https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/a...YCxer9sFQ86UnW
Interesting article and it always seems to be about the money but I am glad that Cindy is still with us. The only thing that is puzzling to me and perhaps this is only by state. I was under the impression that once you enter a nursing home that all monies and said property is now owned by Family Services or the nursing home. Also, I am curious as to what happen to Rochelle Lander.
Oh darn it wont let me read this as you need a subsciption.
A Man Hailed as Cindy Birdsong’s Rescuer Is Accused of Exploiting Her
The son of the former Supreme says in court papers that the man who sought to help his mother after she became incapacitated also took advantage of her financially.
By Julia Jacobs and Lauren Herstik
Julia Jacobs reported from New York, and Lauren Herstik from Los Angeles.
April 20, 2024
Just last year, Brad Herman, a longtime behind-the-scenes aide to celebrities, drew praise from the family of Cindy Birdsong, an ailing former member of the Supremes. He was credited with helping to rescue her from what they described as a friend’s undue influence over her care and finances.
But now, Mr. Herman has been named in a petition brought by Ms. Birdsong’s son, who is accusing him in court papers of financial elder abuse and misappropriation of her money.
The son, Charles Hewlett, who has been appointed the conservator of his mother’s affairs, is seeking damages and the return of what his petition describes as missing funds.
The allegations follow months of court proceedings over who should control a conservatorship overseeing the finances and medical decisions of Ms. Birdsong, 84, who was once part of a Motown group that became music royalty.
Today, Ms. Birdsong is not able to communicate and is on a feeding tube after a series of strokes. She has lived at nursing facilities and hospitals since 2021 and a judge ultimately put Mr. Hewlett in charge of her affairs late last year.
“Mr. Herman used his position of trust and confidence to take advantage of Ms. Birdsong’s dependency and exercised care, custody and control over Ms. Birdsong’s property,” argues the petition filed in Los Angeles Superior Court this month by Susan Geffen, a lawyer for Mr. Hewlett.
Mr. Herman defended his handling of Ms. Birdsong’s affairs in an interview on Friday, saying he is “committed to making certain that Ms. Birdsong’s estate receives all that is due.” He said he has an accountant examining Ms. Birdsong’s banking records and that he is “convinced that the accounting will be in order” ahead of a June hearing in the case.
Years ago, Mr. Herman said, he stepped in to help Ms. Birdsong at the request of family members who lived outside of California. He said that Mr. Hewlett at the time did not seem interested in interceding.
“If somebody else was taking care of her I wouldn’t have needed to be asked to help,” he said, later adding that “at the end of the day all that matters is Cindy’s welfare and well-being.”
Ms. Birdsong was a Supreme for nearly a decade during part of the group’s heyday after replacing Florence Ballard in 1967. She performed hits like “You Can’t Hurry Love” and “Come See About Me” alongside Diana Ross and Mary Wilson, living the glamorous life of a Motown star. But her career took a downturn after she was cut from the group in 1976.
Her finances fell apart — which she attributed to a “bad closing deal” with Motown Records — and she largely withdrew from the limelight. She lived much of her later years in what family members described as an increasingly isolated life at a Los Angeles apartment that she shared with Rochelle Lander, a longtime friend with whom she started a Christian ministry.
In interviews last year, Mr. Herman, Ms. Birdsong’s three siblings and a sister-in-law described their efforts to get Ms. Birdsong out of the apartment, where, the siblings said, her health appeared to be deteriorating and Ms. Lander was not sharing information about her well-being.
The siblings signed papers granting Mr. Herman, who they said was recommended by mutual friends, her power of attorney. In 2021, he orchestrated Ms. Birdsong’s removal from the apartment with help from the Los Angeles police and a private paramedic service. With power of attorney, Herman also set up a bank account for Ms. Birdsong that was in both of their names, according to court papers, an arrangement that Ms. Birdsong’s family members said they understood as an attempt to marshal the singer’s finances for her benefit.
[[Ms. Lander, who has not agreed to an interview, has in prior settings defended her care. She has not interceded in court proceedings that have followed Ms. Birdsong’s removal.)
Last May, a year and a half after Ms. Birdsong had been relocated to a nursing facility, Mr. Herman applied to be co-conservator of Ms. Birdsong with her brother, Ronald Birdsong.
