US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/13-- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Phoenix]

??? Judge Wake gave Granath all the time Granath needed to explain the accusation which USAPA lodged against the good judge. At one point when Granath was trying to just get away from questioning and offered to the court that it wasn't worth the time to discuss any further, Judge Wake told him that the court had all day.

A real barrel of laughs. Judge Wake seems to have taken pleasure in sticking it to an appellant who accused the "good" judge of partiality the last time he presided over a dismissed case (not that he felt any sting for that outcome). Now the appellant has the misfortune of being back in his court, yet without the accusation ever being heard before the 9th. Wake's line of questioning bordered on little more than a refined and dignified version of, "Hey, punk, do you still think I'm a jackboot?".


If the West had any sincere interest in an impartial trial they wouldn't drool at the thought of spending more money in the hopes of persuading Wake to come to their aid. Press ahead!B)

 

[767jetz]

If the West had any sincere interest in an impartial trial they wouldn't drool at the thought of spending more money in the hopes of persuading Wake to come to their aid. Press ahead!B)

Sorry, but the east has no concept of the words impartial or fair, unless it results in the outcome they feel entitled to. Let's see... where does the list stand now? ALPA for their merger policy; Judge Wake for the lost DFR trial; United Airlines pilot's for changing the merger policy; Nicolau for an unfair arbitration; The biased neutrals for agreeing with Nicolau; The west pilots for not rolling over to the east demands; Anyone on this forum who is not a US pilot yet has the gall to speak out in protest to the east's tactics; The company for filing for a declaratory judgment; Any judge who's court is in the state of US Airways headquarters and largest pilot base; The NC judge who ruled against USAPA in the RICO case. Did I miss any?

So that means the only people who USAPA deem as fair and impartial are the ninth, and Seeham. And as soon as USAPA finds out that the ninth ONLY said "not ripe" and nothing else, they will add the ninth to their "partial and unfair" list. Unbelievable. 🙄

 

[crazystnic]

Yes, there are many who REALLY BELIEVE that USAPA is well within the law. To give an idea of just how messed up this trial was please review docket #590. It is the request for a new trial. It was filed after the May 2009 Addington decision. It is on file with the appeal to the 9th circuit. They didn't get to it because they couldn't get past ripeness. It will play a major part in any decision to re-open the action which is highly unlikely.

If the 9th circuit couldn't tell USAPA what to bargain for why would judge Silver tell the company what to bargain for?

Al Legheny.. 100% correct... Those who can't see how biased this judge was are fooling themselves...

He Failed plain and simple... The trurth will come out..

With C and R there is no DFR.

time will be on our side..

be patient...

 

[crazystnic]

A real barrel of laughs. Judge Wake seems to have taken pleasure in sticking it to an appellant who accused the "good" judge of partiality the last time he presided over a dismissed case (not that he felt any sting for that outcome). Now the appellant has the misfortune of being back in his court, yet without the accusation ever being heard before the 9th. Wake's line of questioning bordered on little more than a refined and dignified version of, "Hey, punk, do you still think I'm a jackboot?".


If the West had any sincere interest in an impartial trial they wouldn't drool at the thought of spending more money in the hopes of persuading Wake to come to their aid. Press ahead!B)

Judge wake should pass.. he is biased and now he is pissed because we called him on it... His ego will get in the way though..
He is not doing his job.. He shoudl pass

 

[traderjake]

Both sides are to blame for this mess because neither side put forth a proposal during negotiations that was near enough for the other side to really negotiate.

East pilots forced our Merger Committee to adopt the DOH position under threat of being removed. That was not their original position. Two of the three member told me that DOH was bad strategy. Any intelligent and honest person who read the merger policy knew that DOH was never going to happen. We insisted on maintaining that position after the arbitrator told us to give him something he could work with.

This is our fault, not the West. We forced the Merger Committee to move away from the center and to the DOH position.

