US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[aquagreen73s]

I guess I could have been clearer.

You were perfectly clear. You said MP is a cause of action solely for use in criminal actions, and you it could not be more obvious with that statement that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Please name a case of civil malicious prosecution that paid off to the tune of millions of $$ in either Federal Court, AZ or NC court.

Tortious behavior is remedied through whatever damages are proven by the plaintiff.

Look at the outrageous behavior of the DA in the Duke La Crosse case.

That has nothing to do with a civil claim in a malicious RICO case. The prosecutor didn't get indictments out of thin air. Not saying his conduct was reprehensible, but you should take a step back and think about USAPA's position objectively.

This is nothing, even if, as aquagreen posted, it only had a one year statute. Check out http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/malicious_prosecution.html for some guidelines. For every Google you can throw out, I can throw one back. "Malicious prosecution applies specifically to the criminal proceedings brought against you without probable cause, rather than the arrest and/or incarceration you have suffered."

Did you even bother reading what this says? Do you understand what the phrase "often accompany" means? I'll give you a hint: often, but not limited to.

Meanwhile, don't confuse "malicious prosecution" with "malicious use of process."

"Malicious use of process?" Do you just make this stuff up?

The latter is used in both NC and most (although a quick check suggested not all) Federal Jurisdiction. And I thought all U.S. Federal Law was the same.

In AZ it's Malicious Prosecution. NC doesn't matter as the harm occurred elsewhere. Also, the tort claim of MP is a state law claim which under Erie v. Tompkins, the fedeal courts must follow the state courts. Since you're trying to sound smart today, go look up the Erie Doctrine and report back to us.

I'm not saying you can't sue if someone files a frivolous civil RICO case against you. I'm just saying it's malicious use of process and you only have one year to file.

From the time that the action accrues.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I need to go back to correspondence school.

It's non-ABA which means you're wasting your time. CA lets unaccredited law school grads sit for the bar, but the pass rate is somewhere in the 5% range.

Might accrue? Looks like a one year statute of limitations to me.

Stick to flying airplanes.

Emotionally, we're holding up quite well.

Good, because because 2010 isn't going to be too kind for the East.

If it's not ripe, you can't have aother trial until it is ripe. Pay your attorneys (if you can) and have patience.

Trust me, it's ripe. Have you even bothered to read any of the briefs because you certainly sound content with your willful ignorance.

If we lose both, don't expect the bottom 3/4 of our list to vote for a contract that could put 1,000 of us on the streets. Kirby (as amended) + NIC just won't fly. Again, I'd love to put it out for a vote, this week, next week, or next month. Fact is, you don't have the votes (less than 700 West MIGS), even with our few self ALPA-Phyles. I agree with you guys. Vote now! Bring it on!

That's totally fine. Get used to paying a fair amount of millions in damages as long as the West pilots are furloughed out of seniority on account of USAPA's breach. Either way is fine by us.

 

[767intl]

Normally, in my experience, an officer of the court (Attorney or Judge), will refer a malicious action allegation to the applicable bar association for their consideration as to whether or not the attorney(s) were acting outside their professional boundaries. Rather than suing for malicious prosecution (in the context of wrongfully bringing a civil case), most courts would consider awarding attorneys fees and costs, if the defending party requested it in their applicable Answer to the Complaint. (See Rules 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the New York State Bar Association. Link)

Thanks, hp_fa. A voice of reason (on this scare-tactic topic). IF the information Seham used in the case was fake, then I could see USAPA getting a smack-down. IF Seham made up the information he presented to the courts, he'd get a real smack-down. That's a fraud against the legal system. I know, I watch Law and Order! But this entire thing doesn't involve made-up evidence (like in the Duke LaCrosse case) or any of the other normal elements of malice like concealing exculpatory evidence, falsified evidence, coercing witnesses, bearing false witness, etc. Maybe the entire RICO was an overreach, maybe it went too far. But rising to the level of million$ of $$? Retiring on it? I mean, really! Come on, hp_fa, that's an eye-roller. Anyhow, it did bring the entire allegations to a halt.

According to West BPRs, the resolution process is moving along well. I said according to WEST BPRs. I've only talked to one of our BPRs, but he agrees. We'll get this behind us if egos (on either side) don't outweight common sense. I think it's time to finish this up and move on. What's a fair settlement? I don't know. But whatever the resolution is, I'm sure it won't leave any possibility of further legal action by either side. But that would require 100% agreement, wouldn't it? Based on all the fire-breathing posts from the West, do you think that's possible? Not a hypothetical question, hp_fa, what do you think?

