http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/thousands-of-us-airways-pilots-victims-o/229401204snapthis said:I saw that you were planning operation KY like you have in the past with false ID theft, Cactus 18 dismissal, imaginary dog poo but you always lubing yourself in the end.
2014 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
You guys are just scum.snapthis said:
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 2,148
Chick Corea, Bill Evans, as good as they come. A US airways clip on is only $10.00 at M&H!Beancounter said:
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Dismissed. It went nowhere.MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
BTW, if such an event had occurred then how do you know it was West pilots? Did you get your DNA test kits out and it came back Westie?
I think there is a better chance all this has been fabricated.
Here's your loss in court:
"Because the appropriate "commonsensical, fact-specific"
examination of the allegations in USAPA's complaint fails to
yield a pattern of racketeering activity, USAPA has failed to
state a cognizable RICO claim. See Menasco, 886 F.2d at 684.ime).
Because the appropriate "commonsensical, fact-specific"
examination of the allegations in USAPA's complaint fails to
yield a pattern of racketeering activity, USAPA has failed to
state a cognizable RICO claim. See Menasco, 886 F.2d at 684.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
IV.
We can quickly dispose of USAPA's remaining
contentionsthat the district court erred in denying it leave
to amend its complaint and in refusing to grant it injunctive
relief.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint."
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Thank you Pat O'Neill for your work. Further action may be warranted.
Case - No. 2014-01-07
Complainants:
First Officer David P. Simmons First Officer Keith J. Krueger
Captain Roland Vieites Captain Ronaldo L. Borgogni First Officer David Pianalto First Officer Steve Duden
Captain Kevin Judd
vs.
The US Airline Pilots Association
DISSENT
As a member of the USAPA Appeal Board, I, Patrick ONeill, DISSENT from the majority Decision of the other board members on this matter. (I CONCUR only as regards the preliminary and statement of fact items discussed within the Decision: membership status, timeliness of the Complaints and the consolidation of the Complaints to be addressed via this one Decision.)
It is my opinion that one of the functions of the Appeal Board is to stop abusive or unreasonable practices that occur and that are not well defined in the Constitution and Bylaws. That is, to act as a system of "checks and balances" over the practices of union officers.
Although the Secretary/Treasurer is tasked with executing the dues-collection functions of the union, it is my belief that the recent policy enacted, and as identified in the Complaints, is an arbitrary, unwarranted change to the method of billing members who are not on dues check-off. These changes come without convincing or sufficient explanation and are unnecessary and unreasonable, in my opinion.
I feel that the Appeal Board has the right and the obligation to intervene and correct situations such as this. Furthermore, I do not believe that this amounts to "Monday morning quarterbacking" as in the Hummel/Bradford recall case.
That case involved issues that were very clear-cut and well defined in the USAPA Constitution and Bylaws, which is not the situation here.
There are two issues as identified in the Complaints that I feel are well-founded:
1) The claim that the retro pay should be levied at 1.95% (the dues rate in effect at the time) for the period from 08 Feb 2013 through 15 Apr 2013, and 2.45% thereafter, which reflects an assessment approved by the Board of Pilot Representatives that took effect on that date.
2) The numerous claims that USAPA members are being overbilled for their dues obligation due to the fact that USAPA is not taking into account the members 401k contributions.
Captain and Secretary-Treasurer Rob Streble was interviewed by the Appeal Board via phone conference about these issues. As to #1 above, Captain and Secretary-Treasurer stated that the entire amount of the retro pay was deemed by him to have been "earned" on December 9th, 2013, upon execution of the POR date and therefore subject to the rate in effect at the time, which totals 2.45%. He admitted that if a pilot had been on any type of unpaid leave for the period from 08 Feb 2013 through 09 Dec 2013, then the dues-able basis for that pilot would be reduced by an applicable amount. It stands to reason, therefore, that the money was actually "earned" by the pilot on an ongoing basis, and only paid out in late December.
