cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #16
Whoever wrote this needs to run it by a lawyer or if they did. It is not surprising why USAPA is in the legal trouble that you are. Remanded and dismissed with prejudice are two entirely different things. By purposely, incorrectly stating what happened it is misleading or outright lying to the members paying the bills
Ask yourself this. As stated in this paragraph if the activity has ceased then why continue the appeal? If it was dismissed with prejudice why continue the appeal? “based on legal advice†Would this legal advice come from the same source that told you USAPA could not be sued for DFR avoiding the Nicolau?
Just to be perfectly accurate. The defendant that was released did not agree to anything. Check the court records. He was released with prejudice. No deals, no conditions. He made a post on a private web board nothing else. That charge was not listed among the “criminal conductâ€. Freedom of speech does not exists at USAPA. Check the last sentence. If USAPA is so confident in their course of action. Why the desperate tone and hinting at trying to settle now? The case is in the system. By the way did they tell you that they missed a deadline and failed to file a response to the defendants response? All that money and effort and someone dropped the ball at the goal line. The final briefing to the appellate court to move the judges one more time. USAPA fails at the last minute.
Seems like a lot of money wasted to get one defendant to join and pay his dues. There is section 29 for that purpose. But who am I to question spending well over $100,000 closer to $150,000 to collect $1500 worth of union dues. It is going to be really ridiculous when it costs USAPA a few million for the counter suit. That’s going to hurt.
Ask yourself this. As stated in this paragraph if the activity has ceased then why continue the appeal? If it was dismissed with prejudice why continue the appeal? “based on legal advice†Would this legal advice come from the same source that told you USAPA could not be sued for DFR avoiding the Nicolau?
Just to be perfectly accurate. The defendant that was released did not agree to anything. Check the court records. He was released with prejudice. No deals, no conditions. He made a post on a private web board nothing else. That charge was not listed among the “criminal conductâ€. Freedom of speech does not exists at USAPA. Check the last sentence. If USAPA is so confident in their course of action. Why the desperate tone and hinting at trying to settle now? The case is in the system. By the way did they tell you that they missed a deadline and failed to file a response to the defendants response? All that money and effort and someone dropped the ball at the goal line. The final briefing to the appellate court to move the judges one more time. USAPA fails at the last minute.
Seems like a lot of money wasted to get one defendant to join and pay his dues. There is section 29 for that purpose. But who am I to question spending well over $100,000 closer to $150,000 to collect $1500 worth of union dues. It is going to be really ridiculous when it costs USAPA a few million for the counter suit. That’s going to hurt.
CLT domicile update Dec. 22, 2009
0940 - Mike went on to discuss why we were forced to file the RICO lawsuit against the “Cactus 18†that had reverted to criminal behavior in the beginning days of our union. This activity consisted of electronic jamming as well as postal issues that were tying up USAPA resources. The case was initially remanded out of Federal Court and the BPR, based on legal advice, appealed this decision in the appellate court in Richmond, VA. The briefs were due early this month, and we are awaiting further action from the appellate court. Mike went on to brief the Pilots that one of the named defendants from the case has been released from the lawsuit after giving his word he would not further participate in such activities. He has since joined the union and was in-fact present at the PHX domicile meeting. The important thing is that the majority of the criminal behavior has ceased due to the litigation and, specifically, the lengthy time appeals court issues takes allow all parties to continually reevaluate all courses of actions and settlement options that can put this behind us.
REMAND - When an appellate court sends an appealed case back to the trial court for further action, the case is said to be remanded. This usually happens if the trial judge has made an error which requires a new trial or hearing. For example, assume that a trial court refuses to allow a party to introduce certain evidence (believing it to be inadmissible under the hearsay rule). If the appellate court decides that the evidence should have been admitted and that the exclusion of the evidence was prejudicial to the party offering it, the appellate court would likely remand the case for new trial and order the evidence introduced.
To send back or recommit. When a prisoner is brought before a judge on a habeas corpus for the purpose of obtaining his liberty, the judge hears the case and either discharges him or not; when there is cause for his detention, he remands him.
When an appellate court sends a case back to the same court out of which it came for the purpose of having some action on it there.
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - When a case is dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim.