US Pilots Labor Thread 3/11-3/18 OBSERVE THE RULES

[toganoflex]

Well, well...

Since the "old timer" has not expressed any anger that his seat has already been taken... it would appear that it has not been. 🙄

Just a matter of when, not if.

 

[Phoenix]

Wanna bet old timer?

And just an FYI, its already happened.

Just a matter of when, not if.

"Already happened" ordinarily occurs before "when". Just FYI, of course.

 

[Waketurbulence]

Wow, looks like watching reruns of Law & Order is really paying off for you!!

Actually, it looks like they are setting themselves up for someone else to blame...again.

 

[hp_fa]

If the Judge is showing ANY sort of bias, he should, and very likely will, be removed. Count on it.

Edit by me: I can find no provision in the Fed.R.Civ.P. for any basis to change a judge, let alone after contested issues have been decided by the judge.

 

[ussnark]

A Judge cannot be changed as a matter of course once a contested issue is presented to him. We are long past that point.

So, an issue found subsequent to presentation is considered, um, inadmissible? Don't think so. In fact, any issue will taint anything the judge rules on.

 

[cleardirect]

Edit by me: I can find no provision in the Fed.R.Civ.P. for any basis to change a judge, let alone after contested issues have been decided by the judge.

I guess that also goes back to perspective. Just because a judge decides against you or you don’t like the outcome. Does not mean that he is biased.

It makes sense, if every case had to change judges when one side did not like the way things are going. We would never finish a suit.

 

[ussnark]

I guess that also goes back to perspective. Just because a judge decides against you or you don’t like the outcome. Does not mean that he is biased.

It makes sense, if every case had to change judges when one side did not like the way things are going. We would never finish a suit.

You are pretty naive and, I can pretty much suggest, with a lot of accuracy, that you have yet to serve on a jury.

 

[Mr. Big]

few thoughts for the usual suspects I see litigating their case on this forum:

1) "we were unable to become members'...we had no reps...and USAPA didn't care..." blah, blah, blah...(ad nauseum).

This is the language that was in the original C&BL’s. As you can see. Since there was no PHX or LAS domicile rep. There could not be a domicile meeting. No meeting, no vote to bring in member. No vote, no membership. No membership, no way to change anything. No way to vote or voice a dissenting opinion.

The C&BL was changed in November but takes 30 days to become effective. So from April to December there was no way for a west pilot to become a member.


* Then perhaps you can explain exactly how Susie and her 3 friends found themselves members in bad standing, and staring at AH in their section 29 termination hearing. It is because of the West lack of participation/lack of local rep that USAPA's BPR voted to make them members...and Susie opted to seek out the "domicile rep loophole" AKA "Susie loophole" in order to NOT be a member, and thereby dodge the termination bullet AH was aiming at her.

That is a FAR cry from "having no "legal" mechanism to become a member...first you don't want it, then you get it, then you don't want it...(ie Susie....) and now you intend to put forward that the West had no way to become a member, and USAPA was just fine with that.....well, the facts don't support that cheesy, wishy-washy story.

Further, when the Susie loophole was exploited, AND WITHOUT any West desires to become involved, the CBL was ammended to close the loophole, and allow for the language supporting the very thing the BPR did in the first place, vote in members'....and the West objects to that as well.

A word of advice: you can't have it seven different ways, and can't argue in circles about being "shut out"...the facts will be devastating to you in this regard.

Even typing it again illustrates just how absurd that argument is....but you guys just carry on.


Maybe you'd like to revisit your position.

 

[ussnark]

Even typing it again illustrates just how absurd that argument is....but you guys just carry on.

That is all the west has.

 

[cleardirect]

You are pretty naive and, I can pretty much suggest, with a lot of accuracy, that you have yet to serve on a jury.

Edit by me: I can find no provision in the Fed.R.Civ.P. for any basis to change a judge, let alone after contested issues have been decided by the judge.

Naïve? I am relying on Federal rules for my opinion. As posted by HP FA. Not on about a minute of jury instructions in some unrelated jury trial. But is that the next strategy to delay this trial? Complain about the judge.

But we will find out soon enough. I plan on spending a few days in the court room watching the proceedings.

 

[cleardirect]

few thoughts for the usual suspects I see litigating their case on this forum:

1) "we were unable to become members'...we had no reps...and USAPA didn't care..." blah, blah, blah...(ad nauseum).

This is the language that was in the original C&BL’s. As you can see. Since there was no PHX or LAS domicile rep. There could not be a domicile meeting. No meeting, no vote to bring in member. No vote, no membership. No membership, no way to change anything. No way to vote or voice a dissenting opinion.

The C&BL was changed in November but takes 30 days to become effective. So from April to December there was no way for a west pilot to become a member.


