Megasnoop
Veteran
Snoop,
You make a bold statement, time to back up your claim. Here is the resolution. Point out the fighting words and misstatements. Where do you think that you are being “attacked� Please be specific. You made the charge, prove your case. What part of this would prevent any other BPR from passing it?
So you would only drop “members in good standingâ€. Meaning that if they would pay a little extortion and protection money they would be dropped from the suit. Who is the criminal now?
Clear, some truth serum. The WHEREASes and THEREFORE werent too bad, but you didnt post the BACKGROUND, filled with misstatements and fighting words. Some of the total misrepresentations and falsehoods were pointed out to Brice before and during the open meeting. Whoever wrote this for him should have told him which parts were false, which were true. Imagine his embarassment when confronted with the facts. Jon should have briefed him where reality ended and fantasy began. Here are some of the untrue pieces. Brice needs some new handlers.
BACKGROUND:
Shortly after the complaint was filed, USAPA’s lead counsel Lee Seham directly contacted each of the individual defendants in the case (despite the fact that they were all represented by attorneys),
If that happened, you guys would have been trying to get Seham disbarred for unethical behavior.
The settlement agreements would have required the defendants to pay USAPA large sums of money, admit to crimes that they did not commit, and to promise to perjure themselves in a court of law by testifying against their fellow pilots.
5 Cents a minute a large sum of money? Promise to perjure themselves? He (or whoever wrote it) accused our attorney of attempting to suborn perjury. Thats fighting words.
None of the individual defendants succumbed to the settlements, instead shelling out thousands of dollars for attorney’s fees.
whoever wrote it for Brice failed to tell him who had already "succumbed" to a settlement.
On July 11th, 2008, Judge Martin Reidinger ordered that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that USAPA could not bring this claim, or a similar claim, before the court again.
Dismissed from the Federal court, due to jurisdiction, not merit. No such dismissal in NC courts.
The issue is now before the Appellate court.
That parts true. And thats where this all could end if your "Cactus Remaining" would just join, pay dues, pay 5 cents a minute.
I dont really have much problem with the WHEREASes, but
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS many of the defendants are dues-paying USAPA members, and
"Many?" I doubt it. Then all they have to do is pay the 5 cents/minute. Joining USAPA and agreeing to our rules pretty much says you wont do it again. I think our acceptance of them as members should be ok to get them off the hook.
WHEREAS the Labor Management Disclosure and Reporting Act (LMRDA) provides union members the federally-mandated right to criticize their own union,
Ill say again, the LMRDA does provide union members with free speech rights, but these guys werent members when they were doing their phone calls, sabotaging a union they didnt belong to.
BTW, even if we lose the appeal, that only ends the Federal Court case. Dealing with a NC jury in state court is another issue.
http://usapasnoop.net