You are aware that Seeham came to PHX and told a room full of West pilots how he was going to help usapa violate their rights? Also, it is his opinion, and only his opinion ( which by the way is not held by any other legal proffesional we have encountered since Bradford met Seeham) that is the root cause of this mess.
US Pilots labor thread 4/17-
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
You are aware that Seeham came to PHX and told a room full of West pilots how he was going to help usapa violate their rights? Also, it is his opinion, and only his opinion ( which by the way is not held by any other legal proffesional we have encountered since Bradford met Seeham) that is the root cause of this mess.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
What's the point in highlighting the fact that Lee Seham is a proven Liar? Gee I don't know. His advice has cost this group LITERALLY hundreds of millions of dollars. He has been proven...let's say..."incorrect" at every opportunity. I know you feel that it's justified to hold tens of thousands of employees hostage by the illegal, and intentional misuse of the law to assuage the morally bankrupt Angry F.O.Club but it's a little more serious for Lee. He has a license to defend. Distorting the Law, and lying to your constituents, (all caught on youtube) is in fact, illegal. It's equivalent is medical malpractice. A surgeon can't legally advise a patient that they need surgery when they don't. More to the point, a Surgeon can't legally advise a client that a useless, unneeded medical procedure will fix what ails them when by any reasonable measure, they know it won't.
Lee Seham doesn't have that moral compass. He knows seniority isn't like crew meals. He knew that "Binding" meant binding. He knows that there is no way out of this, he knows why Wake disdains him. He knows why there is no chance at the 9th. He knows everything. He could have told all of you that this illegal campaign was going to blow up in the East's faces. Our lawyers hate Lee Seham because he's a disgrace to the profession. Lee Seham is NOT your legal advocate, he's just another slimey A-hole lawyer bilking millions out of the irrationally emotional client. Bradford, King, Sewer with a lisp, et.al. are directly to blame as well. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Lee Knows. You'll find out soon enough....AGAIN.
Mark my words.
HP2USFA
Advanced
Have you read any of MM's posts?
I suppose I should be happy I just misspelled lose. But I like verdant for the 'mossy, stuck-in-the-muck-with-things-growing-off-of-you' feeling it leaves you with.In any case, since my grammatical errors are vexing you so, might I suggest you just block me? Might save yourself a bit of frustration. And for the record, I don't represent anyone but myself, dear. But thanks for caring.
Now, enough with the personal commentary and back to the topic at hand.
Reed Richards
Veteran
- Sep 2, 2009
- 1,389
- 1,161
Nic, I did enjoy your Aussie inspired rant!
I don't recall saying anyone was trying to influence the payment of dues and fees..I think we are really past all that mess. I was just making the point compliance was there..nothing more.
But please note, the Witt ruling indeed said dues and fees were to be paid upon certification, about 2 years ago..nothing about a "new contract."
Also reaffirmed was the fact representation occurred on that same date, like it or not (and obviously I understand you question the quality of said representation)
And finally, No, not a thousand MIGS, as you like to say. Just shy of a grand...maybe painfully shy of a thousand from here on out. But a good showing none the less, I truly hope you break that barrier and get your third rep. I think the hard core USAPA pilots, other than all things Nic, actually share a lot more in common with you all than you might think. You will probably never believe that, nor will you ever believe this was all not only about the award...and I understand why you might feel that way.
COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR
RR
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Hi Reed,
There is a problem with the second part of that first sentence.
Seham is employed by USAPA, but he is required to act in conformance with the applicable Rules of Professional Responsibility, which include the various ethical rules for attorneys. One of those rules specifically deals with the issues of ethically representing a client who desires representation beyond what is allowed within the Rules of Professional Responsibility. To give it to you in a short and basic version, lawyers are not permitted to lie to the courts or participate in what might commonly be referred to as a scorched earth manner. (Before folks jump on me, I was just trying to make a comparison so that folks who lack any form of legal background can have a frame of reference.)
Reed Richards
Veteran
- Sep 2, 2009
- 1,389
- 1,161
The USAPA founders interviewed a number of firms, without asking for the "result" and instead posing the "question." Again, I don't expect to you to believe that. All 5 firms gave a positive answer, one giving that ruling with some doubt.....of course that is the only document so far leaked from discovery..go figure. My briefing on the actual interviews by one of the founders occurred almost 3 years ago now, much before all this mess, much less AWAPPA, USAPA, LEO, or any of the current law firms being here.
