Legal Costs must be substantially shifted; No Brainer!

GO FORWARD PAYMENTS IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT are part of the settlement. There are integral part of the settlement money of this class action. And if this class action apply the % of legal fees like they are supposed to do in all Class action Litigation, everyone with pay 7.4%. (me, you etc no matter if you receive 5000, or 500000, we will all paid 7.5% in Legal fees

I know MC did a lot of explanation, I just pick up this little subtle distinction a couple of week ago - but I don't agree with this way of doing business, because the less you get the more legal fees you pay and the less you get the more you get screwed.

Our contention is here: THERE ARE NO LEGAL FEES ON GO FORWARD PAYMENTS IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. - Sorry if the go forward payments are part of the settlement or a result of it, they should be imposed the same % of legal fee that the rest of the class is paying . This way we - The class will succeed in bring down to 7.4% the entire % of legal fees charges and MC will get there 65.something Million.

Vall2012

ist on leave no vet behind

http://leavenovetbehind.ca/proposed_agreement

propat

VAl
Al,l the info you seek is out there and if anyone is still confused about legal fees, what they are and how they are to be applied, I cannot help you at this point, because if you cannot view comprehend, and understand plain black and white, from MC, from me, and from a few vets on here that have posted a billion times on the topic, nothing I type is going to give you the grasp you need.

Thanks for the respect and you have it back from me, but c'mon man...THERE ARE NO LEGAL FEES ON GO FORWARD PAYMENTS IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

Guest wrote: Vall 2012 You need to email McInnes-Cooper

Whom ever your are Guest - it s already filed at the Federal Court and a copy to MC. Got confirmation on Both.

Thanks for suggesting.

Vall2012

Actually it would be nice to know who your are ? send me a PM - Please

Denis

I respect you to much to engage in argument with you or being ironic about something as serious as that.

I stick to my opinion, your stick to your and I fully respect that..

For me, If those % of the Legal fees are not apply evenly across to the full class, and computed on the full settlement amount of 887.8 M. at settlement date. Beacuse right now I am paying 17.?? and just cannot figure out yet out 65 M/ 887.8 Millions = 17.?? of Legal fees - Looks more like 7.4% to me.

Well I will have a problem with this and will most likely use my right of appeal under the Federal Court Rules as a class member. I could be wrong but I will follow my own path on this, not anybody else path.

Respectfully
Vall2012

“If you can see your path laid out in front of you step by step, you know it's not your path. Your own path you make with every step you take. That's why it's your path. ― Joseph Campbell

ANSWER THE QUESTION OR IS THERE STILL A GAG ORDER IN

PLACE DENNIS ?

I take it Dennis, that scenario 2 is the correct way to calculate the legal fees @ 17.83% on my initial retro? because you really havn't answered my Question, other than saying Propat may have answered it. Can you please give me a straight answer. I need one, from You, or Mciines Cooper to get the facts clear. Pease lets take, the Tap Dancing shoes off here, for once, and be clear, what we are talking about.

Not your fault, it is this "means" sometimes, please do not apologise for a great question, COD.

I have to watch what i say and weigh into, is all, for what should be obvious to everyone.

So thank you for asking and thanks to propat for understanding, better than I, and for answering.

D

Sorry for the confusion Dennis.

Thanks for clearing that up,

Dennis I think propat, may have understood, what I was asking, sorry to not make it more clear. Basically I wanted you or MC, to tell me if the legal fees that MC cooper was asking for in this proposal , are in Scenerio 1 or 2, Please comment on that Scenario 1 or 2. the other info was just to make a clear picture of my situation. Just the Legal fee structure.

Medic, great theory, but not all on same page on here and it would get diluted very quickly, as all topics and just see the historical topics with the SISIP issue alone....

This was my biggest fear early on after decision and no appeal, and yes absolutely people have a right to offer an opinion, but as we have all seen, posts on here are not kept to an opinion...

Have some people done some good on here? Absolutely, but as you stated, you got to sort through it all to find the good stuff...

Dennis, you should post on separate TOPIC page. That way your clear views can be read as the Primary Plaintiff vs having us trying to decipher through all the rhetoric.
Your views are logical and realistic but dealing with personal assaults is beneath you...

Pro patria

call its number 2.

propat

I can not answer the question, 1 because I am not a tax lawyer or an accountant, 2. I do not have the entire case and numbers for call of duty, did he calculate his interest appropriately etc, 3. I would not answer anyone's personal situational questions when it comes to finance, taxes, legal fees, etc...

Think about it, if COD is wrong with his time, figures, calculations, and I use them to answer a question, who is going to be the SCAPEGOAT, for the misconstrued numbers, and the further speculation and finger pointing....

ME

Sorry, I may be a little on crazy side, but not stupid. (In know way I am stating that this is a stupid question or that the individual is stupid, just that I'm not)

This is how bad it has gotten I have to qualify or protect every phrase or statement

I AM NOT GETTING INTO NUMBERS