Perhaps I do misunderstand because it appears to me that Cleary seemingly wields more power than having one vote on the BPR. Of course my information is limited to what I read here or otherwise learn.

As one not in the middle of the BPR, it's still obvious to me that Cleary's on a short leash. It's possible he's already strung himself out on too little rope. Even his own ad hoc committee has decided to wait for the Appeals Board to handle the case. Two former elected officers (King and Bradford) are on the Appeals Board. They worked with MC when he was Vice President. While I'm sure King and Bradford will be fair in their ruling, keep in mind they have seen MC in action, up close and personal, so to speak, especially in the election. I know at least one of them supported MC's opponent. For that reason, I suspect they'll be even more cautious in their decision. Nothing posted here is inside info. We still have unanimous votes on many things. Even West guys vote with us more than against us. But that solidarity speaks for our common goals, not necessarily for support of those we've chosen to get us to wherever the heck it is we're going. Don't get me started on our grievance committee.

 

[Phoenix]

I guess its time for the reserves (pilots and f/a) to take legal action against their unions.

Bingo for you! Your example shows his attempt to make apple juice form oranges.

 

[cleardirect]

Thanks, hp_fa. A voice of reason (on this scare-tactic topic). IF the information Seham used in the case was fake, then I could see USAPA getting a smack-down. IF Seham made up the information he presented to the courts, he'd get a real smack-down. That's a fraud against the legal system. I know, I watch Law and Order! But this entire thing doesn't involve made-up evidence (like in the Duke LaCrosse case) or any of the other normal elements of malice like concealing exculpatory evidence, falsified evidence, coercing witnesses, bearing false witness, etc. Maybe the entire RICO was an overreach, maybe it went too far. But rising to the level of million$ of $$? Retiring on it? I mean, really! Come on, hp_fa, that's an eye-roller. Anyhow, it did bring the entire allegations to a halt.

According to West BPRs, the resolution process is moving along well. I said according to WEST BPRs. I've only talked to one of our BPRs, but he agrees. We'll get this behind us if egos (on either side) don't outweight common sense. I think it's time to finish this up and move on. What's a fair settlement? I don't know. But whatever the resolution is, I'm sure it won't leave any possibility of further legal action by either side. But that would require 100% agreement, wouldn't it? Based on all the fire-breathing posts from the West, do you think that's possible? Not a hypothetical question, hp_fa, what do you think?

Below is a copy of the resolution from the PHX domicile update. Reading the terms it sounds to me like the defendants have to agree to stop doing something which means that they had to be doing something in the first place. Opening themselves up to further charges.

BTW the first line of this resolution makes it libelous. Unlawful sabotage, remember this case was dismissed with prejudice so the court has found that the charges did not even meet the level of going to trial. Therefore it is impossible to call them unlawful.

Just look at the terms that usapa wants in order to drop this case after spending $250,000. Not one of the things that usapa wants the defendants to admit constitute RICO. If usapa was so pushed off balance then why not go to small claims court to collect whatever they feel they are owed why the overreaching RICO charges? Take the time to read the complaints. As filed usapa tried to collect over $90 million plus legal fees. Does that sound like a law suit filed simply to stop some silly behavior? Do your own research then get back to us.

Where is the racketeering, corruption or collusion in any of these terms?

Nope, millions from the leadership sounds about right. Using the legal system to bankrupt or intimidate people is against the law and should be against a lawyers sense of decency.

Revised Resolution for Withdrawal of RICO Litigation against US Airways Pilots

WHEREAS the acts of unlawful sabotage that necessitated the litigation initiated in case no. 08-CV-00246 have decreased in number;

WHEREAS certain of the defendants in that litigation have become members in good standing of the Association, thereby presumably demonstrating a diminished hostility to the Association;

WHEREAS USAPA and its representatives have received commendations from West pilots regarding USAPA’s advocacy of the pilots’ collective interests with respect to its handling of the TA-9 arbitration, Flight 1549, and other matters; and,

WHEREAS USAPA’s PHX Domicile representative has stated his opinion that the termination of the litigation would promote cohesive working relationships within the US Airways pilot group;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the BPR hereby directs USAPA’s national officers and legal counsel to develop and submit to the defendants’ legal counsel, a settlement offer that would provide for termination of the lawsuit with prejudice on terms that are no less favorable to each individual defendant than the following:

