Is this a DONE DEAL

Ha ha sounds nice LMFAO Enjoy you deserve it!

NO I don't want Rex to give up on the tax issue. Hell a tax nickel saved is a nickel in our pockets!

I was trying to say between the tax penalty and legal fees we are losing a lot of retro money. It's a comment that can be put in Rex's speech to Barnes.

Right now if the legal fees are reduced to a single digit that's a whack of our stolen money back in our pockets.

Just to let everyone know Peter and I have a respected opion between us. He has the right to go after as much as he can get for legal fees. And I have just as much a right to go after lowering legal fees as much as I (all vets) can get.

We all will see after the 15th Feb.... As far as I am concern and those that I have spoke with they are happy with the deal. and just waiting for the final approval. Then I'll wait for my cheque...Who know maybe I'll move to Belize with Peep but at the southern point in Placencia. I like that area.

I see, Teen your point, in asking Bigrex to argue the Tax situation to possibly pursuade the Judge to lower legal fees. If thats how I percieved your remarks to him, But I really think co- mingiling the 2 points will not be as effective as sticking to 1 Idea. Remember the Judge wants Focused and Meritorious, arguements or facts. He may consider lowering the legal fees due to the Taxation issue , all on his own, so be it! Just my point of view. But if Bigrex gives up on the tax issue, as I feel alot of people would like to see, for whatever reasons, we may never know what the Judge can do for us.

Rags is correct. we cannot lobby the judge to change the proposal, since legally he cannot alter the deal. But we as a class can lobby the judge to decline the proposed package, with reasons and arguments to back up your position. If you just say that we need damages, that will likely not fly, but if you give testimony explaining how you were personally affected by the clawback, and that the current proposal will do little to alleviate that situation once legal fees, taxes and penalties are calculated, he may take into consideration that not every class members is being treated fairly. And fairness is one of the litmus tests for such a settlement. To be honest, I'll be surprised if the deal gets turned away, but that will not keep me from lobbying for the fairest deal possible, and I do not think we have that yet.

LMFAO if you read through you will see where I was told to get info from MC by teen and I attached a quote from said that shows im right.

Now please show me with other then a comment with no fact where I am wrong in the above procedural approach.
No more need for comments just facts. If im wrong prove it by showing in fact of law or judge decision where im wrong. It is needed if Im wrong if Im not stay quiet as you confuse the members of the site.

WOW watching this post is so much more entertaining than watching Oprah... Can it get any better

We get info from M/C through Teen yet you still question and dont believe what is said from the horses mouth... I wonder what the topic on this discussion will be on the 16th Feb... I'll be watching...

Untill Mcinnes Cooper themselves come on here, and Say, Rags is 100% wrong, I will not listen to 3rd party retoric, Nor, will I call MC, to just get possibly the Best tap dancing show in the world, that I wont understand. sorry teen, I just feel this way, no offence bro. I believe Rags, and his side makes the most sense to me ATM.

Its one thing to talk, and use 3rd parties, and not record your your stance. Its another to put it in writing for all to see, for it to be truly believeable. The GAG orders gone I believe.

Please Please someone show me Im wrong on the procedure I laid out!
I really want to just go have a beer and forget this.

Rags said
The procedure is simple:
(1) The Judge will hear from the Plaintiff and Defense on where they are at on the settlement Proposal final points;
(2) The Judge will hear from the class for their inputs on the Class Action, At this point it is the proposal before the court.
(3) The Judge will weigh the presentations presented for and against and decide if in the interest of justice and the class and the Defendant is this a fair and reasonable proposed settlement.
(4) The Judge will then come before the Court and he speaks no one else does at this point and he will state his ruling of Yes I accept the Proposed settlement as presented or No I do not accept the proposed settlement as presented. He will then explain in detail why he came to that decision. That explanation will give the Defense and the Class a crystal clear understanding as to what is the issue with the proposal.
(5) The Judge will then ask the Plaintiff and Defense to go back and review the decision and return to the court with motions for what they want to do next -
If Judge said NO it is this (CHOICE 1 RENEGOTIATE) (CHOICE 2 GO TO TRIAL)
If Judge said Yes it is this (CHOICE 3 Have a signed deal in hand for Judge to sign into a legal decision, a contract under the Law).
(6) Normally at this point the Judge will give some advise to the sides as to what to expect in the future and what they should be doing between now and when they come back before him with motions. He may do this in chamber with just the counsel or in public.

Under stood. Well if you were 3rd you would know who I am and what i have done and in the face of terrible odds I have stood my ground when all was lost and won the day when many surrendered and in fear failed to show up at the fight.

I never left a soldier behind on that hill and never will.

On this forum I am a liitle scary to give too much personal informations

What Regiment are you R22R? I was 3rd

My opinion only I will have to research it -
Yes, But they cant be prosecuted because who they are.

"Without Prejudiced" Teen

Rex that is a great point about getting a break on the tax penalty to reduce the impact.

It might be worthwhile to also say if you see fit to leave the taxes as is then consider reducing lawyer fees so vets can keep more of their LTD retro. Retro that was illegally stolen from us since 1976.

Rags here's a question for you.... since the GoC decided not to fight/appeal the Judge's decision from May are they admitting the GoC for all these years was breaking the law?