MR. GRANATH: Maybe not under the rule, Your Honor, but under the constitutional right that my client has to a fair trial. And I would note that there is juris prudence in this circuit, as well as others, that have redirected judges on to different cases when the bias standard wasn't met. And I think that's an example of resolving doubts in favor of the appearance as well.
THE COURT: I'm asking you whether you are saying that your client could not get a fair trial if I transfer this case. And if so, I'm going to be asking you for the specifics.
MR. GRANATH: Our position at this time, Your Honor, is we do not think we could get a fair trial.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell me the specifics. We have all day.
MR. GRANATH: And Your Honor, those specifics we elaborated in our brief in Docket 648. And I could do no more than repeat what's been written there.
THE COURT: Well, let's go through them then. This is on Page 13 of your brief.
MR. GRANATH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: At Line 13, quote, "Expression mid-trial that, quote, 'there is a unique quality about the Nicolau Award that established both a legal and an "honorable obligation" togo forward with it,'" close quote.
How does that express prejudice or bias or unfairness? That certainly expresses a view, but how is that biased or unfairly deprive you of a fair trial?
MR. GRANATH: The objection there Your Honor is that that goes beyond the law of the honorable obligation phrase.
THE COURT: So that reflects a lack of a fair trial?
MR. GRANATH: It does to the extent, Your Honor, that it appears there that the Court was prejudging based on other than legal criteria.
THE COURT: Well, not at all. This is a fair observation on a view of the evidence and nothing more than what judges do routinely in cases.
Let's go to the next one. Quote, "The Court's declaration at the outset of litigation that USAPA's seniority proposal was 100 percent victory for the East Pilots and 100 percent defeat for the West Pilots, a statement made by the Court before it reviewed any of the conditions and restrictions which USAPA's constitution mandates be included in order to protect the un-merged career expectations of the West Pilots," close quote.
Now, we had -- that was the other side's point of view and looking at what was before me at that time, it certainly looked that way. And with the benefit of eight days of trial and exposing things, how could -- you had a different view and the West Pilots had a different view. How could this be something not grounded in evidence that's a reflection of bias and prejudice, Mr. Granath?
MR. GRANATH: It's a fair question, Your Honor. I can only say we respectfully disagree in that our point in making this was this is what we had said to the appellate court, right or wrong, and that now for a transfer to come in, we have a judge that already went through this and expressed strong rulings. My point is that there's a random judge that's fresh. I understand the Court disagrees with our perspective here, and I respect that.
THE COURT: This is my responsibility, to review the evidence. And I frankly don't remember the context of this particular discussion. But this is in no way an indication of bias or prejudice or lack of a fair trial.
Your next quote at Line 18, the Court's statement that basically, that this looks like a situation where the union members who had the political muscle did what they wanted. Now, that -- you had a different view that was presented. It was tried. And upon different evidence, that might come to a different result. Is this not just another example of dealing with evidence and contentions describing them that the Court has to deal with in order to do its job?
MR. GRANATH: It's possible Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And then the next quote, at the top of Page 14, "The Court's comment that USAPA was, quote, 'created and selected by express campaign promises to disregard
the interests of West Pilots,'" close quote, well, that was an issue that was tried to the jury and I accepted the jury's conclusion. I was persuaded to the same on the evidence. How
is that anything other than discharge of the Court's duty to resolve issues?
MR. GRANATH: I have nothing to add on that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I could go -- the others are of the same character.
MR. GRANATH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So we won't belabor it. But the only thing that I, for this discussion, raiseis whether you have said anything different in your briefing to the Court of Appeals that I haven't read. So if there's something I should be aware of that would bear on either my impartiality or the appropriateness of a transfer, I would want to know. But I'm going to assume unless you tell me otherwise,
Mr. Granath, that whatever else you said in your Court of Appeals brief is of this same character. Is that correct?
MR. GRANATH: Actually, Your Honor, it was far less than what was in this brief and it was a very, I think, limited and pointed. We felt we had good faith basis to make it.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GRANATH: It's not out of a lack of respect for the Court. It was our position, and I don't want any of my comments to be construed today that we're abandoning that position.
THE COURT: Did you have any other issues you wanted to address?
MR. GRANATH: On the transfer motion, No, Your Honor. No, I don't on any matter.
THE COURT: All right.Thank you.
MR. GRANATH: Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll hear from Mr. Harper in reply.
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, I have nothing to add to what has been said before.
THE COURT: All right. Very well. Thank you, counsel. I don't set many oral arguments, but this is important so I appreciate you all -- well, you all advised me this is the time you are available so I set it when available.
The motions are taken under advisement, and I want to go back and look at specifically, some of these new authorities mainly that Mr. Granath has cited me to. I will look at those and I will try to get these rulings out quickly.
We'll be adjourned.
