Assorted Merged Stored Topics

You got the DOUBLESPEAK correct. But because the lawfirm knows it is virtually impossible to get money going forward. Very wonky wording but that is legal ease that the Judge will decipher.

So to make it straight talk the lawfirm is asking for 15%. Don't let the wording of 7.5% for retro and 7.5% going forward. The bill is 15% and it will all be paid from retro payments.

To confirm it for yourself take the retro amount of $442 million and do the calculations you will see it comes to $65 million.

.

Ron, I am in the same situation as you, yet, the "Very Lucky" person in your analogy is also saying he is wronged because he is paying proportionately more legal than we are because we are not paying legal on our "go forward" payments. Its all a frigging disgrace and yes GOC should ante up and do what is right, however, Harper has proven to be the bully and will throw everything at us until he is forced into submission. Hopefully the judge will at least lower our legal cost to a REASONABLE 20 or so million.

7,500 Veterans Win Class Action Lawsuit But In Reality We Lost

On January 9, 2013 an agreement between the Government of Canada and Dennis Manuge was filed in the courts and handed to Justice Barnes. On February 14 & 15 Justice Barnes will most likely validate the agreement. It was a long, hard fought battle over 6 years. As a member of the class I celebrated with all the veterans who had their Long Term Disability clawed back for decades!

Unfortunately the celebration was short lived. In the agreement the lawfirm is asking for 15% on retroactive payments dating back to 1976! That’s a total of $424 million! That is $63.6 million! Plus a GST charge of 2.5%, which is an additional $1.59 million. That’s a total of $65.2 million of legal fees that Justice Barnes might agree to!

A $65.2 million dollar legal bill that will be paid by the veterans! That’s right disabled veterans are going to potentially pay $65.2 million dollars to the lawfirm that fought and proved the government policy of clawing back LTD payments to disabled veterans was wrong!

So what is the government’s legal punishment for this theft? Nothing.

How could this get even get worse for veterans? I soon found out. The most severely disabled veterans are going to pay the lion’s share of the $65.2 million legal bill. How? Let me explain by comparing two people. Very Lucky Sgt ret’d and myself Ron Cundell Sgt ret’d.

We were both Sergeants who were medically released in 2000. We each were to receive $1500 LTD for 24 months. That’s a total of $36,000 or $18,000 a year. The illegal government policy however clawed back the whole $1500 dollars a month for both of us.

At the end of the 24-month LTD rehab program Very Lucky was successful and found a job. I, on the other hand was not so fortunate. My condition became worse and employment was not an option as per doctor’s orders. I did the required paperwork and I was declared by Manulife to be totally impaired and I will remain on LTD until age 65.

So fast-forward to 2012. The government was found to be illegally clawing back my $1500 a month of LTD. So I am owed $216,000 of retroactive pay. So I must pay the lawfirm $32,400 + $810 GST = $33, 210.

Let’s not forget Sgt. ret’d Very Lucky; he will pay the lawfirm $5,400 + $135 GST = $5,535.

I in no way resent the fact that Very Lucky’s bill is substantially smaller then my bill. He was, as his name is Very Lucky that his injuries while serving in the Canadian Forces was not severe enough to totally disable him. Actually I am envious of Very Lucky.

But I am totally disabled…unable to work…but I am part of the class that won a class action lawsuit against the government. But I am going to pay 6 times more to the lawfirm then Very Lucky.

So please tell me what did I win?

The Government of Canada was found guilty of stealing from disabled veterans. They stole $424 million dollars. Yet the victims have to pay lawyers to get back money that was theirs to begin with.

A veteran is a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces. When we were in uniform if we broke any military rules or laws the punishment was anything from being CB’d (confined to barracks), a monetary fine and or fines and jail. Not civilian jail. Military jail! We all knew these were the potential punishments. If we broke them we stood at attention and accepted the punishment as ordered! We may not have liked it but in the end we knew we broke military law and had to pay the consequences. So we stood tall, barked out “Yes Sir” and accepted the punishment.

