As the Beacon Rotates

[Move2CLT]

Its impossible to right this kind of stuff.

Congrats Pi and the rest of you easties for voting in these jokes. You guys continue to be the laughing stock of the industry.

For everyone's reading pleasure:




I Will Destroy Your Law Firm


...in which Randy Mowrey reportedly stated to two firm employees that, unless the firm
changed its behavior toward Ms. Murphy, it was his intention to "destroy" the firm.



From: Gary Hummel 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:38 AM

To: Board of Pilot Representatives; Officers; Communications

Subject: EVP Report #3 

 
Colleagues,

This email is the third of six emails to the BPR which will serve as the officer report by the USAPA EVP for the BPR telephonic meeting on November 15, 2011.

Upon discovery by SSMP, and pursuant to a subpoena issued in a federal lawsuit, SSMP received information relating to the source of the two attached emails. The subpoenaed information identifies Ms. Theresa Murphy as the owner of the IP address from where the emails were sent.  Although sent from Theresa Murphy’s IP address, the emails falsely identify the sender as Nick Granath, an attorney with SSMP.


************************************************************************************************


From: Gary Hummel 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:40 AM

To: Board of Pilot Representatives; Officers; Communications

Subject: EVP Report #4


Colleagues,

This email is the fourth of six emails to the BPR which will serve as the officer report by the USAPA EVP for the BPR telephonic meeting on November 15, 2011.

Attached is a letter from SSMP to Sarah Diane McShea, the attorney you hired to conduct the audit of SSMP legal bills.  In this letter, SSMP explain that they will have to defer McShea’s requests for information pursuant to their audit until they have had time to consult with their own legal counsel.  I can only presume that SSMP are considering how to construct their own impending lawsuit against USAPA for maligning their firm.

Please note that this letter was also copied to the O’dwyer law firm as an official notice to USAPA legal counsel.  I do not believe that the BPR has been made aware of this information from our current legal counsel.


Captain Gary Hummel | Executive Vice President | 
USAPA US Airline Pilots Association,
200 East Woodlawn Road, Suite 250, Charlotte, NC  28217
877-332-3342 office | 704-804-2724 cell | USAirlinePilots.org


************************************************************************************************


SEHAM. SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP
445 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 1204
WlllTE PLAINs, NEW YORK 10601
TEL: (914) 997-1346
FAX: (914) 997-7125
[email protected]


VIA ELECTRONIC AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL

Sarah Diane McShea, Esq.
26 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
ATIORNEYSAT LAW
[email protected]

 

Re: Review of Legal Bills


Dear Ms. McShea:

We are in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 2011. In view of certain events, both preceding and following your letter, a response will be deferred until we have had sufficient time to consult with our legal counsel David G. Keyko. In the meantime, our firm has initiated a John Doe action in federal court in a matter closely related to the proposed audit. We have decided to withdraw that action without prejudice pending an effort to confirm the identity of the John Doe responsible for the acts committed. We request your assistance in this respect.

It is not the objective of this letter to provide you a comprehensive overview of past events, but rather to permit you to understand why the proposed audit is problematic. Since mid-December, 2010, our firm has been confronted with a growing level of hostility from USAPA's two senior officers, much of it originating from the firm's supposedly ill treatment of a former employee Theresa Murphy, who is also the girlfriend of USAP A Vice President Randy Mowrey. Ms. Murphy was employed by our firm until July 1, 2011, and currently works as Of Counsel to the firm that has replaced us as USAP A General Counsel- O'Dwyer and Bernstein. Expressions of hostility over the past year include the following:

• E-mail correspondence from Mr. Mowrey dated December 15, 2010, which complained about the firm's treatment of Ms. Murphy and stated that "there are many aspects of the current situation that blur the distinctions between our professional and personal lives."

• A June 1, 2011, confrontation in Denton, Texas, in which Randy Mowrey reportedly stated to two firm employees that, unless the firm changed its behavior toward Ms. Murphy, it was his intention to "destroy" the firm.

• A June 3, 2011, teleconference wherein Mr. Mowrey advised that, although USAPA has experienced a "very productive relationship" with the firm, the relationship would be discontinued unless the firm's conduct toward Ms. Murphy was modified. This warning was part of written speech that was re-read to the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives (BPR) on August 25, 2011. We request that you provide us with a copy of that speech.