1) Waiver of all USAPA monetary claims, including claims related to costs and attorney’s fees with further provision that each party will bear his/its own costs and fees;
2) Agreement of each defendant to refrain from any future act of harassment, violence, or economic retaliation aimed at West pilots who wish to participate in USAPA, provided that such agreement will only be required from those individuals against whom such acts have been specifically alleged based on communications (such as e-mail postings) tied to such defendant’s name;
3) Agreement of each defendant to refrain from the promotion of a concerted phone harassment and/or dues/agency fee boycott of USAPA provided that no such agreement will be required from any individual defendants against whom such activity has been alleged nor will such agreement be required from any individual who – to the satisfaction of the national officers – has by his/her actions has disavowed the promotion of such activity;
4) Each individual defendant will be permitted no less than three (3) weeks from the date of posting of the settlement offer to his legal counsel to accept the offer;
5) USAPA legal counsel is instructed to incorporate a non-admissions clause into the settlement agreement, subject to review and approval by the national officers, which provides that the defendants, by their execution of the settlement agreement, do not admit to any criminal or otherwise unlawful conduct.
6) The BPR delegates to the national officers, in their sole discretion, the good faith implementation of this resolution subject only to review by the BPR.

 

[nycbusdriver]

"Malicious use of process?" Do you just make this stuff up?

Given the huge amount of returns when one Googles the term "malicious use of process," it seems like gazillions of lawyers use the term.

(Have you heard of Google out west? I know you have computers.)

 

[aquagreen73s]

Given the huge amount of returns when one Googles the term "malicious use of process," it seems like gazillions of lawyers use the term.

(Have you heard of Google out west? I know you have computers.)

Yes we do, and a quick run through Westlaw was pretty clear: AZ has no "malicious use of process."

 

[nic4us]

Yeah, he's representing three AWAPPA officers, but not those who were provoked by your leadership to engage in alleged illegal actions....... Irony here, one of those Freund is representing is now a West asst chief pilot.

First, you obviously get it, because you say "alleged illegal actions".

Second, there is no leadership provoking any actions. Any "alleged actions" were provoked by the alleged union.

Third, I believe Freund represents all the officers of AWAPPA, including an asst chief pilot, a usapa BPR member, a West pilot involved with the usapa grievance committee, and a former MEC chairman. But as I said, in my opinion, these are not the folks who usapa should be concerned the most about.

Frankly, I would like to see this thing go away. I am not one of the 18, but to me this is one of if not the most infuriating incident to have happened since usapa's founding. The problem is this genie is going to be hard to put back in the bottle. Obviously, someone did something to usapa to piss them off and file the suit. Problem is they named 18 + a few more for a total of I think 24. Of those 24, at least 3, maybe 5, reasonably 7-10, could clean usapa's clock in a courtroom. They are not going to let it go on usapa's terms.

 

[hp_fa]

One more note: there was never an answer as the case was dismissed on the motion to dismiss. Yet USAPA pursues? Not too smart IMO.

I was thinking of the Arizona federal case, based upon Judge Wake's Findings of Fact and the other items in the record which discuss his view that USAPA/Seham were trying to both delay and spend the plaintiffs into the ground. I wasn't thinking of the Cactus 18 when I wrote that.

 

[Barrister]

VNIIMN

Vote No if it mentions NIC?

Very nasty incidence in managing NIC?

Velocity net inertia induces mexican narcotics?

Since it is mine I will tell you.

VOTING NO IF IT MEANS NICK

NOTHNG PERSONAL JUST BUSINESS

VNIIMN
NPJB

And while I am at it. Some of you state the obvious. Yes, if the East loses in the 9th NIC will be in any TA. But what do you think needs to be in a passable contract that is career suicide for 80% of the East pilots,
hey just asking????????? Let me say it again, your own people testified in front of Wake that USAPA was NOT delaying contract talks. You have no damages. Go to bed now.

NIIMN
NPJB

 

[hp_fa]

Thanks, hp_fa. A voice of reason (on this scare-tactic topic).

You're welcome. I really do try and be fair-minded even if some East folks think they see my photo in the dictionary next to definition of "attack dog".

