Metroyet
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 5,664
See you in Federal Court on 9-24....USCABAS 9-11.
August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Yes, you will see us in court.. and you might want to consider three things... 1) Marty is arguing like a hypocrite, 2) Siegel is arguing like a hypocrite, and 3) the Judge appears to be all ears for them but still proclaims she has her limits. The Plaintiff protests the futility of projecting through all the uncertainties, the Company enjoys the unequal benefit of being dismissed by Silver because she has no jurisdiction over the interpretation of the TA/MOU, and Judge Silver boldly presses on to who knows where. This is indeed a comedy of justice.
1) Marty is arguing like a hypocrite... He took exception to the judge requiring him to project out through all the uncertainties... but he demands the Judge to project through all the uncertainties, including the very real possibility that USAPA and the other signatories to the MOU may have to renegotiate portions of the MOU in order to satisfy the DOJ objections, in order to proceed with a merger that may or may not look anything like the one currently proposed. Indeed there is no real expectation that it will proceed exactly as proposed in the MOU.
2) Mr. Siegel is arguing like a hypocrite... He demands that Judge Silver interpret the MB provision in the MOU (a CBA) but that is exactly why USAirways (co-defendants) were dismissed from your hybrid DFR lawsuit. Do you not remember that Siegel got USAirways dismissed because interpretation of the TA/MOU is not within her jurisdiction. Judge Silver won't even contemplate USAirways' responsibilities with respect to the TA/MOU, but now Siegel demands Silver must take upon herself jurisdiction for interpreting the MOU and its application, leaving USAPA (but not USAirways) liable/subject to Silver's Judgement in the same exact matter. He is arguing the opposite out of both sides of his mouth. Ludicrous. Does the judge see this obvious contradiction of jurisdiction she is toying with? She set her own precedent and has forgotten it already, seemingly opposing herself?
3) Judge Silver has told you her limits (few they may be
):Judge Silver is much smarter than Judge Wake and I eagerly await the rabbits she will pull from her hat. 🙂
Res Judicata
Veteran
Damn, you put a lot of effort in that post...only to once again entirely mis-understand what the Judge said. This is going to trial, the Judge who once reversed her opinion on the DJ ripeness NO LONGER has ripeness concerns. Perhaps ratifying a contingent CBA was all the proof she and the 9thneed as to what USAPA is actually going to do...if allowed, which it isn't.
Yes, you will see us in court.. and you might want to consider three things... 1) Marty is arguing like a hypocrite, 2) Siegel is arguing like a hypocrite, and 3) the Judge appears to be all ears for them but still proclaims she has her limits. The Plaintiff protests the futility of projecting through all the uncertainties, the Company enjoys the unequal benefit of being dismissed by Silver because she has no jurisdiction over the interpretation of the MOU, and Judge Silver boldly presses on to who knows where. This is indeed a comedy of justice.
1) Marty is arguing like a hypocrite... He took exception to the judge requiring him to project out through all the uncertainties... but he demands the Judge to project through all the uncertainties, including the very real possibility that USAPA and the other signatories to the MOU may have to renegotiate portions of the MOU in order to satisfy the DOJ objections, in order to proceed with a merger that may or may not look anything like the one currently proposed. Indeed there is no real expectation that it will proceed exactly as proposed in the MOU.
2) Mr. Siegel is arguing like a hypocrite... He demands that Judge Silver interpret the MB provision in the MOU (a CBA) but that is exactly why USAirways (co-defendants) were dismissed from your hybrid DFR lawsuit. Do you not remember that Siegel got USAirways dismissed because interpretation of the MOU is not within her jurisdiction. Judge Silver won't even contemplate USAirways' responsibilities with respect to the MOU, but now Siegel demands Silver must take upon herself jurisdiction for interpreting the MOU and its application, leaving USAPA (but not USAirways) liable/subject to Silver's Judgement in the same exact matter. He is arguing the opposite out of both sides of his mouth. Ludicrous. Does the judge see this obvious contradiction of jurisdiction she is toying with? She set her own precedent and has forgotten it already?
3) Judge Silver has told you her limits (few they may be
Judge Silver is much smarter than Judge Wake and I eagerly await the rabbits she will pull from her hat. 🙂
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
The fist thing I said is, "Yes you will see us in court." And the conclusion to the three points is that Judge Silver is much smarter than Judge Wake. 🙂
Hate2fly
Veteran
Reading the transcript today I had flash backs to Judge Wake. Silver, Siegle and Harper are having a love fest in the desert. Pat doesn't stand a chance in Arizona. Roland and Billy Wilder better be in the court room in September. Silver is over the top trying desperately to give the west something. Looks like we will be heading to the Bay Area once again.
Hate
Hate
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
That is a fact. The problem is, Pat is out of his league. He doesn't have the ability to think on his feet like Seeham. We need a ringer.
