US Pilots Labor Thread 3/18-3/25-MUST READ FIRST POST

[luvn737s]

I think USAPA is trying to fabricate a case for judicial bias against them so that they have a shed of hope for an appeal being heard.

Hint: This isn't the way to do it.

Regardless, a successful outcome (IMHO) for the west merely turns back the clock 9 months or so to the conditions that existed prior to USAPA dragging out their DOH list. Expectations should not be overly high about a verdict. The real hope is that USAPA's defeat will be the impetus for a wholesale shift in their focus and way of doing business.

 

[hp_fa]

IF the allegations are true, I think it was you that answered that question a while back - an attitude of the result justifying any means...

Jim

True. However I guess I am asking broader questions.

1. Did counsel knowingly violate the rules? If not, what could possibly be the excuse. Mr. Diamantopulos was reportedly licensed to practice law in 1991.

2. As mentioned in the Plaintiff's Motion, did Mr. Seham direct this alleged action to be done? As the senior partner in the Firm he is also responsible for actions taken by members of his firm.

3. What could possibly justify the alleged fundamental violation of attorney ethics? Attorneys are supposed to have good, clear judgment concerning a client's legal position, questions and how to legally (and ethically) proceed in advocating the client's position in various matters.

These are fundamental issues and they need to be resolved.

 

[Metroyet]

3. What could possibly justify the alleged fundamental violation of attorney ethics? Attorneys are supposed to have good, clear judgment concerning a client's legal position, questions and how to legally (and ethically) proceed in advocating the client's position in various matters.

Desperate times call for Desperate measures. Besides, the words Ethics and Lee Seham are diametrically opposed. Can't wait to see what the Judge does.

 

[Elevation]

I think USAPA is trying to fabricate a case for judicial bias against them so that they have a shed of hope for an appeal being heard.

Hint: This isn't the way to do it.

Regardless, a successful outcome (IMHO) for the west merely turns back the clock 9 months or so to the conditions that existed prior to USAPA dragging out their DOH list. Expectations should not be overly high about a verdict. The real hope is that USAPA's defeat will be the impetus for a wholesale shift in their focus and way of doing business.

We all have taken many steps backwards and for a ruling to but us back at square one (dual ratif. etc) with little hope of moving forward (stalemate) would be seen as a pyrrhic victory without a timeline/plan to implement the nic. I think the judge will end this with a decisive ruling which will put this topic behind us.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

We all have taken many steps backwards and for a ruling to but us back at square one (dual ratif. etc) with little hope of moving forward (stalemate) would be seen as a pyrrhic victory without a timeline/plan to implement the nic. I think the judge will end this with a decisive ruling which will put this topic behind us.

If ALPA merger policy and the TA being ignored vs. the Collective Bargaining Agent being free to enact its own protocols are the issue of the DFR, then it would restore the old status quo. The East pilots would be entitled to the same protection that the West is holding up as its grounds for DFR. The right of an integrated seniority list to be determined by separate dual ratification of a joint contract. If your claim is what was agreed to under ALPA is sacrosanct then enjoy separate contracts for a very long time.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Mr. Diamantopulos is not licensed to practice law in Arizona. He also has not been granted pro hac vice status (Temporary admission to the State Bar of a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of representing a client under the auspices of a duly licensed member of the State Bar.) He works for the Seham Law Firm and that implicates Mr. Seham and his partners and associates in the alleged impropriety.

Um. Excuse me.

Is this not a federal case?

What does an Arizona license have to do with anything?

Is Seham licensed in Arizona? Or the new lead counsel for USAPA (whose name escapes me?)

Didn't think so.

 

[luvn737s]

Judge Wake has given USAPA plenty of opportunities to correct their course outside of the courtroom, but USAPA is too stubborn to listen to him. I do think that Wake will rule quite narrowly on the DFR issue with the hammer of more drastic action waiting in the wings to insure USAPA's compliance to both the letter and spirit of his ruling.

 

[cleardirect]

Um. Excuse me.

Is this not a federal case?

What does an Arizona license have to do with anything?

Is Seham licensed in Arizona? Or the new lead counsel for USAPA (whose name escapes me?)

Didn't think so.