I simply cannot believe "your" lawyers hate Seham and company, unless they somehow are ALPA lovers. It was the Seham firm that took AMR out of ALPA in the 60's. This is a firm that spans generations supporting independent airline unions, one of but a few. I am sure your lawyers want to win, but at this point they are hoping a lone AZ judge will change 30 years of labor law and prevail. As I keep saying, the lawyers are but the hired guns, and I can assure you the tenets of USAPA do not reside in only the whims of our legal team...they reside in our hearts.
USAPA has prevailed in all things legal ( NC Breeger, RICO so far, AZ State, AZ FED counts I and II, and even in arbitration with Ms. Witt.) except in the Honorable Judge Wake's courtroom. I personally think we will prevail there too, but who really knows?
COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR
Best to us all,
RR
Reed Richards
Veteran
- Sep 2, 2009
- 1,389
- 1,161
I am not buying your logic HP. Just because you do not like the cause or methods of our legal team, you find it fair to condone personal attacks on their professionalism. And how, in any way, can you speak as to the intent of that said team?
Much can be found wrong with Mr. Jacob's testimony in front of the 9th. But that does not give us reason to attack his ethics and professionalism. Seham's treatment on this forum has been similar to a mob tar and feather job, and I find it offensive.
The discussions here should be about the issues, not about the profession of law.
RR
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #188
Reed,
You asked why does the west dislike Seham. Because he is the one driving all of this litigation and delaying any inprovments on both sides. It was Seham that came up with and flied the RICO suit. Or are you telling the world that some pilot from USAPA came up with RICO charges and told Seham to go file them? Seham also has a responsibly to file what he believes are true charges. They were so wrong and so off of what RICO is supposed to be that the judge throw them out of court with prejudice. So you are incorrect that usapa is winning the RICO so far.
To address Seham’s other “wins” The Breeger case was dismissed due to ripeness. The case can still be brought later. That was not brilliant lawyering that was a motion to dismiss and the judge following the law. AZ state charges were the same as the federal charges and wrapped into the Addingotn case. The AZ federal counts I and II were against the company NOT usapa, the company filed their motion to dismiss not Seham so he or usapa can not take credit for that.
There were a lot of west pilots in the court room and many more read the transcripts from the Addingoton case. We heard Seham try and sell the judge on the idea final and binding only applies to the merger reps. Even the judge had to tell Seham that was not the law. We all know that Seham put Sully and Skiles on the stand for one reason only. It had nothing to do with this case it was a stunt. It was Seham that blocked Bradford from testifying for his baby.
We have all heard or read the outrageous things that Seham has said in court to try and save his own career. Usapa is not directing that, that is all Seham. We watched Seham in PHX during the election tell the PHX pilots some of the biggest lies. It was Seham that tried to convince the judge that even thought usapa had been found liable of DFR there should be no penalties, no injunction and there should be separate votes because that is what is best for the east.
Lastly we see Seham run crying to the ninth circuit asking for the fourth time to stay the injunction. But this time it was on an emergency basis in the wrong court. Looks kind of foolish now since there is no merger. Was it usapa that told Seham to file an emergency stay in the wrong court or was it Seham that made the suggestion and did it?
I asked my rep who is making the legal decisions. They told me they don’t know. The BPR did not know about the emergency stay until after they left the BPR meeting. So who is making the legal decision? Is it Cleary by himself or is it Seham by himself because it is not the BPR.
Is it Seham that has been attacking the west or is the east pilot directing Seham to attack the west?
You asked why does the west dislike Seham. Because he is the one driving all of this litigation and delaying any inprovments on both sides. It was Seham that came up with and flied the RICO suit. Or are you telling the world that some pilot from USAPA came up with RICO charges and told Seham to go file them? Seham also has a responsibly to file what he believes are true charges. They were so wrong and so off of what RICO is supposed to be that the judge throw them out of court with prejudice. So you are incorrect that usapa is winning the RICO so far.
To address Seham’s other “wins” The Breeger case was dismissed due to ripeness. The case can still be brought later. That was not brilliant lawyering that was a motion to dismiss and the judge following the law. AZ state charges were the same as the federal charges and wrapped into the Addingotn case. The AZ federal counts I and II were against the company NOT usapa, the company filed their motion to dismiss not Seham so he or usapa can not take credit for that.