• At the August 25, 2011, BPR meeting, Mr. Mowrey read aloud from confidential emails between firm attorneys Nick Granath and Lee Seham, which referred to Ms. Murphy while declining to identify how he had obtained a copy of this correspondence.

• On or about September 4 and 19, two e-mails (attached) were disseminated to firm attorneys and others asserting, inter alia, that Lee Seham was narcissistic, morally bankrupt, and an alcoholic. These e-mails claimed to have inside information about how the audit of the firm's invoices would be conducted. The e-mails misappropriate the identity of my colleague Nick Granath and appear designed to destroy our law firm from within.


Pursuant to a subpoena issued in a federal lawsuit, we received information relating to the source of the September 4 and 19 e-mails. The subpoenaed information identifies Ms. Murphy as the owner of the IP address from where the e-mails were sent. (See attachment). While the subpoenaed information constitutes strong evidence that Ms. Murphy was the author, the fact that Mr. Mowrey resides with her complicates the issue.

We hereby request that you advise us whether Mr. Mowrey was involved in the writing and/or dissemination of the September 4 and 19 e-mails and, if he was, whether he was acting within his authority as USAPA Vice President. In view of the fact that our firm is still providing services in the context of contract negotiations, we request your response as soon as possible.

The apparent willingness of certain persons to interfere with our firm's electronic communications also leads me to request that you request that Mr. Mowrey disclose the source of the e-mail correspondence between me and Nick Granath that he read to the BPR at its meeting of August 25,2011. Such disclosure is compelled by the interests of the Association, the law firm, and the law firm's clients so that we may investigate whether the integrity of our electronic files have been compromised.

By copy of this letter to Mr. O'Dwyer, we make the similar request that he advise us whether Ms. Murphy was involved in the writing and/or dissemination ofthe September 4 and 19 e-mails and, if she was, whether she was acting within her authority as Of Counsel to the O'Dwyer firm.

A USAPA update dated October 31, 2011, states that "the auditors" recommended that all payments to our firm be stopped and that our firm's consequent assertion of a lien on the files was the basis for reassigning the remaining litigation work that we were performing for USAP A. Presumably, you have been provided with our correspondence to USAPA dated September 14, 2011, in which we volunteered to submit to an audit by the Secretary-Treasurer or his designee. We further advise you that no USAP A official has ever raised an issue with our invoices that we haven't addressed to his satisfaction.

Either Mr. Keyko or I will be in contact with you once we have had an opportunity to review the matter. Your response to the inquiries above is an integral part of that process.

Thank you for your consideration.


                                                                                        Sincerely,


                                                                                        Louis S Meltz

cc: Paul O'Dwyer

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP

MANHATTAN OFFICE, TEL, (212) 644-3707  FAX. (212) 644-3709                                        HOUSTON OFFICE: TEL, (281) 361-9705  FAX, (281) 361-9706 
            
MINNESOTA OFFICE: TEL, (612) 210-8460  FAX, (305) 675-3893                                           SEATTLE OFFICE, TEL, (206) 327-9468  FAX, (206) 299-3110
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Below are the e-mails that came from the IP address owned by Theresa Murphy)



SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP

Monday. September 19,201111:02:07 AM ET
Subject: Seham
Date: Monday, September 19, 201110:49:34 AM ET

From: Nick Granath

To: [email protected]

Rumor has it that former USAPA General Counsel Lee Seham has buried himself in the bottom of a whiskey bottle whilst he ruminates about how he can delay the inevitable. Sources tell us that USAPA is about to announce that they have retained a CPA firm with expertise in the legal auditing arena. The whispered background on this firm indicates that they have capabilities in the forensic accounting area as well as a strong criminal investigations background and significant forensic information technologies resources. Partnering with this firm will be a special counsel with extensive experience in all matters related to New York Bar ethics violations. As Seham looks for any available path to the lifeboat, one must wonder if he intends to take his crew with him on his sinking ship.