What's a fair settlement? I don't know. But whatever the resolution is, I'm sure it won't leave any possibility of further legal action by either side. But that would require 100% agreement, wouldn't it? Based on all the fire-breathing posts from the West, do you think that's possible? Not a hypothetical question, hp_fa, what do you think?

Mr. Fair-Minded (me) thinks that a fair settlement at this point in time would be for USAPA to pay all the RICO-related attorneys fees and costs of the defendants for the trail court and appellate court proceedings, as well as a personal written apology to every defendant. If the settlement were to be quickly negotiated and ratified by the defendants the case could potentially be dismissed before any appellate ruling is handed down and keep that potentially embarrassing decision from ever seeing the light of day. The defendants would accept the payout and apology as full and final settlement of any potential claim they might have that accrued from the Cactus 18 case. (You did ask what I thought, correct?)

As for the Cleary control issue, lets just agree to disagree.

p.s. - I wrote this before seeing Aquagreen's post with the proposed language of a dismissal. When I read and respond to posts I generally start with whatever posts I had last read and go from there. If I respond to a post I do it without reading additional downstream posts so what I wrote is what I thought without knowing of the language that Aquagreen referred to in his subsequent post.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I was thinking of the Arizona federal case, based upon Judge Wake's Findings of Fact and the other items in the record which discuss his view that USAPA/Seham were trying to both delay and spend the plaintiffs into the ground. I wasn't thinking of the Cactus 18 when I wrote that.

Roger that. They haven't been very shy about advertising their obvious advantage at being able to throw untold millions of dues money at malicious lawsuits and frivolous filings. The Cactus 18 fellas have had to shoulder the entire cost of their defense on their own, and they are doing this against the USAPA dues collection machine. I can't imagine any jury having anything other than total disgust over USAPA's actions regarding the RICO. It wasn't even a colorable claim, and it took a federal judge to tell them that in plain language. Yet what do they do? Appeal and cost the innocent defendants more money. USAPA and those on the east who supported the RICO have really set a new low in treachery. 2010 is the year where all that bad karma comes back something fierce, and there won't be a single pilot outside of the east that won't be cheering.

 

[cactusboy53]

Since it is mine I will tell you.

VOTING NO IF IT MEANS NICK

NOTHNG PERSONAL JUST BUSINESS

VNIIMN
NPJB

And while I am at it. Some of you state the obvious. Yes, if the East loses in the 9th NIC will be in any TA. But what do you think needs to be in a passable contract that is career suicide for 80% of the East pilots,
hey just asking????????? Let me say it again, your own people testified in front of Wake that USAPA was NOT delaying contract talks. You have no damages. Go to bed now.

NIIMN
NPJB

Here's my proposed sign ofF:

SYDGIADUFABOCTSYHITS; IDAFYWPSC!!

SINCE YOU DON'T GET IT AND DON'T UNDERSTAND FINAL AND BINDING OR CHOOSE TO STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND; IF DAMAGES ARE FOUND YOU WILL PAY SERIOUS COIN!!

Also nothing personal, just court business. See you in court.....again.......

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You guys are a hoot! Since when did ANYBODY in the legal system give a crap about anyone's ability to pay for legal representation? Also, Until the case is adjudicated, there is no judgement of malice. In as much as here were wrongful actions by the defendants, I would say that any claim of malice is VERY premature. USAPA is doing EXACTLY the right things, and the majority of the membership is behind them.

Get over it!

Keep rubbing your rabbit's foot (which, by the way, wasn't very lucky for the rabbit) and hoping that your lottery ticket shows up again. I think chances of that happening are pretty slim indeed!

 

[Black Swan]

Here's my proposed sign ofF:

SYDGIADUFABOCTSYHITS; IDAFYWPSC!!

SINCE YOU DON'T GET IT AND DON'T UNDERSTAND FINAL AND BINDING OR CHOOSE TO STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND; IF DAMAGES ARE FOUND YOU WILL PAY SERIOUS COIN!!

Also nothing personal, just court business. See you in court.....again.......

This statement is one that takes neither position. My opinion-this is the biggest abortion of a so called merger that has ever taken place in the annals of any airline. I see no way out by either side. This thing is going to drag on for years. Years. If you step back for a minute, or asked any outsider, they just cannot fathom it . Nor a way out of it either. Have you ever seen a couple of those big ass black bumble bees that lock up in flight and battle it out? Then they both fall down and hit the ground.........