There were a lot of west pilots in the court room and many more read the transcripts from the Addingoton case. We heard Seham try and sell the judge on the idea final and binding only applies to the merger reps. Even the judge had to tell Seham that was not the law. We all know that Seham put Sully and Skiles on the stand for one reason only. It had nothing to do with this case it was a stunt. It was Seham that blocked Bradford from testifying for his baby.
We have all heard or read the outrageous things that Seham has said in court to try and save his own career. Usapa is not directing that, that is all Seham. We watched Seham in PHX during the election tell the PHX pilots some of the biggest lies. It was Seham that tried to convince the judge that even thought usapa had been found liable of DFR there should be no penalties, no injunction and there should be separate votes because that is what is best for the east.
Lastly we see Seham run crying to the ninth circuit asking for the fourth time to stay the injunction. But this time it was on an emergency basis in the wrong court. Looks kind of foolish now since there is no merger. Was it usapa that told Seham to file an emergency stay in the wrong court or was it Seham that made the suggestion and did it?
I asked my rep who is making the legal decisions. They told me they don’t know. The BPR did not know about the emergency stay until after they left the BPR meeting. So who is making the legal decision? Is it Cleary by himself or is it Seham by himself because it is not the BPR.
Is it Seham that has been attacking the west or is the east pilot directing Seham to attack the west?
lynyrdskynyrd
Veteran
- Apr 22, 2005
- 1,182
- 558
Oh quit crying, just go file another RICO suit. In usapa's world, you've just cited enough grounds for it.
RR,
Clearly you can see the error of your "30 years of labor law" comment. If there was truly 30 years of labor law on point in this case, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion. However it's in the press packet at usapa and you recite it well, but that in no way makes it true.
As for as the rest of your post being discredited by Cleared Direct, I'm sure you would like to read it again to see again, where you went wrong. So I have included it here for your reference.
Seems much more in keeping with reality as opposed to the usapa press kit.
Flip
ENJOY
Reed,
You asked why does the west dislike Seham. Because he is the one driving all of this litigation and delaying any inprovments on both sides. It was Seham that came up with and flied the RICO suit. Or are you telling the world that some pilot from USAPA came up with RICO charges and told Seham to go file them? Seham also has a responsibly to file what he believes are true charges. They were so wrong and so off of what RICO is supposed to be that the judge throw them out of court with prejudice. So you are incorrect that usapa is winning the RICO so far.
To address Sehams other wins The Breeger case was dismissed due to ripeness. The case can still be brought later. That was not brilliant lawyering that was a motion to dismiss and the judge following the law. AZ state charges were the same as the federal charges and wrapped into the Addingotn case. The AZ federal counts I and II were against the company NOT usapa, the company filed their motion to dismiss not Seham so he or usapa can not take credit for that.
There were a lot of west pilots in the court room and many more read the transcripts from the Addingoton case. We heard Seham try and sell the judge on the idea final and binding only applies to the merger reps. Even the judge had to tell Seham that was not the law. We all know that Seham put Sully and Skiles on the stand for one reason only. It had nothing to do with this case it was a stunt. It was Seham that blocked Bradford from testifying for his baby.
We have all heard or read the outrageous things that Seham has said in court to try and save his own career. Usapa is not directing that, that is all Seham. We watched Seham in PHX during the election tell the PHX pilots some of the biggest lies. It was Seham that tried to convince the judge that even thought usapa had been found liable of DFR there should be no penalties, no injunction and there should be separate votes because that is what is best for the east.
Lastly we see Seham run crying to the ninth circuit asking for the fourth time to stay the injunction. But this time it was on an emergency basis in the wrong court. Looks kind of foolish now since there is no merger. Was it usapa that told Seham to file an emergency stay in the wrong court or was it Seham that made the suggestion and did it?
I asked my rep who is making the legal decisions. They told me they dont know. The BPR did not know about the emergency stay until after they left the BPR meeting. So who is making the legal decision? Is it Cleary by himself or is it Seham by himself because it is not the BPR.
Is it Seham that has been attacking the west or is the east pilot directing Seham to attack the west?