Our sources tell us that SSMP managing general partner, Louis Meltz has now written to USAPA President Cleary, staking out what can only be described as a desperate defensive position. Meltz reportedly accused unnamed USAPA members as trying to "destroy the firm". One must wonder how an airline pilot could destroy a law firm simply by proffering the opinion that SSMP should be subject to the same accounting standards as is customary for all reputable law firms. Perhaps it is because Meltz knows that SSMP cannot stand up to the scrutiny that will undoubtedly come as a result of the decision to have SSMP's billing practices audited. Is it possible that should Seham lose the ability to continue to bill USAPA in a way that provides no verification of services and lacks any true accountability that the house of cards known as Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen will come tumbling down?

Could it be true that Seham with his narcissistic, morally bankrupt obsession with what is best for Lee Seham would actually place all of his firms loyal and capable lawyers and staff at risk while attempting to pocket the last available USAPA dollars? It seems unfathomable to our observers that accomplished lawyers like Scott Petersen, Louis Meltz, Nick Granath and others would place themselves at such a high level of risk for a man who is concerned with nothing other than his own self interests and has no plausible path that will successfully protect SSMP from the inevitable conclusion that it has engaged in fraudulent billing practices.

We wonder how much of the wealth Mr. Seham has shared with his loyal but gullible staff. Seham has engaged in a systematic extraction of millions of dollars from the pilots represented by USAPA. The pilots employed by US Airways are all too familiar with this type of individual who would reach into their wallet while telling them that if only they would not notice the financial pain, all will work out in the end. Something tells us that this time it will be different. The man who was supposed to defend the pilot's interests will not be allowed to extort millions and walk away unscathed. We hope his partners and staff are all wise enough to avoid being sucked into the swirl as Seham washes himself down the drain.


************************************************************************************************

From: Nick Granath [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 1 :58 PM

To: [email protected]

Seham To Be Audited By USAPA ~

Page 1 of 1

Just in case you don't recognize the fellow pictured below it is former USAPA general counsel, Lee Seham. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and the example here is certainly no exception. Lee Seham after admitting that while his interaction with USAPA had substantially decreased, the billing had actually increased.

You may have recently read about the special BPR meeting called by certain reps after a private meeting with Seham. While it was apparently an attempt by him to secure future business for his firm by going after the USAPA President and Vice President the fiasco looks to have back fired on him in a rather dramatic fashion.

Several minutes into what appeared to be a thoroughly prepared diatribe he was interrupted by some of the BPR members to answer a few pointed questions. Without going into great detail one line of questioning inquired as to whether Seham made any attempt to contact the President or Vice President after the private meeting held with a few select reps. After all, in his own view, matters were discussed that were of a vital nature to the union. He stated that he had not, in fact, made any attempt to contact these officers. Understandably, if you are going to ambush someone it is best to keep them in the dark - obligation to the union notwithstanding.

In any event it was the follow-on discussion that shed light on what is a very serious matter indeed. Seham was describing his historical interaction with the officers in general and the President and Vice President in particular.

In regards to billing he referred to this interaction as "the cream on top." He went on to say that the past few months had seen a cooling of relations and that he had virtually no interaction of late.

As he continued he stated that, in fact, his firm's interaction with USAPA had decreased substantially. An intuitive question then followed - if the interaction had decreased substantially had the billing activity followed suit? The answer was not only no, that it had not decreased, but that the billing had actually increased.

The matter is being looked into thoroughly including an audit of the firm and inquiries as to whether other organizations have experienced similar problems. Seham reportedly states that he will not subject himself to an audit. It would appear that he ultimately has no choice.

Thankfully the past few months have seen the emergence of Attorney Brian O'Dwyer, who in all respects, appears to be extremely capable. Anyone who saw his performance cross examining Lyle Hogg at the injunctive relief hearing would agree. Perhaps Seham's read on his situation was not only astute but also fortunate for us asit appears to have revealed significant wrongdoing on his part.

 Stay tuned.

