- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
I'm glad you are reaching in your pockets to file one of the BIGGEST lawsuits to most likely get thrown out of court.
We'll see how much unity you really have.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
I'm glad you are reaching in your pockets to file one of the BIGGEST lawsuits to most likely get thrown out of court.
We'll see how much unity you really have.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
So you can thank the west and this merger for finally moving you forward and still having a career after 23 years. Ask yourself this: If not for the merger where would you be? Your statement above could easily have been "Here I am starting all over again at XYZ airline, in the right seat, on reserve, and commuting 10 hours to ABC. This after 18 years at good ole US Airways."
Fortunately for those sacrificing their career for your advancement it will all be set right when you are forced to live with your commitments and the consequences of your choices.
sumadarson
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2010
- 851
- 905
They company is trying to cover their liability in this matter. of course they will claim the ss numbers were not compromised.
They will have to say that with one hand on a bible and one hand raised, soon. I guarantee the company and law enforcement have all three culprits in separate rooms, singing like birds to save themselves. Three suspects will turn in to many more shortly.
Hate2fly
Veteran
Some serious spanking going on tonight! Younger and smarter. You westies must make Doug proud.
Hate
Hate
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
And the second and later are the typical west denial of any wrongdoing. By the way, the Lifelock deal is coming out of the company pocket. There is no free offer on this one.
What are you suing over???
That you have been duped by a little lawyer and a bunch of furloughees who wanted to renege on binding arbitration?
BTW. Leonidas is an LLC. If they go out of business, no biggee, they held thermoplylae long enough to guarantee the later victory.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Hate2fly
Veteran
Swan,
This is going all the way to the top of the company. They really stepped on it this time. Cleary was called at 6am this morning. I would have loved to hear Doug at that hour of the morning. The FBI is going to be all over this.
Hate
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
Here comes the INTEGRITY bullcrap again that the west pilots roll out any time they get caught jumping on someones back with manufactured years of service, and they get told to line up and be a real American and EARN your position. If you had integrity, you would not depend on someone to artificially make up a point in time that you never served, and expected to take someone elses' position. Joe Monda is a perfect example of your reasoning and rationale that you just jump over with 17 yrs of service and put in a new hire. I crack up every time I see you and your INTEGRITY crap lanyards. Generation x mentality. Try putting in your time in real years, instead of manufacturing a quota you don't deserve.
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
You may have a problem. It's called...chain of custody
Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A proper chain of custody requires three types of testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant's blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it).
Proving chain of custody is necessary to "lay a foundation" for the evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution, or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbroken chain of custody. For example, suppose that in a prosecution for possession of illegal narcotics, police sergeant A recovers drugs from the defendant; A gives police officer B the drugs; B then gives the drugs to police scientist C, who conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the drugs to police detective D, who brings the drugs to court. The testimony of A, B, C, and D constitute a "chain of custody" for the drugs, and the prosecution would need to offer testimony by each person in the chain to establish both the condition and identification of the evidence, unless the defendant stipulated as to the chain of custody in order to save time.
Chain of custody need not be demonstrated for every piece of tangible evidence that is accepted into the trial court's record. Physical evidence that is readily identifiable by the witness might not need to be supported by chain-of-custody proof. For example, no chain-of-custody foundation is required for items that are imprinted with a serial number or inscribed with initials by an officer who collected the evidence. Similarly, items that are inherently distinctive or memorable (for example, a holdup note written in purple crayon) might be sufficiently unique and identifiable that they establish the integrity of the evidence.
Whether the requisite foundation has been laid to establish chain of custody for an exhibit is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial judge. Possibilities of misidentification and adulteration must be eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability. Where there is sufficient testimony that the evidence is what it purports to be, and that testimony is offered by each responsible person in the chain of custody, discrepancies as to accuracy or reliability of testimony regarding the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility, meaning that the evidence would be admitted into the record for the judge or jury to evaluate in light of any conflicting testimony that the chain of custody somehow had been compromised. While the party who offers the evidence has the burden of demonstrating the chain of custody, the party against whom the evidence is offered must timely object to the evidence when it is first introduced at trial, or the party will waive any objections as to its integrity based on a compromised chain of custody
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
There, I just turned your positive 1 into a zero. I'm convinced I am dealing with evil, that is what motivates me. I stand on moral high ground and look down on people like you.
As far as being a Gen Xer, sorry I'm almost 50.
Wrong again, as usual...BS
cactusboy53
Veteran
- May 9, 2007
- 2,649
- 7,407
BS;
Step away from the Redbull. Take a deep breath and revel in your "little" victory.....oh wait you already were doing that. Grab a nice cool non-cafenated beverage and read all of the truths in pamphlet 3.
You have a six year fence (having nearly past). Who knows how much longer. Ultimately I think you will be made to capitulate. It's a pity that you have to be "schooled" in INTEGRITY and HONOR.
Did you hear that the PHX folks were out doing some measuring and marking of gate space last week. Now let's think logically:
1. PHX is already configured to park B737, B757, B767, A319, A320, and A321's
2. PHX intnational gates can house both B747 & A340.
3. What other kind of larger aircraft have not been flown to PHX by US Airways, that could be based there????????
One guess.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Yeah.... sigh... it does all boil down to a vote.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #10,934
Really! More big talk from the east.
Where is the damage? The company offered life lock. A $60 value. Congratulations enjoy. LOA 93 is arbitrated. That has nothing to do with this.
Son you better pick up a newspaper. 100's of east pilots does not even come close to being one of the biggest law class action law suits ever.
The Addington was 1800 west pilots. Have you ever heard of the class action law suit against the tobacco companies? Those were big suit. Your little case, not so much.
But have fun finding someone to lead that herd of cats. Good luck prying cash out of anyone. Hope you find an honest east pilot to watch the money. Can we count on badge backers? Maybe they could say I am just a number. Angry union pilot. The world owes me.
Feel free to use any of them.
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