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
Seham is an inseparable component of this issue and frankly deserves all of the criticism leveled at him, and probably more. USAPA, Bradford, Cleary and Seham are all cut from the same unscrupulous cloth where they think rules of conduct and the rule of law do not apply to them. The despotic "leadership" of USAPA would have made very little progress towards their objective of discriminating and unfairly representing the west pilots if it were not for Seham's self-serving, cash-grabbing willingness to twist and distort every conceivable angle of the labor laws of this nation in order to achieve a short-term delay in the implementation of the NIC.
While I'm sure Seham would like to fantasize that with his keen mind and eloquent distortions of fact that he could somehow deliver on his promised DOH victory for the east pilots, but in his more rational moments I'm sure he looks at USAPA as the ignorant, gullible, all passion, no brains, easily manipulated fool that he can separate from their money faster than Usain Bolt can run the 100 meter dash. I am no fan of and generally look skeptically on the effectiveness of the US federal courts, but in this case I am absolutely certain that Wake, Tashima, Graber, and Bybee will see right through Seham's lies, and distortions. I fully expect them to put USAPA in its place as a libelous DFR organization that will have to pay the maximum allowable penalties and fines for its brazen and blatantly illegal conduct. A total USAPA loss at the 9th is only slightly less certain than the denial Seham's idiotic emergency request for a stay of Wake's injunction. If he were just some blowhard with an internet blog it would be laughable; however, since he is the lead counsel of a CBA that is presenting his case to a federal COA this action defies description in its level of stupidity.
To me this means the overly zealous USAPA & Seham supporters fall into two categories. Either they are just as unscrupulous and narcissistic as Seham or they are too simple-minded and irrational to know that they are being taken for the most destructive ride of their lives on the USAPA/Seham express. That is not to say that there aren't (or weren't) a lot of east pilots who never really take the time to understand the details of the matter at hand and who just want their precious DOH, but for someone to come out and defend the incorrigible Seham as if he is somehow a noble champion of the legal profession defies any other rational description. I'm not sanguine enough to think that Seham will ever face ethics charges or disbarment, but that is certainly what he deserves. He epitomizes the reason why so many in this country have such disdain for the legal profession.
V
VAflyGal
Guest
Two hundred fifty thousand pages of the same old same old, muck and mire, blame and finger pointing.
It's no wonder we ceased merger talks with United yet again.
That said, does anyone have a fair and reasonable solution to this problem other than more years of wallet-busting litigation? How about equipment and base fences for a few years? There are quite a few people who are reaching the retirement mark - by the time the dust settles half of the guys will be retirement age.
It's dragging everyone down.
It's no wonder we ceased merger talks with United yet again.
That said, does anyone have a fair and reasonable solution to this problem other than more years of wallet-busting litigation? How about equipment and base fences for a few years? There are quite a few people who are reaching the retirement mark - by the time the dust settles half of the guys will be retirement age.
It's dragging everyone down.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Hi Reed,
You don't have to buy into my logic. We are all free to conclude and opine as we see fit. However, I still believe that I retain enough of the professional insight from my previous employment to separate what I like or dislike in a parties case to discern whether that party's attorney is acting within the appropriate Rules of Professional Responsibilities. Trust me, when I was employed we often did not like opposing counsel and his/her tactics. But we never saw the sheer amount of issues that has arisen with this case.
Judges and attorneys do not often refer other attorneys for discipline by the bar association's ethical division. Frankly I think of it as a mindset of the lawyer's club. Whether any judges or Addington counsel refer this to the Bar is uncertain (or may have already occurred and is pending until this case is resolved). I just know that attorneys are not allowed to do anything at all in furtherance of their client's wishes. They are specifically prohibited from doing so.
Dr. Jacobs did not give testimony, but I think what you refer to is his oral argument. If you are so inclined I would be interested in knowing what part of that argument you found to be offensive and maybe we can discuss that.
I agree, but at some point the profession of law became an issue in this case. That may well have had a start when Seham acted as:
1. Advisor to Bradford;
2. Helped create the various founding documents of USAPA;
3. Acted as General Counsel;
4. Acted as trial counsel; and,
5. Is now serving as appellate counsel.
That string of employment on all those phases is so unusual that I am not aware of any attorney or firm being that involved in all phases of any labor group or corporation of the size of USAPA.
As long as we're pompously correcting people here I believe HP2USFA might be guilty of a spelling mistake rather than grammar - yes grammar, not grammer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
