US Pilots Labor Discussion-8/12 to 8/19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[cleardirect]

To all you westies, looks like the legal community is beginning to weigh in on the Addington case. One law firm that does a lot of ALPA work (even did some for us) has weighed in already. But what do they know? Open air BLOG discussion. Comments are already recorded.

http://bapwild.com/blog/?p=454

Judge issues injunction against US Airways pilots union
July 27, 2009 on 5:25 pm | In Airlines, Arbitration, Collective bargaining, RLA case law, US Airways, pilot seniority |

This decision presents a restraint on the ability of union’s to negotiate. And the judge’s holding that plaintiffs may sue over bargaining proposals, not actual agreements, presents the danger that collective bargaining, particularly during unpopular events such as concessionary negotiations, will be bogged down in lawsuits ginned up by plaintiff’s lawyers who, as the court described the plaintiffs’ lawyers here, misstate law and facts.

The decision reads like this case became a hobby for the judge. An explanation for this seemingly inexplicable award comes from the judge’s harsh criticism of USAPA’s attorneys, the law firm of Seham, Seham, Meltz & Peterson:

USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts,
and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the
“contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley
of judicial phrases severed from their environment.â€￾

As Brendan Sullivan once said, a lawyer is “not a potted plant.â€￾ Skillful advocacy is essential to successful litigation. Poor lawyering, much less lawyering that misstates “law, facts and procedural historyâ€￾ (what’s left to misstate?), hurts clients. That certainly seems to be the case here.

I went to this lawyer. He said I didn't have a case, so I went to another lawyer. George W Bush

AND?????

This is an unsigned post from a blog. It would hold more weight if it was a PFD on the law firms letter head. This could have been written by anyone.

Next if a law firm did write this they missed a major point.

as the court described the plaintiffs' lawyers here, misstate law and facts.



USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts,
and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the
“contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley
of judicial phrases severed from their environment.â€￾

You see it was usapa, the defends lawyer that misstated law and facts. I seriously doubt that a lawyer or a good lawyer would miss that little detail.

No I would say this was written by an east pilot with a bias.

 

[cleardirect]

Wow, looks like this really hit a nerve. As I clearly IDed, it was written by Baptiste and Wilder. Not friends to SSM&P, but long-time RLA/NLRA attorneys. They have dont a lot of ALPA legal work in the past, even for East.

After looking at this I understand what this is about. B&W is looking for work.

When Seham loses the appeal usapa is going to be mad all over again. I would guess that they will be looking for new and better counsel. In steps B&W.

Notice they took swipes at Seham that he missed some points of defense. Making their case that if B&W had been usapa lawyers they could have won this case.

The decision reads like this case became a hobby for the judge. An explanation for this seemingly inexplicable award comes from the judge’s harsh criticism of USAPA’s attorneys, the law firm of Seham, Seham, Meltz & Peterson:

USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts,
and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the
“contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley
of judicial phrases severed from their environment.â€

As Brendan Sullivan once said, a lawyer is “not a potted plant.†Skillful advocacy is essential to successful litigation. Poor lawyering, much less lawyering that misstates “law, facts and procedural history†(what’s left to misstate?), hurts clients. That certainly seems to be the case here.


If is a job application, nothing more.

 

[LSS]

pi brat,

I have heard the same about the pension termination - the judge saying that he couldn't terminate it since it was covered by the contract and the MEC agreeing to the termination. I have no firsthand info one way or the other although one thing about the story always puzzled me. The BK judge has the authority to abrogate the contract but can't terminate the pension because it's covered by the same contract he can abrogate any or all of? Doesn't sound quite kosher.

Jim

Jim,
In BK 1, which is when the plan was "distressed" terminated, there was no abrogation of any other portion of the pilots contract. Restructuring 1 and II were given by the pilots. In return, for restructuring 1 signed in the summer of 02, the company agreed to NOT FILE 1113 nor 1114 motions with the bankruptcy court. 1113 having to do with the basic contract and 1114 having to do with retirement, insurance and other like benefits. What the company very cleverly succeeded in doing was not asking the judge to distress terminate the plan (he couldn't because he didn't have the jurisdiction he would have had if USAirways had filed the 1113 and 1114 motions). So US Airways simply sought the judges ruling on whether there was enough evidence that was presented unchallenged by US Airways that the plan met the criteria for a distress termination. That was all the judge did, in addition to ruling that that matter had to be settled between the CBA and US Airways under the RLA. However, what they accomplished was a total gut of Section 28 of the working agreement.

BK2 is where the company did file an 1113 and 1114 and thus their ability to petition the BK court to gut a lot of our contract and do away with the original DC1 plan. Of course it was during that same time frame that LOA 93 came to pass.

 

[cleardirect]

You Westies are such sticklers on semantics now? Piney used a figure of speech.
So many of your posts are irrelevant to the discussion. Piney is right far more often than you are.

You should be out ginning up funds to appeal to SCOTUS. <_<

So you have all ready decided that usapa has lost the appeal in the ninth. That we are going to have to defend in SCOTUS now.

Confidence. Nice!

Learn something about the legal system. If usapa wins we would go back to district court. Not the SCOTUS. It would be usapa that has to appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[nycbusdriver]

So you have all ready decided that usapa has lost the appeal in the ninth. That we are going to have to defend in SCOTUS now.

Confidence. Nice!

Learn something about the legal system. If usapa wins we would go back to district court. Not the SCOTUS. It would be usapa that has to appeal to SCOTUS.

Yes, we go back to district court with explicit instructions from the circuit to Wake as to what the law really states and make nice.

 

[cleardirect]

Yes, we go back to district court with explicit instructions from the circuit to Wake as to what the law really states and make nice.

You think so?