But a judge in Los Angeles asked county officials to take over after they raised concerns about how her finances had been handled. The county officials pointed to more than $190,000 that they said had been removed from her bank account but did not appear to have been put toward her care at nursing facilities.
The court revoked Mr. Herman’s power of attorney, he dropped his request to be appointed her conservator and a county agency, the Office of the Public Guardian, began to oversee Ms. Birdsong’s affairs temporarily, until Mr. Hewlett was appointed last December.
In recent court hearings, Mr. Herman had increasingly tense interactions with Judge Lee R. Bogdanoff, who ordered him to produce an accounting of Ms. Birdsong’s finances and produce $120,000 that Mr. Herman had said he had in cash and cashier’s checks locked in a safe at home.
In January, when Mr. Herman handed Ms. Birdsong’s son a check for $71,000 in the courtroom, Judge Bogdanoff challenged why the sum was less than what Mr. Herman had earlier reported. In court, Mr. Herman attributed the difference to “offsets and deductions.”
“You’re not entitled to make any offsets and deductions,” Judge Bogdanoff replied. “It’s not your money.”
Although Ms. Birdsong did not retain significant royalty rights, the records indicate she was receiving regular payments — monthly checks between a few hundred dollars and more than $10,000 — from SoundExchange, which distributes payments to musicians.
The petition accuses Mr. Herman of making “significant withdrawals or transfers of cash from Ms. Birdsong’s account that were not used for her care.”
“We were led to believe Brad was keeping the money safe,” said Melody Birdsong, a sister-in-law of Ms. Birdsong’s, in an interview.
Mr. Herman has previously said in interviews that he was at one point responsible for paying Ms. Birdsong’s expenses at the skilled nursing facilities where she had lived. The petition does not fully detail the amount Ms. Birdsong has incurred for her care since her removal from the apartment, but county officials told the court last year that she had an outstanding balance of more than $30,000 at various nursing facilities.
A Hollywood Reporter profile from 2022 described Mr. Herman as someone who had “smoothed out difficulties” for Hollywood elite for decades, describing his client list as having included Frank Sinatra, Johnny Carson and Burt Reynolds, and one of his areas of expertise as navigating the Department of Motor Vehicles.
In recent years, Mr. Herman has been embroiled in a legal dispute with the daughter of one of his former clients, Stan Lee, the Marvel Comics creator. After Mr. Lee died in 2018, Mr. Herman sued Lee’s daughter, J.C. Lee, over allegations that she had made to The Daily Beast about his conduct, including that he sneaked into her father’s home, which he said in court papers was false.
Ms. Lee then filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Herman over his accusation on a podcast that she had slammed her father’s head into a chair, a story that she said in court papers was fabricated. In the legal papers she accused Mr. Herman of forging her father’s signature on loan documents — an assertion he called “flat-out made up” in Friday’s interview.
A judge dismissed Mr. Herman’s lawsuit against Ms. Lee and ordered him to pay her lawyer fees, according to court documents. In her defamation case, Ms. Lee received a default judgment last month after Mr. Herman did not appear in court or respond to filings. He was ordered to pay Ms. Lee more than $100,000. In the interview, he said he had not been aware of the recent court actions in the case and that he planned to appeal the decision.
Mr. Herman has said that he took on Ms. Birdsong’s case with her best interests at heart. But he was questioned closely at the hearing in January at which Judge Bogdanoff asked him to explain why he had not turned over money of Ms. Birdsong’s that he said he had. Mr. Herman responded that he had been working in tandem with her family since the beginning.
“Your honor, if I may say so, with respect and with humility, Ms. Birdsong would not be alive were it not for me,” he said, “and I’m proud of that.”
Thank you Resse. This article really saddens me. Cindy does not deserve all of this and I pray the Lord takes her home real soon. She was IMO the nicest Supreme. May she transition peacfully and go on to her final resting place where there will be no more pain and suffering.
Poor Cindy just can't catch a break. Hopefully now that her son is in charge things will go much better.
It's so disgusting when people take advantage of those who are incapacitated. This dude was making decisions with Cindy's money that obviously had nothing to do with Cindy. I get why the family probably thought it was a good idea to bring him in, but the fact that he's so connected to Hollywood probably should have been a good reason to skip past that suggestion.