 9/7/2011


 Don't forget to visit the Compass Correction website by clicking on this encrypted URL Link: http://goo.gl/ELwKA

 

[USA320Pilot]

A Compass Correction

Discovery

From: Gary Hummel 

Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Board of Pilot Representatives; Officers; Communications
Subject: EVP Report #2

Colleagues,
This email is the second of six emails to the BPR which will serve as the officer report by the USAPA EVP for the BPR telephonic meeting on November 15, 2011. Attached is the court order granting SSMP permission to commence discovery in their lawsuit against Jane and John Doe.
The purpose of this discovery is to identify who was fraudulently sending emails impersonating Nick Granath. The emails implied that SSMP was overbilling USAPA and that Lee Seham had violated his obligation to the union. The emails also contained statements and innuendo asserting that Lee Seham had “buried himself in the bottom of a whiskey bottle,” that SSMP was engaged in “fraudulent billing practices” and had “extorted millions” to the detriment of USAPA.
The court grants discovery to SSMP
Captain Gary Hummel | Executive Vice President |
USAPAUS Airline Pilots Association,
200 East Woodlawn Road, Suite 250, Charlotte, NC 28217877-332-3342 office | 704-804-2724 cell | USAirlinePilots.org
__________________________________________________ _________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership,
and NICHOLAS PAUL GRANATH, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, as individuals or corporations, Defendants.
__________________________________________________ _________________
USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #:.__~__
DATE FILED: 10-4-11
MEMORANDUM DECISION
11 CV 6720

Briccetti, J.:
Plaintiffs have commenced this action asserting claims relating to emails sent by defendants Jane Doe and John Doe regarding plaintiffs' law practice. Plaintiffs have moved for leave to take immediate discovery to enable them to identify the Doe defendants. Pending before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for leave to take immediate discovery (Doc. #2), which, for the following reasons, is granted.

BACKGROUND
For purposes of ruling on the motion, the Court accepts all factual allegations of the complaint as true.
Plaintiff Seham, Seham, Meltz Petersen LLP ("SSMP") is a law firm in White Plains, New York. Plaintiff Nicholas Paul Granath is one of SSMP's attorneys based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Plaintiffs specialize in labor law, representing labor unions composed ofemployees of airline carriers. One oftheir clients is the US Airlines Pilots Association ("USAPA"), which is a union of pilots of US Airways, Inc. USAPA has been a client of SSMP since 2008.
On September 4,2011, at 1 :58 p.m., SSMP managing attorney Louis Meltz received an email from··[email protected] ... It contained a photograph of SSMP partner Lee Seham. The text of the email implied that SSMP was overbilling USAP A and that attorney Seham had violated his "obligation to the union." The email was sent without the consent or knowledge of Granath.
On September 19, 2011, at 10:49 a.m., Meltz, as well as several other SSMP attorneys, received another email from "Nick Granath [email protected]." This email contained statements and innuendo asserting that Lee Seham had "buried himself in the bottom of a whiskey bottle;" that SSMP, through its managing partner Lee Seham, was engaged in "fraudulent billing practices" and had "extorted millions" to the detriment of USAP A; and that such acts were "plac[ing] all ofhis firms['] loyal and capable lawyers and staff at risk." Plaintiffs were able to determine that the September 19 email originated from IP address
68.207.236.9.
Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and state law claims for fraudulent representation/civil fraud and tortious interference with contractual or business relations.


DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seek permission pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(I) to commence discovery prior to the parties conferring pursuant to Rule 26( f). Such relief is appropriate when good cause warrants it. See Ayyash v. Bank AI-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325,326
(S.D.N.Y. 2005); Directory Assistants, Inc. v. Doe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41881, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 28, 2010).1
As Judge Lynch noted in Ayvash, courts previously utilized a four-part test set forth in Notaro v. Koch, 95 F.R.D. 403, 405 (S.D.N.Y 1982), akin to the standard for a preliminary injunction, to determine whether discovery should proceed prior to the parties' conference. Over the last ten years or so, however, courts have used a "good cause" standard. See Ayyash v. Bank AI-Madina, 233 F.R.D. at 326 (citing cases); Directory Assistants, Inc. v.
The Court finds good cause to permit plaintiffs to commence discovery at this stage to discover defendants' identities. Plaintiffs assert they have diligently attempted to uncover defendants' identities by contacting various internet service providers ("ISP"). Plaintiffs represent that defendants' ISP -the one that holds defendants' identities -has informed plaintiffs that it will not reveal defendants' identities without a court order. Furthermore, according to plaintiffs, the ISP has informed them that it does not keep the information plaintiffs seek for long. Therefore, the need for discovery on an expedited basis is particularly acute given that plaintiffs must secure defendants' identities before such information is overwritten by the ISP and lost. Finally, the Court accepts plaintiffs' representations that they have no other mechanism for discovering defendants' identities.
Although plaintiffs have not yet served defendants with the summons and complaint, plaintiffs' narrow discovery should, ifsuccessful, give them sufficient information to serve defendants and permit this action to proceed.


CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for leave to take immediate discovery (Doc. #2).

The Clerk is instructed to terminate this motion.
Dated: October ~,2011 White Plains, New York
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge
Doe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41881, at *1 n.1 (citing cases).

 

[USA320Pilot]

Compass Correction Coalition: November 15, 2011

Jane and John Doe (Ra


The compass correction coalition would like to challenge the USAPA Communications Committee to keep up with us in informing US Airways’ pilots of rapidly changing events that could cause dire consequences for all of us professionally.
A recent review of the USAPA website shows important Committee updates and our expensive, well-staffed Communications Committee to be way behind on recent events.

So, hold on boys and girls, this is what is going on right now!
From: Gary Hummel 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:35 AM
To: Board of Pilot Representatives; Officers; Communications
Subject: EVP Report #1


Colleagues,This email is the first of six emails to the BPR which will serve as the officer report by the USAPA EVP for the BPR telephonic meeting on November 15, 2011. Attached is a complaint filed on September 26, 2011 by Plaintiffs Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen against Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe. I summarize as follows.

a. Someone fraudulently used an email address of “Nick Granath [email protected]” for the publication of false statements.
b. Nick Granath is an employee of SSMP and did not create this email account.
c. Someone (Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe) impersonated Nick Granath by publishing emails in order to harm SSMP.
d. The emails asserted that SSMP were engage in “fraudulent billing practices” and had “extorted millions” to the detriment of its client USAPA.e. Someone registered, used, and sent emails using “Nick Granath [email protected]” with the knowledge and intent to impersonate Plaintiff Nick Granath and to thereby deceive others as to the Defendants Jane and John Doe’s true identity.The purpose of this lawsuit is to bring action against Jane and John Doe to discover their true identity.
Captain Gary Hummel | Executive Vice President | USAPAUS Airline Pilots Association,
200 East Woodlawn Road, Suite 250, Charlotte, NC 28217877-332-3342 office | 704-804-2724 cell | USAirlinePilots.org

Case 7:11-cv-06720-VB Document 1 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 13 Lucas K. Middlebrook
Stanley J. Silverstone
George Diamantopoulos
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1204
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 997-1346Attorneys for PlaintifftUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN LLP,
a New York Limited Liability Partnership, and
NICHOLAS PAUL GRANATH,an individual.v.JANE DOE and JOHN DOE,
as individuals or corporationsPlaintiffs,Defendants.Civil Action JUDGE BRICCEITICOMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND,
MONETARY DAMAGES(Jury Trial Demanded)COMES NOW plaintiffs, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, and Nicholas Paul Granath, by and through their attorneys (pro se), and for their Complaint against defendants Jane Doe and John Doe, state as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
I. This is an action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and monetary damages stemming from the repeated fraudulent use of an email identity under the falsely assumed email address of…[email protected] ... and for publication of false statements through the same deceptive means, in violation of federal statute and state common law, in order to benefit defendants by defrauding plaintiffs of, or tortiously interfering to deprive them of, business or income, or economic advantage.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen LLP (hereinafter "SSMP") is a law firm and a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of New York, with its principal place of business at 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1204, White Plains, New York 1060J.
3. Plaintiff Nicholas Paul Granath (hereinafter "Granath'') is a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a licensed attorney in Minnesota who at all times relevant was employed as an attorney by SSMP and maintains an office of SSMP at 2915 Wayzata Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55405.
4. Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe ("defendant Does") are unknown individuals or entities who, upon information and belief, impersonated plaintiff Granath by publishing electronic correspondence through the Internet under the assumed email address of "Nick Granath [email protected]" in order to harm both plaintiffs. The true identity, capacity, and location of defendant Does is unknown. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action against said fictitious names and will amend their Complaint to display defendant Does' true names, or ask for leave of Court to do so, when plaintiffs learn the same through discovery, which plaintiff believe will reveal defendants' true identity, location, and capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Defendants are subject to in personam jurisdiction in this district, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in the state of New York, because defendants have committed wrongful and tortious acts within this district and state, because defendants have caused injury to plaintiff SSMP located in this district and state, and because defendants have engaged in unlawful conduct in this district and state specifically by misappropriating the email identity of an SSMP attorney and impersonating said attorney and by purposefully contacting and using internet and protected computer communications located in this district and state to further said wrongs and cause injury in this district and state.
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 arises pursuant to the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq, in particular Section 1030(g) providing that "[A Jny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief." In addition, plaintiffs' claims are brought under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2210 & 2202.
7. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in that the New York State law claims are so related to plaintiffs' statutory claims as to form the same "case or controversy" within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution.
8. Venue is proper within this district, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to these claims occurred within that district. On information and belief, venue may further be proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because defendant Does do business in, and accordingly reside in, this district.

