Trying to be nice here for the benefit of your reputation. You should really slow down and read what people are saying before posting Rich. It's a poor reflection on the organization you represent that you don't read what people have been talking about.

Good luck.

I had one with the working link and wanted to share it with everyone. Thank you for posting the image, of course.

.

I'm confused as to what Rich did wrong here...?

Either way.. that news from the DoJ is somewhat huge no?

Definitely good news in that it shows that continued progress is being made, but there are still a lot of hurdles left to go... Actually picking the administrator, getting approval for the nitty gritty details of the process (will players receive full balances, will there be any attempt to limit payouts to people who may have had phantom deposits, how detailed will the application process be, the timeframe for applications, etc), and then of course they have to start cutting checks.

So, good news, but still a ways to go.

Why would the DOJ tell the PPA they had nothing with regard to new information about remissions, then turn around a few days later and post an update specifically about new information?

Does the PPA think this is weird? I'm confused

I'm no PPA fanboy but I don't get why it's hard to believe that the new information came to be in that time frame. In reality, new information exists one second that it hadn't the second before. A "few days" contains plenty of seconds.

I agree. April 15, 2013 would be an ironic date they start taking remissions cases. But I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities of a time frame.

Yea it's possible, but is likely? From what I remember a 2+2er called in the day after the meeting and got the information which was now just released. Maybe new information came out inbetween, but it would seem improbable, so I'm wondering if something else happened, like the DOJ brushed aside the PPA's concerns in the meeting, but then afterward decided they needed to make some statement. Which is why I want to know what the PPA thinks about the timing of this release given their recent meeting.

It is all pretty simple. We asked AFMLS if a claims administrator had been hired they said "no." We asked when they expected that to occur and they said that "USAO was handling the claims adminstrator" (i.e. the Southern District) and that they were "working on it." I suspect AFMLS checked in with the USAO after our meeting to get an update.

So the "news" today is that they are working on it and they expect to have someone selected in January. I am pleased that they hope to have the claims administrator selected and even more pleased that they are sharing information. More transparency and communications with the player community was something we hoped would come from our meeting.

I would still caution folks that selecting a claims administrator is just one part of the process and that there will still be a substantial administrative process before players start seeing their money. I think the most important thing for the community to focus on is ensuring that 100 percent of player balances are returned and that it is a fair and streamlined proccess by which to apply for the remission.

John A. Pappas
Executive Director, PPA

If the DOJ was one guy in one office then you would have a valid concern.

ty

It looks like you already got your answer but, just to follow up, the DOJ meeting was the 13th and the guy got the call back on the 16th.

Ah yes you are right. I think I switched 'him getting called back a day later' with 'him calling a day after the PPA meeting'. Anyways, good catch.

No, of course not. Look, I've got nothing to do with the PPA and to be honest I cringe sometimes when I see some of the things TE posts in response to criticism, but I just don't get why people are focusing all their anger on them. The reality is that the DOJ will do what the DOJ will do, and they'll pay out when they're ready and not before. 1938ford has been pointing this out for ages with his excellent posts but people don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear good news (understandably so, of course). Unfortunately, the truth is there's very little that the PPA or anyone else can do to expedite the process. Does that make the PPA ineffectual - yes, in this instance. Is that their fault and does it make them deserving of the harsh criticism they're getting - no, in my opinion.

Ford, and others with experience / knowledge of remission matters, since you have provided rough estimates (not promises, I know!) of timetables in the past,

now that we have a date for selection of a claims administrator, can you give us an updated rough estimate of what you think the remissions process will be like time-wise? I doubt there's any real way to know how long it will be to "develop a process" on the Claim's Administrator's end of things, in fact there's really no way to know anything at this point other than the January start for work on that process, anyway,

whats your updated time schedule estimates looking like? Anyone else with experience in these matters feel free to respond to that question as well.

+1

My point was that some posts which get lumped into the "angry" box could be people that have donated to the PPA and therefore may feel like they deserve a few answers.

See post #3252 ITT for my best guess at time frames. I think the times for each milestone are reasonable when considering the historical data from other cases. The one big caveat to the guesstimate is the time necessary to evaluate petitions once received. I can find no other case with 1.3M potential claims, so this phase is the wildcard. In my optimistic estimate of 12-18 months for distributions I allowed 6 months or so for this process alone, but really worry it may take considerably longer primarily because of the sheer volume of petitions and not necessarily the complexity of each petition. Hopefully, the anticipated high quality and completeness of the automated data available to the claims administrator may make the review/approval process faster and easier and we hit the earlier date for distributions.

Thought I would drop a post real quick.

I was hyper-critical of the PPA's meeting with the DOJ. Well...it turns out that the PPA got the ball actually rolling on the remissions process. The meeting manifested into some action and foward momentum. Im man enough to admit I was wrong and give credit where credit is due.

Good job PPA...good job. Keep up the good work!

Thanks CrazyESP.

TheEngineer:

Is there any sort of guesstimate as to when the PPA might plan on meeting w/ the DoJ again?

It really scares me from looking at the two other FTP-points-polls threads that there are people who would be so willing to see this process dragged out just to get value for their points. For people with substantial sums of $ in points (if points even have a direct $ value), I might understand, especially if they do NOT have substantial sums of $ in their actual balance,

but to think there are people who would be willing to see this process derailed for others, ruining the potential for "quick" repayment for people like myself with 5 figures of ftp $ in my actual balance, it frightens me, it angers me, and it makes me want to pull my hair out that we've come this far and might get thrown off track by greedy individuals who... chances are (IMHO) probably are busto fish who are angry they can't order another t-shirt or key chain.

I, and others, have life changing and in some cases life SAVING amounts of money locked up, we need those funds, people squabbling over points piss me off, severely.

PPA- Please don't let the DOJ, SDNY, AFMLS or any relevant organization get sidetracked over the points issue. It is the epitome of greed in this whole situation, that people who (in all likelyhood) should never be getting paid (as most people defrauded to this degree never do) their balances, are actually choosing "4 years" in the poll in the other thread.

sick...

People in that thread are simply trying to get through the poll bias to say PPA ought to ask for points. Asking takes no time at all. The claims administrator will tell us if it will delay the process and we can cross that bridge when we get to it. If we don't ask, we could find ourselves giving up something we could have gotten with ease.

And I gave you an answer. If you didn't like the tone of the answer perhaps you should review the tone of your question.