Yes, question: why would everybody be happy? I would think the West pilots may have something to worry about. Is that not true? USAPA won an expedited appeal from the 9th, yes? How is that cause for happiness for the West ?
I kind of wondered the same. However, as I have said many times I don't have secret access or know the secret handshake. I have a few friends there, but nothing more.
Anyway, to answer what you really asked, I believe the West folks share the desire to have this resolved so that East and West can hopefully move on together. Right or wrong, that's my read on it.
Yes, question: you left out about the written arguments that will be submitted before the oral arguments. It would be in those written briefs that USAPA will lay out most of its appeal. Is that true?
Yes. The prior posts today had said that and I didn't repeat the actual briefing schedule.
Once the Appellee's Response brief is filed the case will be assigned to a panel. (Yes, I know that this is before any Appellant's Reply brief would be filed.) The case management lawyers at the Ninth Circuit then read the briefs and classify the case as to its complexity and the volume of the case materials. The still-secret panel receives all the briefs and all the motions and transcripts dealing with the appeal and they read them all prior to the day the case has its oral argument. So the briefs will be a large part, probably a huge majority, of the materials the judges use as a basis for their decision.
Having been through oral arguments before an appeals court myself, this is where the judges ask THEIR questions. Is that true? And would not those questions be based upon the previous written briefs/arguments?
Yes and likely, although the questions could arise independently from review of trial testimony, Judge Wake's Statement of Facts and Law, or anything else that causes the judges to have a question.
Another question: wasn't it you and a number of West pilots who thought USAPA's appeal would take at least 14 months to 2 years to be heard?
Yes. I didn't think that Appellees would chose not to oppose the Motion to Expedite, nor did I think that the Court of Appeals would grant the motion.
It seems to me that the West has already decided what the outcome will be. They can whistle past all the graveyards in PHX but that won't get them an answer any sooner than the court of appeals ruling. Isn't that true?
I'm not sure if there was a question there or not. I will answer this way and if you have a follow-up I will answer that when it is asked.
I do not believe that reversible error occurred. I also have enough experience that I am never surprised that an appellate court surprises the parties and the attorneys. If you have noticed, I haven't been doing much a large amount of actual opining on what the court may or may not do simply because I know the "surprise" factor. Folks have asked my opinion and I have given it, but I don't consider any matter submitted before and trier-of-fact or any decider-of-law to be a slam dunk, bring out the beer, affair. (It seems to me I have said something akin to that many times. Hmmm.)
It also seems to me that the jury in the DFR case practiced jury nullification much like in the OJ trial although I don't know what the proper term is for this type of thing in a civil trial. Perhaps you know? As I recall, they deliberated only 3 hours, is that true? And that after such a complicated case for a jury of "plain citizens"? That is certainly true.
Jury nullification would be the correct term. It also can be true of civil law and not just criminal law. They were out about three mours, but we don't know exactly when they started on Friday nor when exactly they came to their unanimous conclusion. So when asked I say it was about three hours.
As for the time they were out I said many times that the demeanor of counsel has a lot to do with the psychology of the case and whether the jury believes the story told to them by one side or the other. A trial is basically theater. The parties put on their evidence under the rules made and enforced by the trial court.
I said early on that the jury had turned Seham off like a switch. They got tired of him, his arguments and his demeanor. The same was true of Lucas Middlebrook. Jim Bringle was the only USAPA attorney who seemed to have good vibes with the jury. Seham should have never taken as much of a role in front of the jury. I'm not sure that the end result would be different but I don't think it would have only taken three hours to deliberate.
I know you have admitted bias towards the West but you do seem to answer questions out of some kind of knowledge you have obtained which is not always laced with your bias. That's all I am asking of you now.......your none-biased answers to the questions you have invited.
I haven't been reading this forum lately so if I have asked duplicate questions, please excuse me. Thank you.
I believe the majority of my admitted bias is that I believe the West folks are right about the facts and the law. Admittedly I thought that way before trial, but the trial cemented my mind. I also have stated that Seham, in my view, disrespected the Arizona attorneys and judge. In my opinion he had a New Yorker's superiority complex in that he was going to show all these desert-loving hicks what law was all about. Oops. As the phrase goes, "it sucks to be him."
Thank you for your kind closing and you are welcome for the response.
