Doesn't ruin my Xmas at all - this response doesn't tell us anything, at all, IMO. While it may take away a little from the Folsom quote, other than that nothing changes. Following the logic of my recent novel on this issue, assuming there's something to my delusions, the MOU is now basically a contract, and a contract is presumed to be adhered to until it is evident that there is a failure to perform per its terms. Right up till that second of failure, there would be no need to take (legal) action, and therefore - with the presumption of compliant performance - no (legal) action would be "pending". So PTSC telling us "no pending action" sheds no light on the situation whatsoever. Nor does telling us "it's settled" - we knew that!

JMHOs, none of this makes the delusions any more or less just a possibility, and I KNOW nuttin'!

Still looking for the answers to those very simple and basic questions I posed in the aforementioned novel. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

I did see the one identified use of an MOU in a case - one. Note that as I have suggested, what began as an MOU (non-contract) became a binding contract through action by/with the court.

SGE