educating you on the facts as well.
Night

Call of Duty. Your scenario 2 is the one you use. If you go back on the leavenovetbehind website and look at the Example of settlement and fees it becomes clear. In the example the TOTAL LUMP -SUM (pre-tax) is 372,989.
legal fees, disbursements HST total 66,504 which is actually 17.83 % of the 372,989.00