[StBernard] Your right to choose

[Westley Annis]

JR,

In reading the full judgment, this type of arrangement actually has a
125-year history.  The theory behind it is that person A shouldn't share in
the benefits obtained by person B without also sharing in the costs incurred
by person B.

This is one of the reasons I can understand if there was a set-aside for
those who are in the expanded map but not in Murphy's Map.  But requiring
everyone who opts out to pay into the set-aside doesn't make sense.

I'm waiting on a legal opinion to get a better understanding of who has to
pay into the set-aside and who doesn't.

Westley

-----Original Message-----

Westley:
 
One of the key reasons that I settled with Murphy as quickly as I could was
because of this kind of nonsense.  Something is wrong with this picture.
People are forced to pay for services they didn't request nor utilize.
Perhaps a class action suit should be filed against the attornies involved,
since the judge has immunity.  Since putting a class action suit together
would be expensive and time consuming, at the minimum, anyone impacted by
this action should contact Congress and the Senate, as well as the U. S.
Attorney General and ask for an investigation into this matter. 
 
Something smells, and it is not just the garbage.....................

JR