The USAPA Constitution and Bylaws state that "dues are payable on all qualifying income at the rate in effect at the time the income is earned". (emphasis added). It is my dissenting opinion that the USAPA should re-calculate all members dues obligation for the period from 08 Feb 2013 through 15 Apr 2013 and provide a refund or credit accordingly.
As to #2 above, there are several troubling issues: the Complainants allege that they are being billed for dues on wages that have been diverted to their 401k accounts. This is not dues-able income. These members have offered pay stubs to verify these amounts however they are being billed without regard to these contributions with the explanation that they will be reconciled at some point in the future. This is especially concerning, given the present state of affairs, in which USAPA will almost certainly cease to function as the collective bargaining agent for US Airways pilots in the near future. In the past, the USAPA dues bill that is mailed to all members not on dues check-off had verbiage that allowed a pilot in this situation to have his bill adjusted accordingly. This language has recently, inexplicably been deleted from the USAPA dues bill. I was not convinced of a compelling reason for this, other than to maximize dues collection in the short-term. The new policy fails to consider adjusting a pilots dues bill for 401k contributions, stating a lack of time and resources to do so. It is important to note that these situations result in several
hundred dollars of dues being paid by a pilot above what his/her obligation should be. It should be a simple accounting matter to adjust for this, well within the scope and capabilities of a union that collects multiple-millions of dollars per year in dues and assessments.
While it is noted (and strongly advocated by
the Secretary Treasurer) that the issues in #2 above may be avoided by the pilot utilizing dues check-off, there is no requirement for the member to participate in that program. Some are uncomfortable with direct deductions being taken out of their paychecks. In my opinion, a member who chooses not to utilize dues check-off is still entitled to a good-faith and fair estimation of his dues obligation in real time, without having to wait months or years to be reconciled. It is completely reasonable for a member to expect his dues bill to be adjusted for 401k contributions, provided he provides adequate documentation to the union. Thus, for the reasons enumerated herein, I respectfully DISSENT.
Case - No. 2014-01-07
Complainants:
First Officer David P. Simmons First Officer Keith J. Krueger
Captain Roland Vieites Captain Ronaldo L. Borgogni First Officer David Pianalto First Officer Steve Duden
Captain Kevin Judd
vs.
The US Airline Pilots Association
DISSENT
As a member of the USAPA Appeal Board, I, Patrick ONeill, DISSENT from the majority Decision of the other board members on this matter. (I CONCUR only as regards the preliminary and statement of fact items discussed within the Decision: membership status, timeliness of the Complaints and the consolidation of the Complaints to be addressed via this one Decision.)
It is my opinion that one of the functions of the Appeal Board is to stop abusive or unreasonable practices that occur and that are not well defined in the Constitution and Bylaws. That is, to act as a system of "checks and balances" over the practices of union officers.
Although the Secretary/Treasurer is tasked with executing the dues-collection functions of the union, it is my belief that the recent policy enacted, and as identified in the Complaints, is an arbitrary, unwarranted change to the method of billing members who are not on dues check-off. These changes come without convincing or sufficient explanation and are unnecessary and unreasonable, in my opinion.
I feel that the Appeal Board has the right and the obligation to intervene and correct situations such as this. Furthermore, I do not believe that this amounts to "Monday morning quarterbacking" as in the Hummel/Bradford recall case.
That case involved issues that were very clear-cut and well defined in the USAPA Constitution and Bylaws, which is not the situation here.
There are two issues as identified in the Complaints that I feel are well-founded:
1) The claim that the retro pay should be levied at 1.95% (the dues rate in effect at the time) for the period from 08 Feb 2013 through 15 Apr 2013, and 2.45% thereafter, which reflects an assessment approved by the Board of Pilot Representatives that took effect on that date.
2) The numerous claims that USAPA members are being overbilled for their dues obligation due to the fact that USAPA is not taking into account the members 401k contributions.
