I'm sorry, I just can't get past this. Per Ron:
"So, then, just what was the MOU? Well, it was exactly what Brian,
(among others) told everyone when he tried to return to the Agora
board (to such a "polite" reception, I might add). As it turns out,
he was exactly right.
Sometimes, the parties agree that they want their case to be settled
and dismissed, but they simply cannot agree on all of the "little"
details --- so they do a "minimalist" agreement, which can be
enforced by the court in the event that, for whatever reason, the
money is not paid or, if it is paid, the other side does not timely
sign the dismissal. If both things do occur as planned, the MOU
simply sits there in the court record, sealed, because there is no
reason to act on it further. I'm certainly not going to say this
kind of "MOU arrangement" happens frequently, because it doesn't, at least in my experience --- on the other hand, it's not unheard of."
First, how do either Ron or Brian KNOW, SO ABSOLUTELY, what's in or not in the MOU?
Second, "cannot agree on all of the "little" details". The examples of "little details" are timeliness of payment (or making payment at all) and timeliness of processing the dismissal. "Little Details"? LOL Aren't these the most important, crucial things necessary to achieve full settlement? If these are "little details", what are the "big details"?
Third, "I'm certainly not going to say this kind of "MOU arrangement" happens frequently, because it doesn't, at least in my experience --- on the other hand, it's not unheard of.". Based on the examples of "little details", wouldn't these arise in every settlement ever achieved? But, they are rarely done. It sure seems there would be legal mechanisms available to the court in place and commonly used to satisfy these cited "little details", that is if any settlement were to be fully consummated.
Oh well, I guess I'll yield to their superior absolute knowledge. All I have is contracts experience, and experience in actually using MOUs for their usual intended purpose - contingency planning.
You'll note that even as they define it, it is a "contingency plan" - if this doesn't happen as expected and if that doesn't happen as expected (with a probable remedy).
What gets me most, I guess, is their "absolute" attitude. All I suggest is a possibility - which they obviously dismiss. How wise is it to dismiss any possibility when you're operating from ignorance?
I seriously doubt that they've read that MOU, and it honestly wouldn't surprise me if RG/PTSC hasn't read it either (How to keep info secret? Share it with the absolute minimum number of people possible, e.g., keep it in the TPL vault.).
JMHOs and observations.
And as I've said before, a day may come when more is revealed or becomes obvious, and the delusional conjecture of a mere possibility will be proven right or wrong. No problem if it's wrong IMO, it was always clearly declared a WAG - a possibility based on some perceived clues. But those who speak in such definitive terms, declaring themselves "exactly right", will face an insurmountable credibility issue - of their own design - if the "delusions" turn out to be correct. And I always thought that attorneys were expert at one thing over all else - CYA (and maintain your credibility at all costs). But this must further attest to their absolute certainty. Apparently no CYA to protect credibility in this case of dealing with an "unknown" is deemed necessary.
SGE