Am I crazy or has it always been reported that Cindy's husband was Charles and her son was David? Maybe he was David Charles or Charles David. Or maybe I made David up in my head.
That's probably only in cases where there is no other overseer. All the folks I've known who have gone into nursing homes, the family [[and insurance when applicable) has always been responsible for the financial aspect. I've heard stories of patients having to be moved elsewhere when nonpayment has occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by captainjames
I thought the husband was Charles and the son was David as well. The last NY Times article identified them as such. I know Cindy referred to her son as "my little boy David" when she appeared on Regis and Joy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
But maybe as you said, the son could very well be Charles David, and they just used his middle name at times.
It’s absolutely not the case that the nursing home would be involved with a patients money. All they want is to be paid.
The person in charge would be whoever Cindy named in a Power of Attorney or whoever a Court appointed. Normally it would be her son. Siblings, ex spouses and people you share an apartment with would not be involved - unless there was a marriage like relationship with the woman.
But it does sound like at some point the lady Cindy lived with had a document Cindy must have signed appointing her.
And it does sound like Mr. Herman also got legally appointed somehow and paid himself quite a fee.
Normally the son and the Public Guardian would be the only people involved - so something was not at all right here. This sounds very poorly arranged in advance - much like the Aretha Franklin estate.
It sounds like Cindy is barely alive and possibly totally unaware of her surroundings. Care of this kind of patient in a nursing home would wipe out $190000 fairly quickly.
Why do people not attend to their affairs as they age and when they are well.
In Canada, there are many MAID’s these days - medically assisted induced deaths - and it sounds like Cindy has had no life at all for a long time.
Charles David.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
That is true in the case if Cindy is on public assistance. You're only allowed a certain amount in assets to qualify. I will not make assumptions in Cindy's financial situation, but the article does elude she was periodically getting residual checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by captainjames
There's much that we don't know. And much that I'm sure certain circles know. Was Rochelle a roommate? More than a roommate? Perhaps that's not our business either. Cindy clearly thought enough of her to sign enough documents to give her some power.
The biggest takeway is that our darling Cindy doesn't appear to be living a high quality of life. As a woman that followed God, I hope He wraps His arms around her and leads her home painlessly.
I'm guessing what, if anything, Rochelle had in "writing" wasn't legally binding, as she is now out of the picture. This POA dude was legit but obviously stealing from her, so now he's out. Chucky taking over will hopefully be what Cindy needs in her final years.
I wonder if Diana, Patti, Nona, Scherrie and/or Jean have been involved in any of this behind the scenes.
I think that Rochelle had some legal standing for quite a while - but there was manoeuvring and that changed.
Mr. Herman was in all likelihood doing what he does - working for these clients for a price and my guess is he will never be charged.
Unless Cindy was in a marriage like relationship with Rochelle, the obvious person to have been in charge was her son. And that was never done.
There is a process for the Public Guardian to be appointed where there are no willing relatives - but it appears Rochelle had legal standing for a while.
The normal order of rights goes spouse, children, parents and then siblings. Siblings are down the list - so it goes to show somethings went very wrong here.
To what degree they have been involved I have no idea but I'm sure they are aware of Cindy's situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
Given that Diana and Patti have become friendly in recent years, most likely they've discussed it.
In her interview for the book BUT WILL YOU LOVE ME TOMORROW?, Sarah talked about Cindy leaving the Bluebelles but ended by saying "To this day, Cindy has health challenges and the three of us [Patti, Nona, Sarah] are involved in her welfare, so we still love her." The book's interviews aren't dated but the authors said they began working in 2019, so Sarah's quote is fairly recent.
This is so very sad.