FACTS
9. SSMP is a law firm headquartered in White Plains, New York. It employs attorneys in New York as well as in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Texas. A large part of SSMP's business is its practice of representing labor unions anywhere in the United States, particularly unions composed of employees of airline carriers subject to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., such as commercial aircraft pilots, mechanics, etc.
10. Granath is a licensed attorney in Minnesota employed by SSMP and is admitted to several federal courts. Granath regularly practices labor law on behalf of SSMP's clients. Granath maintains an office for SSMP in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
11. Plaintiffs rely upon their good will and professional reputation among existing clients, prospective clients, the bar, and the public, for business and for income.
12. The US Airline Pilots Association (hereinafter "USAPA") is an unincorporated association organized for the purpose and objective of a labor organization and is a "representative" as defined under the Railway Labor Act. USAPA is the certified collective bargaining representative of the pilots employed by US Airways, Inc.
13. USAPA has been since 2008 a substantial client of SSMP.
14. Plaintiff Granath, among other attorneys at SSMP, has represented USAPA as attorney of record in federal and state litigation matters before the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of North Carolina, District of Arizona, the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, the United States Supreme Court, and state courts in Texas and Arizona.
15. SSMP and its attorneys utilize Internet communications such as email and web sites in furtherance of its business and to represent clients including for attorney-client privileged communications. To facilitate this, SSMP contracts with an Internet Service Provider ("ISP") and other Internet-related business to provide email addresses unique to SSMP or its attorneys.16. For the purpose of utilizing Internet communications, SSMP maintains and relies upon protected computers as that term is defined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2).17. Granath's SSMP email addressis ... [email protected] ...
18. Lee Seham and Louis Meltz are the managing partners of SSMP.
19. Meltz's SSMP email is, "[email protected]." Seham's email address is "[email protected]."
20. Neither Granath nor SSMP have ever created, registered, or used the email address, "Nick Granath [email protected]" nor have they ever authorized or consented to the creation, registration, or use of the email address .. [email protected] ...
21. SSMP also employs, among others, attorneys Aliki Recklitis, Lucas Middlebrook, and Scott Petersen. All three attorneys represent USAPA on behalf of SSMP.
22. Hotmail, is a free web-based email service operated by Microsoft, Inc. as part of its Windows Live group. Upon registration, new users can choose from a Hotmail domain address, such as "[name]@hotmail.com."
23. Microsoft requires registered Hotmail users to agree to terms of service. One term of service is that users will "not ... create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others" and will not "violate any applicable laws or regulations."
24. Sometime prior to September 4, 20 I I, defendant Does registered an account with Hotmail for use of the email .. [email protected] ...
25. Defendant Does' registration of the email "Nick Granath [email protected]." was without the consent or knowledge of plaintiffs.
26. On September 4, 20II, at 1:58 pm EST, an email was received by SSMP managing attorney Meltz from the email address … [email protected] ...
27. Defendant Does sent or caused the September 4th email to be sent.
28. The September 4th email contained an attached photo of SSMP partner Lee Seham and a body of text that implied SSMP was overbilling USAPA and that attorney Seham had violated his "obligation[ s] to the union."
29. On September 19, 2011, at 10:49 am EST, another email from "Nick Granath whec715@hotmaiLcom" was received by SSMP attorney Meltz.
30. Defendant Does sent or caused the September 19th email to be sent.
31. The September 19th email contained false representations in the form of statements and innuendo asserting as material fact that Lee Seham had "buried himself in the bottom of a whiskey bottle," and that SSMP, through its managing partner Lee Seham, was engaged in "fraudulent billing practices" and had "extorted millions" to the detriment of its client USAP A, and that by such alleged acts was "plac[ing] all of his firms loyal and capable lawyers and staff at risk."
32. The September 19th email from "Nick Granath whec715@hotmaiLcom" was also received by SSMP attorneys Granath, Recklitis and Middlebrook at the same time, and upon information and belief other individuals associated with SSMP and USAP A.
33. Deceived as to the sender of the September 19th email, some SSMP attorneys responded to it by sending a reply email believing they were responding to their colleague, Plaintiff Granath.