 

[Phoenix]

... the ninth ONLY said "not ripe" and nothing else, ..

 

[Metroyet]

Yes, there are many who REALLY BELIEVE that USAPA is well within the law. To give an idea of just how messed up this trial was please review docket #590. It is the request for a new trial. It was filed after the May 2009 Addington decision. It is on file with the appeal to the 9th circuit. They didn't get to it because they couldn't get past ripeness. It will play a major part in any decision to re-open the action which is highly unlikely.

If the 9th circuit dn't tell USAPA what to bargain for why would judge Silver tell the company what to bargain for?

Right. What...pray tell...gives one the confidence to believe that USAPA operates within the Law? Could it be the Jury conviction? Could it be Judge Wake's unwillingness to entertain Sehams absurd legal opinion? Could it be the dissenting opinion of the 9th that serves USAPA their own heads? Or the other two 9th judges that warned USAPA of an unquestionably ripe DFR? Is it the companies unwillingness to simply "believe" $e$ham and go along with this idiotic scheme of tyranny fueled land grab? How about the Dec. Judgment suit? Does that fill you with confidence of the legality of your position?

BTW, the 9th didn't BOTHER to tell USAPA what they can or can't negotiate for. There is No guidance what so ever as to what the 9th thought of the MERITS of the CASE you LOST by a JURY OF YOUR PEERS. The big difference between USAPA and the company is the Company wants to know the ACTUAL law so they have asked...very specifically. The LAST thing USAPA is interested in for their membership is to know the TRUTH. Ever notice how USAPA goes after any dissenter with a vehemence that rivals the Church of Scientology? What are they so afraid of? Shouldn't they WELCOME a Dec. Judgement? If I was so convinced I was in the right....I know I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to keep the lid on outside scrutiny.

Nevermind. you're right. Everything is fine.

 

[cleardirect]

It sounds to me like your saying USAPA is free to negotiate with the company for all pilots and to amend the TA if need be. What you believe to be fair for the west and east pilots is simply your own opinion. We all have different opinions on the seniority issue. That does not mean any action USAPA takes will constitute a DFR. If it did, any east pilot would have just as much right to claim such DFR if USAPA chose to use the NIC award.

How can you treat both sides fairly when both sides don't share the same opinion. Even further, not each side, west or east, is in complete agreement with their own side. We have east pilots who want the Nic and east pilots who want DOH, just as the west has pilots who also want nic and some who supposedly do not.

This is why DFR suits are almost never successful. It is impossible to fairly represent 5000 individuals. That is where the wide range of reason comes in. I think Judge Wake just got a bit carried away during DFRI.

That is the very reason why we go to FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION. You let a neutral third party decide what is fair. Otherwise everyone would end up spending millions in court and waste any years of litigation when one side does not live up to their agreements. Like now..

 

[cleardirect]

"the Court [Wake] committed prejudicial errors of law in instructing the Jury and these errors were individually and cumulatively prejudicial, tainted the deliberation process, and are sufficiently serious to warrant a new trial."

Yes, good point.. exactly why Wake should not transfer the present case to himself. His question "Don't you trust me to be fair?" and his umbrage at the thought he might be accused is plainly a matter that is still an open question. His question to USAPA of whether or not he will be impartial is sorta offensive seeing he has already been accused by USAPA of being partial, but they have not been allowed to have their accusation addressed... yet he is still asking them.. are you still accusing me!?

Well, duh.

I suggest that you read the transcripts of the hearing. You guys do understand that making an accusation does not make it true. Just because usapa accused the judge of being unfair does not make true. An outcome that you do not agree with does not mean that the decider was biased. Nicolau, RICO, Wake.

usapa make a lot of accusations. When Judge Wake asked him to back up the claim or accusation. NOTHING! no evidence, no examples, nothing. So so he did address the accusation and usapa folded like a cheap suit. If I were usapa I would not try that again. Wake gave usapa a chance to explain why they thought he was unfair. Lose again and charge the same thing without any basis will find the east pilots in very hot water.