I suspect that Rochelle was nothing more than Cindy's good friend, with whom she felt she had a deep spiritual connection with and conveniently shared an apartment with her, due to her limited finances. Since Cindy was very much involved in the Evangelical Christian scene that I grew up in, I also suspect that she and her friend believed in the teachings of healing through faith and prayer. I believe this is why her friend allowed things to escalate to such a horrible point, where Cindy wasn't receiving proper care in their apartment. With some people, they take that line of thinking too far with their faith, to the point of delusion and mental illness, where all logic and practicality fades away. Some will even resist seeking medical attention for an illness, because they strongly believe that God will intervene and heal them. I think in her friend's crazy mind, she thought she was doing Cindy right by taking care of her herself, but was clearly neglecting and isolating her. It's also possible that Cindy signed a power of attorney to this friend, when she was already starting with her illness, and did not have full awareness of the decision she had made. I had an aunt who had dementia and when she started with her disease, a good friend of hers who was a priest had convinced her to assign him as her power of attorney and also had her revise her will, with him as the beneficiary of her home. These types of situations are sadly far too common.
Brad Herman does sound like an opportunist that Cindy's family had blindly trusted in the midst of a desperate situation.
Someone posted an article in the forum right before Sarah died where she said she was involved in taking care of Cindy. One of the articles about Cindy's troubles did say that Scherrie was with David when they tried to see Cindy but that Rochelle lady tried to block them. Can't remember if they were successful at getting past her or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by reese
All of this really turns my stomach. Cindy does not deserve this.
If they are going to feed off her carcus can't they at least wait until she is dead?
Well now that her son is in charge, hopefully no more vultures can get to Cindy. Looks like the family is rallying around her.
Yes and may the good Lord take her home soon MaryBrewster.Quote:
Originally Posted by marybrewster
Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
I read somewhere where Diana would send a car for Cindy and have her come and stay at both her Beverly Hills home and Malibu home and my good friend Ro who knows Tracey real well and knew Cindy for years said Diana had given money for Cindys care but stopped a few years ago when she could no longer get access to Cindy. I never asked who stopped the access as it was none of my business. Its so sinful to neglect those with dementia and stop them from seeing family and friends.
I know this is rife with emotion.
But the issue here is and was Cindy’s.
She chose to give some powers to Rochelle to start. That was the beginning of the debacle.
Thereafter either there was Court involvement or perhaps pressure brought on Rochelle to give way - and then the strange choice is Mr. Herman who may have been worse than Rochelle. To get back his “fees” will be a fight and I’m sure the family understood there would be some cost.
Cindy could also have signed a Health Care Directive providing instructions about end of life care. She also could could have done a Representation Agreement specifying what measures should have been taken for her health and naming a representative.
You do not have to be wealthy to do and need these documents.
She appears to have done next to nothing - very similar to what Aretha Franklin did.
Why would people do this?
A lot of people are too busy trying to live to worry about dying. Cindy apparently wasn't a wealthy woman, although she may have been comfortable. She had a ministry, which likely took up a lot of her time and energy. Even as people age, we often view ourselves as younger than we are, that there is a lot of time ahead. Death and dying is for old people and as far as I can tell, a lot of people aren't sure about when they officially hit "old".Quote:
Originally Posted by jobeterob
Cindy suffered a stroke that incapacitated her and it likely came on without any forward warning. Because Cindy isn't capable of speaking for herself, we'll never know what her wishes were, who she wanted involved, or if she had plans to make her wishes official before life did what life does. If all of this is Cindy's fault, well she sure is paying a hefty price without us being judgmental about it.
As far as Aretha goes, she had a will. Why she stuffed it in the couch cushions, only the Queen knows. But she made her wishes known regarding her properties and her music via the will, which a court has upheld. Her sons entering a legal battle could have been avoided if Aretha had destroyed the previous will, causing confusion.
For $1000, she could have covered it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
As soon as you have children, you need a will - it’s the only way to pass guardianship of your children.
If you have some assets, you need a will.
If you are 50 with some assets, you need a will.
If you have absolutely nothing and no children, let it all go.
A power of attorney and health care directive go with it.
Aretha caused 6 years of litigation and untold legal fees because she played games with her will and made it all unclear if it was valid.
Did you notice when Mary died, we never heard a word. That was because as she might have said “we got it covered baby”. She was smart.