Looking back I guess I picked the wrong vocation. Seems serving your country in politics has no pride or honor. They can, and apparently do, avoid punishment even when the law proves their actions were equivalent to fraud.

Guess the saying amongst veterans and serving members of the Canadian Forces is true when we compare ourselves to politicians…We Stand for Pride and Honor not Cowardice and Disgrace in our jobs.

Ron Cundell Sgt ret’d

lol @ ltd.

propat

thanks peeps was hungry.

propat

you really dont have a clue do you?

propat

written on the no vet left behind website by MC.

Next Steps
The hearing for settlement and legal fee approval will be held at the World Trade and Convention Centre (1800 Argyle Street, Halifax, NS) beginning at 10:00 am AST. If you are satisfied with the proposed agreement and fee percentage, then you do not have to do anything. You will receive a further notice after the hearing.

Class Members do have the right to file a formal letter of support or objection to the proposed agreement and/or fees, which will be considered by the Court at the hearing.

Letters of support or objections may be sent to SISIPLTDsettlement@mcinnescooper.com no later than February 7, 2013. You must provide your name with either your support or objection. Anonymous comments will not be submitted to the Court.

If you want to formally object to the agreement or the proposed fee percentage, you must include your reasons for objecting so the Court can understand your concerns.


PROPAT

mfors...... grade on paper F- homework not done...... B- for great story why it was not done (dog ate it maybe)

Peep bakes muffins and hands them out to mfors222 and propat

the judge to this point has not approved ore dissaproved of this agreement either in part ore in its entierty he will only do that on the 14th.

why do you keep talking about somthing of witch you have no clue?

propat

i hear from many people this will affect long timers more than 24 months... also i hurd many good arguments why it should not be pushed... you can call me a brain surgeon after 15 feb.. judge is done hearing arguments about propsal he been agreeing on the whole time to get to this point... this brain surgeon is correct about formality just to say yes.... arguments are done... class dont get to argue... you may think we do... fee;s only

up to this point last 9 month each time they went in front of judge , he already ruled on what may be good for class, thats what aloud the lawyers and goverment to move on to next issue.....i am pretty sure judge said okay reference this topic of the proposal, this does benifits the class and now move on to next issue... if judge disaprouve something lawyers would not of kept pushing proposal if he disagreed the whole way.... letters only good to influence fees......... i have no doubt judge agreed on each issue before moving on next topic in proposal

just some fyi from the same papper.

I agree . . . that class action settlements “must be seriously scrutinized by
judges” and that they should be “viewed with some suspicion”. On the other
hand, all settlements are the product of compromise . . . . Fairness is not a standard
of perfection. Reasonableness allows for a range of possible resolutions. A
less than perfect settlement may be in the best interests of those affected by it
when compared to the alternative of the risks and the costs of litigation.
While the court cannot rewrite a settlement, it can indicate areas of concern.45 In Parsons and
the companion BC action, the court’s approval was subject to the parties agreeing to certain
modifications.46 The courts suggested that the need for such a unique disposition flowed from
the fact that the proceedings were “novel and unusually complex,” and that the settlement
agreement itself contemplated that court approval could incorporate certain non-material
changes.

propat

part 2

particular member. Settlement approval should not lead the court to dissect the settlement with
an eye to perfection in every aspect. Rather, the settlement must fall within a zone or range of
reasonableness.43 In Dabbs, the court stated that the following factors were useful in assessing a
settlement’s reasonableness:
(1) likelihood of recovery or success;
(2) amount and nature of discovery evidence;
(3) settlement terms and conditions;
(4) recommendation and experience of counsel;
(5) future expense and likely duration of litigation;
(6) recommendation of neutral parties if any;
(7) number of objectors and nature of objections;
( the presence of good faith and the absence of collusion.

propat