But either way which ever judge takes this case I don't think the east pilots are going to be happy. So what if Silver takes the case and does not put up with Sehams nonsense? More false accusations? Is it just everyone against usapa? When everyone thinks you are wrong it might be time to rethink your position.

 

[cleardirect]

Judge wake should pass.. he is biased and now he is pissed because we called him on it... His ego will get in the way though..
He is not doing his job.. He shoudl pass

It does not matter which judge takes this case. The facts are the facts. What happens if judge Silver takes this case and you lose again? What are you going to say them?

I seriously doubt that the court will allow usapa to accuse 2 different judges to be accused by the same loser defendant to dirty their good name.

Again accusations without evidence can be slander or liable. Judge are very protective of their reputations. usapa should not try that trick again.

 

[Al Legheny]

Right. What...pray tell...gives one the confidence to believe that USAPA operates within the Law? Could it be the Jury conviction? Could it be Judge Wake's unwillingness to entertain Sehams absurd legal opinion? Could it be the dissenting opinion of the 9th that serves USAPA their own heads? Or the other two 9th judges that warned USAPA of an unquestionably ripe DFR? Is it the companies unwillingness to simply "believe" $e$ham and go along with this idiotic scheme of tyranny fueled land grab? How about the Dec. Judgment suit? Does that fill you with confidence of the legality of your position?

BTW, the 9th didn't BOTHER to tell USAPA what they can or can't negotiate for. There is No guidance what so ever as to what the 9th thought of the MERITS of the CASE you LOST by a JURY OF YOUR PEERS. The big difference between USAPA and the company is the Company wants to know the ACTUAL law so they have asked...very specifically. The LAST thing USAPA is interested in for their membership is to know the TRUTH. Ever notice how USAPA goes after any dissenter with a vehemence that rivals the Church of Scientology? What are they so afraid of? Shouldn't they WELCOME a Dec. Judgement? If I was so convinced I was in the right....I know I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to keep the lid on outside scrutiny.

Nevermind. you're right. Everything is fine.

(1) What gives USAPA the confidence they are within the law.


Humphry v. Moore SCOTUS
Rakestraw - 4th Circuit
Beck V. CWA - 9th Circuit
Ford Motor V. Huffman SCOTUS
ALPA v. Oneill - SCOTUS

None of this was allowed to be considered by the Jury in the Addington litigation.

(2) The Jury conviction is DEAD!. The Case is dismissed in total. None of the jury deliberation or instruction or findings can be used in DFR II. Some of the origional eviidence may be used and some part of the testimony may be used but the Addington litigation is dead absent acceptance by SCOTUS.

(3) The dissenting opinion of the 9th is not the finding of the ninth. The findings are what matter.

(4) I believe that the company's law suit serves two purposes.
a. - It casuses a delay in negotiations
b. It allows the company to come to the court with clean hands in DFR II.

This action by the company will likely be dismissed. The Railway Labor Act was designed to keep the courts out of union negotiations. The 9th has stated that USAPA is free to bargain in good faith knowing that it has a Duty of fair Representation.

The 9th circuit has not told USAPA waht to negotiate for and the Arizona district court will not tell the company what to negotiate for. However when DFR II comes along the company may be able to claim that the are required under the Railway Labor Act to "make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay and working conditions"......

The will argue in DFRII that the are required to make an agreement and they have exhausted their legal and netotiating obligations even to the extent of filing an action in the Federal Courts for guidance. In light of these actions the company will ask to be dimissed as a Defendant in DFRII. It just might work.

 

[aquagreen73s]

(1) What gives USAPA the confidence they are within the law.
The will argue in DFRII that the are required to make an agreement and they have exhausted their legal and netotiating obligations even to the extent of filing an action in the Federal Courts for guidance. In light of these actions the company will ask to be dimissed as a Defendant in DFRII. It just might work.

