Mid Atlantic FA Law suit

[PITbull]

PITBULL
There was also a large amount Jan 1st 03 that were involuntary too. Everyone at MAA was involuntary. Or eventually went from vol to invol. But we all were invols but some were not around for a vote. I was only there for the 1st consession vote. The second happened later after I left. I dont remember voting a second time. I would have been ok with it all (MAA) if they would have done what they said and had it on a seperate certificate.

xoxo,

If you were furloughed May of 2003,(as you say, using that date) you had two opportunities to vote.

Concession #1 (which I was on that committee) was ratified on Aug. 9th, 2002 USAirways went into BK on Aug. 11, 2002.
Three months later, there was concession #2, in which the PIT LECP wrote out 4 E-lines and stuffed ALL mailboxes in PIT with ALL the E-lines regarding that concession. That vote ratified on Jan. 9, 2003. (I was not on that committee). Those f/as who you say were involuntary furloughed on Jan. 2003 were also able to vote for both contracts that involved MAA. Same with INVOLS of May and June 2003. YOU were also on the property according to your previous post, active.

The only INVOLS that had no vote at anytime were those invols that were furloughed on or before Dec. 2, 2001.

Concession #3 did not involve MAA language. In fact, in concession #3, the MAA f/as were left out of those concessions completely. Concession #3 ratified on Jan. 5, 2005. Right after all groups ratified, the company rumored of a merger and was looking for CASH to emerge from BK. the Emb-170, which mainline labor paid for, the company was looking to sell to raise cash.

My point in posting all of this is to find out if ANYONE knows the "merits" of the lawsuit.

Outside of the emotionalism, where is the proof of some wrong doing. Or, what is the discovery brought forward?

Any one of the participants that are involved in the "suit" should be able to cite the merits of the case.

I have seen none yet.

I only read the brief submitted by the attorney, and it was full of misinformation and scattered concepts of what obviously was told to him by one historian from MAA. When reading it, I could tell the historian must not have been one that was there from the "onset" of MAA. Too many holes in the brief. I hope that those who decided to retain this attorney have investigated him and his reputation. I'm an amateur, and I am very confident I could blow him off his ship and out of the water.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Regardless of what some website states, from what I gather from some of the f/a posters who are obviously involved, one could write that he is an expert in extortion techniques.

His retainer contract states his hourly rate, breaks down what the monthly fee will be depending on how many participate with contracts(no one is willing to report), and states he is willing to take 15% of a settlement, and how much the fee could go up yearly, tells me this guy is more confident in f/as paying the monthly fee, and is NOT confident in the actual merits of the case.

An attorney that is willing to take a bigger % of a settlement or win,and rather forfeit an hourly fee is an attorney that KNOWS he has a case, can prove the case, and knows his payout will be a huge settlement or "win". This quack is more willing to get involved by being paid monthly by 100 or so f/as then take a bigger portion of a settlement or a "win", which actually would take much more work and risk on his part that appears he is not willing to take...and this is evidenced by his retainer contract. By taking a small portion of a settlement ( a small 15%) screams out that he would rather entice the f/as in paying the monthly fee, and hoping to convince them by the numbers, that they will get a bigger chunk of a "so called" settlement. If its too good to be true, its usually not. That's an alarm button that goes off for me

This guy appears to have no ethical moral responsiblity to inform the f/as their odds in proving whatever merits the case has (if any).

I have been exposed to the best legal extortionist/blackmailers when I dealt with the USAirways managment team for 5 years. I can now smell an extortionist a mile away.

His motives should be challenged.

 

[PITbull]

You didn't offer an opinion...I DID...for approximately the last 20 posts.

 

[PITbull]

Anyone can be called as a witness in any legal matter.

Am I worried about being called up? Not in the slightest, why should I be. If AFA calls me to do so I will...I expect it if the case doesn't get thrown out, which I suspect will occur at some point.

Like I said, I read the brief (no merit) and I am a good historian of the chronological events in the "start up" of MAA.

 

[whowants2know]

For anyone who is on this website and is a plaintiff of the MAA Lawsuit, you are not permitted to give out any information regarding our lawsuit. You are breaking the contract of the retainer you have signed. This is a serious legal matter and you have a contract stating you can't talk about the case in an open forum. If you have questions please address your committee not an open forum. There are reasons why updates haven't been given per the advice of our legal council.

 

[DCAflyer]

And those reasons would be??

Because they need time to think something up!

 

[PITbull]

For anyone who is on this website and is a plaintiff of the MAA Lawsuit, you are not permitted to give out any information regarding our lawsuit. You are breaking the contract of the retainer you have signed. This is a serious legal matter and you have a contract stating you can't talk about the case in an open forum. If you have questions please address your committee not an open forum. There are reasons why updates haven't been given per the advice of our legal council.

What legal counsel? They didn't hire him or appoint you.

Your committee days are numbered. Your money will dry up like the dessert. Many of the "so called plaintiffs are writing to the judge and the Legal Review Board to file formal harrassement complaints against the attorney for lack of due diligence, fair and timely representation and probably extortion in a paraymid scam if he fails to return their funds.

 

[DCAflyer]

What legal counsel? They didn't hire him or appoint you.

Your committee days are numbered. Your money will dry up like the dessert. Many of the "so called plaintiffs are writing to the judge and the Legal Review Board to file formal harrassement complaints against the attorney for lack of due diligence, fair and timely representation and probably extortion in a paraymid scam if he fails to return their funds.

Of course, no response. PitBull, it seems that we may back backed the schoolyard bully into a corner. Four years ago, whoda thought what a great frukin' team you and I would make!

 

[PITbull]

Of course, no response. PitBull, it seems that we may back backed the schoolyard bully into a corner. Four years ago, whoda thought what a great frukin' team you and I would make!

precisely!

 

[LIE_DETECTOR2006]

I have read some recent postings on this site about the MidAtlantic Lawsuit. Pittbull says that the lawsuit, by more than 100 "MidAtlantic" flight attendants, against the union and others, is all wet. She says that it will go nowhere. She says the union did nothing wrong. She says that the union will prevail.

She, like everyone else, is entitled to her opinion.

But, the truth is, her opinion doesn't really matter.

Neither does mine.

Neither does yours.

We have a method in this country to settle disputes. That method has nothing to do with posting inflammatory messages on web boards. The method I'm referring to is called litigation. As delightful as a forum as this is, it really settles nothing. Rather, it is a judge and/or a jury that will decide who is right.

The union has an opportunity to make a motion to dismiss. It can make that motion right away if it chooses. Rather than argue on here as to who is right and who is wrong, we can wait and see.

The insightful person will sit back and see what happens. The brash, uninspired, and ignorant person is likely to hold extremely strong opinions. And is likely to state those extremely strong opinions in a manner that suggests that nobody else's opinion matters at all. The only way that person's opinion is meaningful to me is if I learn that that person with the very strong opinions happens to be the judge or a member of the jury.

I am not going to get pulled into an argument by people who, really, have no idea. It appears that the people posting have no rights to receive current information about our lawsuit, therefore it is obvious that their attempts are deliberately trying to create negativity, or insinuate incorrect information about our lawsuit. They are NOT plaintiffs in this case.

 

[whowants2know]

I couldn't have said it better myself