I've been going through this with my Mother now for several years. She suffered two strokes and had to go into a nursing home for a few months for physical rehabilitation. It's been a learning experience. I always knew my Mother was smart, but this experience has taught me just how shrewd and brilliant she really is. I didn't realize it, but she made the move to put my name on the house- I don't know when she did it, but as it turns out, it was a very smart move.Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
Nursing homes are not at all the best place to land. Don't fool yourself, they are there to make a profit. Someone above was looking out for us, because the people where my Mom was were actually very good with communicating EVERYTHING with me as far as how payment, insurance and what not works. They took time to make sure I knew what to prepare for. When they asked if the house was in my Mother's name alone, I told them my name was on it as well and the lady said that was VERY good because then they couldn't go after the house as a source for payment. Then these people, explained how insurance would pay for so many days before the finances would become my responsibility. BUT they also explained how [[legally) I could do a sort of "reset" where the insurance would sort of start over with another period of payment.
I'm paraphrasing a LOT but I encourage everyone here- if you have parents, if you are a parent, learn how all of this works before you find yourself in this situation. Learn about POAs, trusts, wills, how to make sure you don't find yourself in hot water. Most important, DON'T leave the care to anyone else. Family should be involved 100% but I also learned through this experience, there are a lot of people whose families really couldn't care less when one of their parents end up in a nursing home.
All good advice. The issue is that when people are concerned about their next meal, keeping a roof over their heads, electric bills, tuition, etc, the last thing on a lot of people's minds are "What if I die?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jobeterob
We have no idea why Aretha did what she did, so "playing games" is a conclusion without evidence. And the fact that she was suffering from cancer, under a lot of mental anguish on top of the meds and the stress cancer was obviously taking on her body, there should have been some question about whether she was in sound mind when she wrote the will, but especially when she stuffed the thing in the couch.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobeterob
Personally, I've always envisioned that she was on the couch, with a cup of banana pudding, as we know she loved, watching a rerun of Matlock, when it occurred to her, "Oh dang, I need to make a new will". So she grabs a spiral notebook, jots down her thoughts, tears it out and makes a mental note to take it to her lawyer ASAP. But then a particularly exciting scene erupts on Matlock. She grabs her banana pudding and finishes it, engrossed in the "action". [[And I use "action" loosely, as I'm not sure anything on Matlock could be described as "action".) After three or four more cups of pudding- because that's usually how much I eat in one sitting when banana pudding is in reach- Aretha gets afflicted with the "itis" and falls asleep. When she wakes up in the morning, she has completely forgotten about her will, which disappeared between the couch cushions as she attempted to get comfortable during her sleep in the middle of the night.
I'm almost positive that's what happened, but I can't say for sure.:cool:
More good advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance
I would add, though, that when choosing family, do so only if they can be trusted. There are some ruthless demons out there who would rob and discard a relative faster than some strangers would.
I would also caution people to treat their children right. I joke with my mom all the time about, if the time should come, that she's getting placed in the nastiest, dirtiest, crummiest nursing home we can find, whenever she says something that annoys me. But she knows that's just jokes. I'd wipe her butt with my bare hands before I put her in a place that is only concerned about money and not the welfare of the patients charged to their care. My mom did a great job- not perfect, but great nonetheless- and I'm blessed to have her. I know of so many others who had sorry butt parents, and while some children will suck it up and do what's right regardless of how crappy their parents are, I know some others who think payback is a mutha. So be careful how you treat your children. They may someday be in charge of your life in a serious way.
If you really have a couple grand in the bank and wonder where the next meal is coming from, ok, skip the will. I’m just not so sure Cindy fell in the “absolutely nothing” category but she got as far as naming Rochelle as the attorney for starters.
Aretha Franklin had plenty of assets and she was amazingly inept or stupid or she didn’t care at all. I think Aretha was very stubborn and did what she dang well wanted and expected it to go - she just didn’t understand it would take 6 years and $1.5 m in legal fees to several lawyers before they could work it out.
They should have both talked to Mary about making proper arrangements
@JRob,Quote:
Originally Posted by jobeterob
In the states at least, putting wishes relating to guardianship of children has no legal effect aside from that, letting everyone know what you want.
To transfer guardianship upon death, it would have to be done ahead of time, such as finding a person who is trusted enough to possibly be appointed during the testator's [[the person executing the will) lifetime as a "co-guardian." Then, upon death, that person would then be the sole guardian.
I had the sad duty, although it was the right thing to do, of putting this in place for a client who had a terminal brain tumor. Upon the client's death, her best friend who was named as co-guardian then became the child's sole guardian. Although a couple relatives squawked about it when it was put in place, upon the lady's death there was nothing they could do to stop it as all objections were dealt with at the time the co-guardianship was put in place.
