Here is what I truly do not understand, at least for any legitimate reason. Why is USAPA, via SSM&P, throwing away credibility before the courts?
The actual statement by Judge Wake contained in the final and appealable Order in the trial court is so rare that I actually never previously saw it stated in that way before by a judge. That Order will be read by any and all appellate judges that ever see this case. So, even giving USAPA and SSM&P every benefit of the doubt regarding how Judge Wake perceived them in court, they go out and blow their credibility again, this time directly to the Ninth.
How so?
Without a stay, USAPA and its members will suffer irreparable harm because collective bargaining that has been ongoing for years is now effectively paralyzed.
Huh? What irreparable harm? Nicholas Granneth admitted in the oral argument that the pace of negotiations is slow and only a few negotiation sessions are scheduled between now and the end of the year. Additionally, the whole topic of pilot compensation hasn't yet even been opened. So where is any factual basis for irreparable harm?
Next sentence.
At the same time, ongoing litigation expenses associated with any further proceedings at the district court impose a significant hardship.
Where is there any proof? There is plenty of proof to the contrary because USAPA, via SSM&P, has filed every document and made every argument possible and then some. It is true that a party to a litigation has to fully argue its position in the trial court or forever waive that argument on appeal. However the record in the case, as argued by SSM&P, well exceeds what was required to merely preserve the record and that record will be available to the appellate court.
One last sentence to go...
Finally, the flying public’s interest (and the carrier’s) will be served by a stay and early resolution to this case.
How does the flying public have any care whatsoever whether the injunction is either in place or lifted? Most of the flying public, or the public-at-large, have no knowledge that there is an injunction in place so how can they have any interest in, or be served by, the staying of the injunction?
None of you need a law degree or any legal training to understand these particular statements or their context. These are simple statements that USAPA, through its counsel, claim are the factual basis for the motion to the Ninth Circuit,
but none of them are true.
So the question still arises, why is USAPA, through counsel, throwing away any shred of credibility in front of the Court of Appeals after it did the very same thing in the trial court?