Good for you.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

So you have all ready decided that usapa has lost the appeal in the ninth. That we are going to have to defend in SCOTUS now.

Confidence. Nice!

Learn something about the legal system. If usapa wins we would go back to district court. Not the SCOTUS. It would be usapa that has to appeal to SCOTUS.

Sure looked to me like he meant you should be saving YOUR money, for when USAPA wins in the ninth circuit. Twisted reality is a hallmark of the West.

 

[Waketurbulence]

Hate2fly, stop kicking them while their down! Don't forget this gem in the Breeger case, same circumstances, totally different conclusion by a Federal Judge:

Keep grasping for those straws...

 

[Phoenix]

..
Concerning the ripeness of a DFR claim, the Supreme Court ..

Well... yeah, but... uh... but, uh... uh...

 

[cleardirect]

Sure looked to me like he meant you should be saving YOUR money, for when USAPA wins in the ninth circuit. Twisted reality is a hallmark of the West.

I guess you missed it too. ""IF"" usapa wins in the ninth it goes back to district court. The west does not appeal to SCOTUS.

If the west wins in the ninth it would be usapa that has to go to SCOTUS.

USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts,
and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the
“contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley
of judicial phrases severed from their environment.â€￾

Seems to be a hallmark of usapa.

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

Piney,

I took "we" to mean those of us following the case by posting hear.

However, as a West pilot, I am not quite sure how to take that second sentence?

So I will just say, thanks for the compliment? :huh:

pilot? i thought you were furloughed?

 

[cleardirect]

Has anyone speculated what would happen if the case was sent back to Judge Wake?

It is a possiility afterall.

Suppose Judge Wake then based on the advice of the 9th circuit rules in USAPA. What happens then?

If the case is sent back to judge Wake we have another jury trial. The “adviceâ€￾ from the ninth would be something like allow some evidence into court and let the jury look at it. The jury then decides the case again. The ninth is not going to now find usapa, not liable.
So if a new jury finds in favor of usapa this time I suppose the west files an appeal on that trial, or drops it there.
What happens if usapa is found liable in a second trial? Does usapa file another appeal again?

What happens if the ninth agrees with judge Wake this first time? What does usapa do then? Finally accept the reasoning of an arbitrator, a federal judge, nine jurors and three appellate judges. Or do they let Seham pad his resume and bank account again and try for the Supreme Court?

 

[hp_fa]

Has anyone speculated what would happen if the case was sent back to Judge Wake?

It is a possiility afterall.

Suppose Judge Wake then based on the advice of the 9th circuit rules in USAPA. What happens then?

If the Ninth Circuit sends it back to Wake they will also provide guidance in their remand back to the trial court. Then there would likely be a new trial. I will be there waiting to see Mr. Bradford explain his view of the world to a jury, unless of course Guido the Killer Pimp offs Bradford or the process server. (ie - They don't make vacations long enough for Bradford to be missing when the process server comes a calling. A really creative one would book onto one of Bradford's flights. The question is whether to serve it before the flight or after the flight. Of course Seham could agree to accept service of process-------not.)

 

[HPearlyretiree]

OK I must have been asleep at the wheel. Who is Mr Bradford? Apperently his deposition has a "smoking gun" of some sort?

Bradford is the guy who basically said that forming a new union would be a good way to weenie out of the binding arbitration commitment the East had. He didn't testify due to a complication, next time, he won't be so lucky....

 

[hp_fa]

OK I must have been asleep at the wheel. Who is Mr Bradford? Apperently his deposition has a "smoking gun" of some sort?

According to sworn testimony and documentary evidence established at trial Stephan Bradford is the PIT-based pilot who, immediately after the Nicolau award became known, started creating USAPA to avoid the Nicolau Award. Mr Bradford did so because of his belief that the Nicolau Award was unacceptable to him and other pilots. He began a campaign and also began interviewing attorneys and law firms. One attorney that he consulted told him, in writing, that he had to be secretive about the true purpose of USAPA (to overturn Nicolau) otherwise a court could find USAPA acting outside their duty of fair representation and USAPA could find itself as a defendant in a court. That letter became public and was entered into evidence, making that letter-writing counsel prophetic.

Mr. Bradford eventually became President Bradford on the day the USAPA took power. Based on conversations and past legal practice the plaintiffs accepted USAPA's counsel's pledge that SSM&P would accept service of process of trial subpoenas for all USAPA officers. Five to seven days before trial President Bradford did a Sarah Palin and became Mr. Bradford and, therefore, SSM&P did not have to accept service of process of his trial subpoena and plaintiffs had to serve him a subpoena for trial under normal witness rules. From what I understand the plaintiffs attempted to do so at the last minute but there was a technical issue with the witness fee and that it was not properly supplied with the subpoena. The plaintiffs filed a motion about it and the judge appeared less than happy because of it and while he could not compel Mr. Bradford of Pennsylvania to come to Arizona, he did allow the plaintiffs to make it known to the jury that ex-President Bradford magically became unavailable for trial. Oh, and the judge specifically allowed the plaintiffs to make a negative inference about that when they did feel like mentioning that inconvenient fact to the jury. The plaintiffs chose to do that during closing argument.

With all the great evidence of Mr. Bradford's dislike of Nicolau, his path of lawyer shopping, legal opinion shopping and a whole bunch of other really great stuff his presence would make for a really great show here in Phoenix next year. I'd better go get in line in front of the courthouse now for this show. It will be that good, plus its free!!

Now I will agree that I did get a bit carried away with some of my colorful descriptions toward the end, but the facts were absolutely the truth and can be cited in the various portions of the record and in the various motions that are filed in connection with this case. The bottom line Bob is that a USAPA win will lead to an even worse mass of evidence being directly admitted via direct testimony in front of both judge and jury.