* Then perhaps you can explain exactly how Susie and her 3 friends found themselves members in bad standing, and staring at AH in their section 29 termination hearing. It is because of the West lack of participation/lack of local rep that USAPA's BPR voted to make them members...and Susie opted to seek out the "domicile rep loophole" AKA "Susie loophole" in order to NOT be a member, and thereby dodge the termination bullet AH was aiming at her.

That is a FAR cry from "having no "legal" mechanism to become a member...first you don't want it, then you get it, then you don't want it...(ie Susie....) and now you intend to put forward that the West had no way to become a member, and USAPA was just fine with that.....well, the facts don't support that cheesy, wishy-washy story.

Further, when the Susie loophole was exploited, AND WITHOUT any West desires to become involved, the CBL was ammended to close the loophole, and allow for the language supporting the very thing the BPR did in the first place, vote in members'....and the West objects to that as well.

A word of advice: you can't have it seven different ways, and can't argue in circles about being "shut out"...the facts will be devastating to you in this regard.

Even typing it again illustrates just how absurd that argument is....but you guys just carry on.


Maybe you'd like to revisit your position.

The arbitration is April 1st. We should have an answer approximately 60-90 days from there. We should also have a ruling on the DFR case in mid May.

At that time we will know who is right and who will need to revisit their post.

I posted the usapa C&BL’s. In the original C&BL in effect at the time there was no provision for the BPR to vote in members. You failed to answer my question though. By what legal constitutional method where west pilots voted in? C&BL says that is a domicile function.

 

[fodase]

Here is what everyone needs to understand. The questions before the court/jury are as follows. Was there an agreement to arbitrate? Did this arbitration take place? Was there an outcome? Did one side breach it's duty to honor the agreement? What was the purpose of usapa? Have they honored the agreement or not!!! Have they thru their actions harmed the plaintiffs in this case?

 

[Mr. Big]

The arbitration is April 1st. We should have an answer approximately 60-90 days from there. We should also have a ruling on the DFR case in mid May.

At that time we will know who is right and who will need to revisit their post.

I posted the usapa C&BL’s. In the original C&BL in effect at the time there was no provision for the BPR to vote in members. You failed to answer my question though. By what legal constitutional method where west pilots voted in? C&BL says that is a domicile function.

Well, you can only be heading in a few directions here, none to your avail. In your exchange with HP, you suggested there was "no way for a west pilot to be a member..." I just showed the whole world it was indeed otherwise. If the West's "true desire" was to become a member, then they wouldn't care how it happened, would they? If the desire was to AVOID membership (as illustrated by almost ALL of their actions) then the Domiclie Rep technicality is the one you'd hide behind. I suggest the latter...stacks of documents suggest just that: that if all 1800 sit on the side, USAPA gets stalemated. In fact, this exchange in itself shows your intent to hide behind a technicality to AVOID membership.Sorry to dissappoint you, but if USAPA is guilty of anything with regards to west membership, it will be argued and shown that they indeed granted the membership you all so "craved" in spite of their CBL's, and then amended them afterward, since a BPR vote was obviously the ONLY WAY to get a west pilot to become a member. Only those west pilots with membership applications were voted on by the BPR.

Try again, and don't dodge the question with arbitration dates, just admit that your post to HP was ...ummm, not the entire story. Actually, don't bother, by the time she/he reads this, it'll be obvious what the truth is.

 

[Mr. Big]

Here is what everyone needs to understand. The questions before the court/jury are as follows. Was there an agreement to arbitrate? Did this arbitration take place? Was there an outcome? Did one side breach it's duty to honor the agreement? What was the purpose of usapa? Have they honored the agreement or not!!! Have they thru their actions harmed the plaintiffs in this case?

Yep, subject change..and just in time. I show cleardirects comment to HP about west membership, remind him what ACTUALLY happened, and you show up with a new topic.




And for cleardirect:I posted the usapa C&BL’s. In the original C&BL in effect at the time there was no provision for the BPR to vote in members. You failed to answer my question though. By what legal constitutional method where west pilots voted in? C&BL says that is a domicile function.

So any layman can easily see that it is indeed the latter that motivated the west pilots: AVOID membership by hiding behind a technicality....(but be sure to cry about being shut out from membership in the same breath...)

OK, I think we all get it.

And it is precisely this type of thing that will be shown to the jury...I suggest you discontinue this line of dialogue...it's giving away the west's true intent to AVOID membership of the union.

 

[pilotn79]

And it is precisely this type of thing that will be shown to the jury...I suggest you discontinue this line of dialogue...it's giving away the west's true intent to AVOID membership of the union.

Those of of us who understand the meaning of integrity AVOID membership to evade a label that is carried for life.