Kenneth
Is it not effective on death as when Michael Jackson named Katherine and then Diana as guardians of his children upon his death ?
That’s how it works in Canada.
Getting old isn’t easy and doing some basic estate planning to reflect your wishes is wise.
I absolutely agree that even if not legally binding, it sends a powerful message to those you leave behind as to your preferences. I don't do estate planning, but I know you can't craft via a Will that your children will be cared for by certain family members or others who are willing to be guardians. But yes, discussing these things with family and expressing your wishes in testamentary documents is, I think, essential.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobeterob
I understand what everyone has said and I can understand why some stay at bay. However, I had a similar incident like this with a love one and I don't care if who you are because that is my my relative. I would have challenge Rochelle Lander before now because that is my relative whether sister, daughter, mother, etc.
This is because you are a caring and decent person. Many times, things can be worked out by reasonable family members.Quote:
Originally Posted by captainjames
Litigation lawyers only see the very worst fights - like the Aretha Franklin fight that lasted 6 years and cost untold money.
But lots of times the fight is over a lot less than was in the Franklin estate and 15 years after the fight ends, you will still have family members come in raving and say things like, “well I remember when all this started and she said so and so”. And I told her, if you think you are gonna get away with this, I will sue your lazy ass into hell” - etc etc
What I’m saying is the bad feelings never go away
@JRob,
I did a little research on your question. Here's a couple references as to the guardianship via testamentary docs.
From Legal Zoom:
Establishing guardianship in a will is one of the best things a parent can do for his or her child. Why is it so important? Because if something happens to you, you would surely prefer to choose who assumes legal guardianship of your child instead of letting the courts decide. While it isn’t automatic that a court will approve your selection regarding guardianship of a minor, it is highly likely, especially if you take the time to explain your reasoning to the court. This last part is particularly important if you don’t want custody of your child to go to your ex-spouse since, generally, if a child’s other parent survives, guardianship passes to the other parent.
From Nolo, a well respected publisher of legal "how to" books without using lawyers. [[Confidentially, many lawyers use these books as well!)
A judge will make the actual decision about who will be your children's guardian. But it's important to make your wishes known through a will or other legal document because judges will follow a parent's wishes in a vast majority of cases.
A judge's main goal is to make sure a child's best interests are protected. If you choose someone who turns out to be unfit to raise a child, a judge will probably appoint an alternate guardian you named—if the alternate is willing and able to raise your child.
The Michael Jackson Case
Regarding Michael Jackson's nomination of his mother, followed by Diane Ross, to be his children's guardian, these were expressed preferences. I knew one of the lawyers representing Katherine Jackson when this occurred and, although I didn't follow the case closely at the time, it is likely that Mrs. Jackson was more than willing to be the Guardian, and no one, including Ross or other family members, objected, or if they did, their objections were dealt with by the court at the time.
So from what I gather, the testator's preferences are given great weight, though are not necessarily determinative.
Kenneth
I would say Canada is the same - it is extremely rare for the guardian in a will to be challenged - but sometimes they are no longer alive and sometimes they don’t want to or can’t do it anymore.
In 45 years of practice, I may have seen it a couple times where the guardian was no longer alive.
Thanks for the research.
Timothy 6:10-12
For the love of money is the root of all evil
did I miss something somewhere along the line about Cindy receiving royalty payments? I thought she signed away everything for a lump sum a long time ago? if not, exactly what recordings is she being paid for? Do the other 70's Supremes receive royalty $? how much can Jean and Scherrie be earning from royalties these days?
I pray Cindy is being made comfortable....I never heard her son referred to as anyone but David...Her former husband Charles thumbs up FB posts from time to time...
My guess is that at some point in time, she was able to work out a new deal on her royalties, despite having signed away on her royalties with Motown in the 70's. It is my understanding that a similar situation transpired with Flo's daughters, as it was confirmed that they have also been receiving royalties for some years now. I may be wrong, but I believe the royalties they receive are reduced from the full rate, due to the settlement. I remember this was discussed on this forum at one point.Quote:
Originally Posted by gman