There are no federal law licenses. Each state is responsible for their bar. Read HP-FA post closely. It talks about being admitted pro vice hac. At the discretion of the court. The associate from NY had not even applied.

No Seham and Brengle are no licensed in Arizona but they have local counsel. Read a filing. You will see a name Stanly Lubin with a PHX address. He is the local counsel. Who is suppose to be keeping the visitors informed about local rules and customs. Someone s failing at their job.

This is a major league violation.

 

[hp_fa]

Um. Excuse me.

Is this not a federal case?

What does an Arizona license have to do with anything?

Is Seham licensed in Arizona? Or the new lead counsel for USAPA (whose name escapes me?)

Didn't think so.

From Wikipedia (which I admit isn't controlling legal authority but it does put it into English as opposed to lawyer-speak):

Federal district and appellate courts

Admission to a state bar does not entitle the admitted attorney to appear and plead before the United States district courts or any United States court of appeals. As with State appellate courts, admission to the bar of a federal district or appellate court is granted upon payment of a fee and taking an oath of admission. These requirements are often different (such as not requiring a fee) for attorneys who appear before federal courts on behalf of the United States federal government, such as Assistant United States Attorneys.

An attorney must apply to each district separately. For instance, a Texas attorney who practices in federal courts throughout the state would have to get admitted separately to the Northern District of Texas, the Eastern District, the Southern District, and the Western District. To handle a federal appeal the attorney would also be required to be admitted separately to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the United States Bankruptcy Courts are divisions of the District Courts, admission to a particular US District Court includes admission to the corresponding Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Courts require attorneys attend training on electronic filing before they may file motions however.

Some federal district courts have extra admission requirements. For instance, the Southern District of Texas requires attorneys seeking admission to attend a class on practice and procedures in that District, while the Southern District of Florida administers an entrance exam. The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island requires candidates to both attend classes and pass an examination. Many federal district courts require attorneys to be members of the state bar where the court sits.

The Rules of the Federal District of Arizona can be found here.

Seham and a few of his Firm's attorneys have been admitted to Arizona pro hac vice . Additionally, the "lead" counsel has also been admitted pro hac vice . The definition of pro hac vice is "for the occasion." In other words, for this case. If you look at the various documents that have been filed you will see that the Defendant also lists Stanley Lubin as an attorney because he is an Arizona attorney and is sponsoring Seham, et al., into the Arizona courts.

p.s. - Cleardirect and I cross-posted.

 

[nycbusdriver]

This is a major league violation.

Did Judge Wake tell you that over beer and tacos?

Yawn.

 

[ClueByFour]

Um. Excuse me.

Is this not a federal case?

What does an Arizona license have to do with anything?

Is Seham licensed in Arizona? Or the new lead counsel for USAPA (whose name escapes me?)

Didn't think so.

No, but they were presumably admitted pro hac vice.

If the other attorney (who contacted a west pilot, ex parte, natch) has not been admitted as such, it may be two sanctions for the price of one.

 

[cleardirect]

Did Judge Wake tell you that over beer and tacos?

Yawn.

I hope that is the yawn of you waking up. Because the morning bird of reality is starting to sing.

 

[A320 Driver]

I hope that is the yawn of you waking up. Because the morning bird of reality is starting to sing.

LOL...The bird can sign until his beak falls off and that won't get you the NIC. Even if you win, you can't get by an East ratification vote if it includes the Nic. You can stomp your feet and pound your chest and you STILL will never be able to use it.

We can debate this forever...won't change a thing.



A320 Driver B)

 

[cleardirect]

LOL...The bird can sign until his beak falls off and that won't get you the NIC. Even if you win, you can't get by an East ratification vote if it includes the Nic. You can stomp your feet and pound your chest and you STILL will never be able to use it.

We can debate this forever...won't change a thing.

A320 Driver B)

You keep thinking that there is only one way to the end.

You may begin to feel differently as circumstances change. There are a couple of hearings coming up that might shake your world.

100 east furloughs and downgrades could change your mind. Seperate ops may not be so good.

 

[Phoenix]

There are a couple of hearings coming up that might shake your world.
....

Let me guess.. somewhere there is an ALPA missing a spokesman.