Captain and Secretary-Treasurer Rob Streble was interviewed by the Appeal Board via phone conference about these issues. As to #1 above, Captain and Secretary-Treasurer stated that the entire amount of the retro pay was deemed by him to have been "earned" on December 9th, 2013, upon execution of the POR date and therefore subject to the rate in effect at the time, which totals 2.45%. He admitted that if a pilot had been on any type of unpaid leave for the period from 08 Feb 2013 through 09 Dec 2013, then the dues-able basis for that pilot would be reduced by an applicable amount. It stands to reason, therefore, that the money was actually "earned" by the pilot on an ongoing basis, and only paid out in late December.
The USAPA Constitution and Bylaws state that "dues are payable on all qualifying income at the rate in effect at the time the income is earned". (emphasis added). It is my dissenting opinion that the USAPA should re-calculate all members dues obligation for the period from 08 Feb 2013 through 15 Apr 2013 and provide a refund or credit accordingly.
As to #2 above, there are several troubling issues: the Complainants allege that they are being billed for dues on wages that have been diverted to their 401k accounts. This is not dues-able income. These members have offered pay stubs to verify these amounts however they are being billed without regard to these contributions with the explanation that they will be reconciled at some point in the future. This is especially concerning, given the present state of affairs, in which USAPA will almost certainly cease to function as the collective bargaining agent for US Airways pilots in the near future. In the past, the USAPA dues bill that is mailed to all members not on dues check-off had verbiage that allowed a pilot in this situation to have his bill adjusted accordingly. This language has recently, inexplicably been deleted from the USAPA dues bill. I was not convinced of a compelling reason for this, other than to maximize dues collection in the short-term. The new policy fails to consider adjusting a pilots dues bill for 401k contributions, stating a lack of time and resources to do so. It is important to note that these situations result in several
hundred dollars of dues being paid by a pilot above what his/her obligation should be. It should be a simple accounting matter to adjust for this, well within the scope and capabilities of a union that collects multiple-millions of dollars per year in dues and assessments.
While it is noted (and strongly advocated by
the Secretary Treasurer) that the issues in #2 above may be avoided by the pilot utilizing dues check-off, there is no requirement for the member to participate in that program. Some are uncomfortable with direct deductions being taken out of their paychecks. In my opinion, a member who chooses not to utilize dues check-off is still entitled to a good-faith and fair estimation of his dues obligation in real time, without having to wait months or years to be reconciled. It is completely reasonable for a member to expect his dues bill to be adjusted for 401k contributions, provided he provides adequate documentation to the union. Thus, for the reasons enumerated herein, I respectfully DISSENT.
Righhhhhhhhhhhht!snapthis said:
The RICO (RACKETEERING CHARGE) was dismissed the rest wasn't pursued because you children found it in your best interest to stop ! "snapthis said:
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Yea......Right.MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
So right it's worth repeating;
"The case was so poor the judge would not even let them try again." www.cactus18.typad.com
"Because the appropriate "commonsensical, fact-specific"
examination of the allegations in USAPA's complaint fails to
yield a pattern of racketeering activity, USAPA has failed to
state a cognizable RICO claim. See Menasco, 886 F.2d at 684.ime).
Because the appropriate "commonsensical, fact-specific"
examination of the allegations in USAPA's complaint fails to
yield a pattern of racketeering activity, USAPA has failed to
state a cognizable RICO claim. See Menasco, 886 F.2d at 684.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
IV.
We can quickly dispose of USAPA's remaining
contentionsthat the district court erred in denying it leave
to amend its complaint and in refusing to grant it injunctive
relief.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint."
The Cactus 18 are still waiting for their apology.
No need to read any further!snapthis said:
If infinity has an ending maybe anything is possible!snapthis said:
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
It ends at the 4th Circuit...MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
http://cactus18.typepad.com/the_cactus_18/2010/07/fourth-circuit-rules-we-win.html
Has Tony T Bone atoned for his lowlife posting? David Simmons, a fellow Christian and PHX rep approved of the low blow.snapthis said:
One would imagine there will be no repercussions. Russ will take care of the little dust up.
If you don't get disciplined for identity theft, what problem is there posting an image like that?
Tony reminds me of Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Church. The similarities are definitely there.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