Maybe you should forward your post to the company's attorney. I guess despite his recognized status as an authority in RLA labor law, he missed all what you have posted!

You all should be praying Wake takes the case because he's known to work quickly. Since as you maintain the company just filed the Dec action so as to stall negotiations, logic would dictate that you'd want Judge Wake to take the case! Plus, based on what ole Al just posted, USAPA has it made in the dec action and DFR II! DOH for everyone (except Empire and Trump Shuttle pilots)! Hooray!

 

[cleardirect]

(1) What gives USAPA the confidence they are within the law.


Humphry v. Moore SCOTUS
Rakestraw - 4th Circuit
Beck V. CWA - 9th Circuit
Ford Motor V. Huffman SCOTUS
ALPA v. Oneill - SCOTUS

None of this was allowed to be considered by the Jury in the Addington litigation.

(2) The Jury conviction is DEAD!. The Case is dismissed in total. None of the jury deliberation or instruction or findings can be used in DFR II. Some of the origional eviidence may be used and some part of the testimony may be used but the Addington litigation is dead absent acceptance by SCOTUS.

(3) The dissenting opinion of the 9th is not the finding of the ninth. The findings are what matter.

(4) I believe that the company's law suit serves two purposes.
a. - It casuses a delay in negotiations
b. It allows the company to come to the court with clean hands in DFR II.

This action by the company will likely be dismissed. The Railway Labor Act was designed to keep the courts out of union negotiations. The 9th has stated that USAPA is free to bargain in good faith knowing that it has a Duty of fair Representation.

The 9th circuit has not told USAPA waht to negotiate for and the Arizona district court will not tell the company what to negotiate for. However when DFR II comes along the company may be able to claim that the are required under the Railway Labor Act to "make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay and working conditions"......

The will argue in DFRII that the are required to make an agreement and they have exhausted their legal and netotiating obligations even to the extent of filing an action in the Federal Courts for guidance. In light of these actions the company will ask to be dimissed as a Defendant in DFRII. It just might work.

"The findings are what matters". The ninth found the case to not be ripe. End of story.

The Railway Labor Act was designed to keep the courts out of union negotiations.
So was arbitration. We see how well the east pilots make that work.

Now if you guys are so sure that the company is using the dec action to stall. They I guess Seham is not smart enough to see that. Otherwise why oppose this law suit. Why not ask for expedited trial and get to an answer sooner rather than later. If you and all the east are so confident in your position then lets get to court and you guys can make your case.

Why the stall by usapa?

Perhaps you should read up on court procedures. The jury determines facts the court determines law. The jury does not need to look at cases only evidence. Maybe you would like to bore a jury to death by reading all of those cases to a jury.

 

[Metroyet]

(1) What gives USAPA the confidence they are within the law.


Humphry v. Moore SCOTUS
Rakestraw - 4th Circuit
Beck V. CWA - 9th Circuit
Ford Motor V. Huffman SCOTUS
ALPA v. Oneill - SCOTUS

None of this was allowed to be considered by the Jury in the Addington litigation.

Why?!! Could it be the "misrepresentation of facts, severed from their environment" that Wake referred to? Could it be that Lee $e$HAM was attempting to shoe horn case law into the record that was IRRELEVANT? Maybe you're confusing Lee $e$HAMS lies with that actual LAW?

NAW. That can't be it...it's just MORE evidence of the Clintonesque "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that shadows East pilots only for no other purpose than to keep them down. Always, always, ALWAYS, the victim.

 

[Phoenix]

.. More false accusations?....

B) I know, its a hard concept. You say they are false.. USAPA says they are true. Neither you or Wake are free of equities in the matter. That's why the question of Wake's alleged partiality belongs at the 9th, in due time, and its why Wake's line of questioning regarding his ability to be impartial (while an accusation of such is already open) was out of line.

He's smarter than that but couldn't resist the temptation. He's human and shouldn't try to hide it.