34. Defendants registered, used, and sent emails using the "Nick Granath whec715@hotmaiLcom" address with the knowledge and intent to impersonate plaintiff Granath and to thereby deceive others as to Defendant Does' true identity.
35. An "Internet Service Provider" is a service that runs Internet servers (i.e. computers) to provide businesses or individuals with web or email services so that customers can send and receive content over the Internet, including email.
36. An "IP address" or Internet Protocol address is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.
37. An analysis of the September 19th email reveals an originating IP address (68.207.236.9) from which the September 19 "Nick Granath [email protected] .. email was generated.
38. An analysis of the originating IP address (68.207.236.9) specific to the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address reveals that the September 19th email originated from an identifiable geographic state and city inside the United States.
39. An analysis of the IP address specific to the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address also reveals that the September 19th email utilized a specific ISP that currently operates in the identified location.
40. Defendant Does are presently identifiable only by their IP address contained in the emails sent from the address of .. [email protected] ...
41. Defendant Does have acted intentionally to use the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address to access without authorization, or in excess of authorized access, protected computer(s) used in interstate commerce on the Internet including by Hotmail and the applicable Internet Service Providers and plaintiffs' protected computers, in order to obtain information from protected computers, and have done so with the specific purpose of seeking to obtain commercial advantage or private financial gain and in furtherance of criminal or tortious acts. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C); 1030(C)(2)(8)(i); 1030(C)(2)(8)(ii).
42. Defendant Does have acted intentionally to use the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address to access without authorization, or in excess of authorized access, protected computer(s) used in interstate commerce on the Internet including by Hotmail and the applicable Internet Service Providers and plaintiffs' protected computers, in order to knowingly and intentionally defraud, or intend to defraud, and obtain valuable business, clients, income, or commercial advantage or other things of value. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4).
43. Defendant Does have acted intentionally to use the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address to access without authorization, or in excess of authorized access, protected computer(s) used in interstate commerce on the Internet including by Hotmail and the applicable Internet Service Providers and plaintiffs' protected computers, in order to knowingly and with intent to defraud by trafficking in information similar to passwords. 18 U.S.c. § 1030(a)(6).
44. Defendant Does willfully, knowingly, with malice and specific intent, and/or with reckless disregard or indifference to the plaintiffs' rights, acted to defraud plaintiffs by impersonating plaintiff Granath by use of the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address, and by making false representations of material fact with the intent of misleading and deceiving plaintiffs in order to obtain things of value including business, clients, income or commercial advantage.
45. Defendant Does knowingly, with intent, and/or with reckless disregard or indifference to the plaintiffs' rights, interfered with plaintiff SSMP's ongoing business relationship with USAPA by impersonating plaintiff Granath by use of the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address and by the aforesaid acts.
46. Defendant Does knowingly, with intent, and/or with reckless disregard or indifference to the plaintiffs' rights, interfered with plaintiff Granath's ongoing business relationship with SSMP by impersonating plaintiff Granath by use of the "Nick Granath [email protected]" email address and by the aforesaid acts.
47. Plaintiffs have suffered harm by defendant Does' aforesaid wrongful acts.
48. The conduct of defendant Does is causing great and irreparable injury to plaintiffs that cannot be fully compensated with, or measured in, money-damages.
49. Defendants Does' conduct will continue.
50. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for defendant Does' tortious acts.
51. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their action (or, alternatively, there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of plaintiffs).

 

[Move2CLT]

Yes easties, that's your union hard at work.

Not only is the west suing them, the company and Seham all want a piece of them.

Your dues at work.


Congrsts Pi on your choice of representation.

And breeze, if you're still alive, I hope you're embarrassed.