Hate2fly
Veteran
Billy Wilder has to be out there in September. Silver is another clueless Arizona judge. Siegle is running the court room. Sad!
Hate
Hate
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Pat does not stand a chance.
Silver is biased and is handing the West something.
Really?
Apparently, the 9th Circuit has a history of reversals by the Supreme Court. Do you have evidence of the same reversal rate from the 9th with Judge Silver?
Article:
Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench
By Judson Berger
The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.
As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.
"That's an indication this court is way out of the mainstream," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "They're getting impatient with them. They just keep coming back with this stuff."
The Supreme Court, in its rulings, signaled that the circuit must hew more closely to precedent and, in some cases, give more weight to state court rulings. Scheidegger said the high court used some "severe" language to get that message across.
In a Jan. 19 reversal, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the 9th Circuit committed a "clear error" by overturning the murder conviction in the case of a Sacramento man. The Supreme Court accused the circuit of having "failed to accord the required deference" to the state court's decision -- in other words, the 9th Circuit horned in on the state's business when it shouldn't have.
Kennedy accused the circuit of demonstrating "judicial disregard" for "sound and established principles."
In that case, defendant Joshua Richter had been convicted in connection with the 1994 shooting of two men at the home of a California drug dealer. He had initially denied involvement but later claimed he went inside the home after hearing gunshots, apparently from his accomplice.
On appeal, Richter challenged his attorney's representation, claiming his counsel did not counter testimony from a blood pattern expert called by the prosecution -- that testimony had conflicted with Richter's. The state Supreme Court denied this claim. So did a federal district court judge. So did a panel on the 9th Circuit. But when a broader panel of 9th Circuit judges reviewed the appeal, they rejected the conviction on a split 7-4 ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling, though, said there was "sufficient" evidence pointing to Richter's guilt and that the state court's decision was reasonable.
That was one of three criminal cases -- one having to do with an Oregon defendant who challenged his lawyer's competence after pleading no contest to a felony murder charge, the other with California's parole system -- written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, among the most liberal judges in the country.
"He is out on the fringe," Scheidegger said.
Reinhardt was nominated to the bench in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. He has since developed a reputation as one of the most left-leaning judges in America. In an interview with a California legal magazine several years ago, he conceded, "I think I was born that way." The judge has been at the forefront of several controversial decisions out of the 9th Circuit, including a 2002 opinion that ruled the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own firearms.
The judge has generated controversy more recently over his refusal to recuse himself from a panel considering California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 law -- Reinhardt's wife is a longtime official with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Scheidegger speculated that the Supreme Court was aiming its recent rulings not so much at Reinhardt but at the rest of the judges on the appeals court, who, he said, "need to rein him in." Scheidegger's group filed friend-of-the-court briefs, at odds with the 9th Circuit rulings, in two of the above criminal cases.
Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, said he doubts the Supreme Court is trying to single out Reinhardt, though he said there's "no question" he's one of the most liberal judges in the country. Turley said he doesn't sense a pattern in the rulings.
However, he described the court's recent activity as "corrective."
"It's clear that some of the more conservative justices tend to view the 9th Circuit with an element of unease," Turley said. "This is a very clear direction from the Supreme Court."
But it wasn't just the conservative justices voicing discontent with the 9th Circuit's opinions.
In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first nominee, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal regulation did not require credit card companies to give holders advance notice for an interest rate increase following "delinquency or default" -- contrary to a 9th Circuit decision.
In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the 9th Circuit that challenged NASA's background checks for employees. The 9th Circuit, among other things, had ruled that a form asking prospective workers about recent illegal drug use would likely be held unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed.
A representative from the 9th Circuit could not be reached for comment.
Though the Supreme Court is occasionally at odds with the 9th Court, the latest string of decisions is out of the ordinary. Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/#ixzz2cHwDsJXs
I disagree. Mr. Szymanski is right on. Judge Silver is writing a one way ticket to the 9th for the company and the west pilots.
"THE CLERK: This is civil case 13-471, Addington, et
al., versus United States Airline Pilots Association, et al.
This is the time set for in-court hearing regarding the
proposed scheduling order.
Counsel, please announce.
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, Marty Harper and Jen Axel for
the plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SZYMANSKI: For defendant U.S. Airline Pilots
Association, Patrick Szymanski, Susan Martin, and Gary
Silverman.
THE COURT: Thank you.
All right. Let me ask you, do all counsel believe
that the Department of Justice's lawsuit has no merit?
MR. SZYMANSKI: I have no way of telling, Your Honor.
I'm not an antitrust expert and I'm not in the case, so I'm not
prepared to say that the Department of Justice and the
government lawyers....
Interupted by Judge Silver
Res Judicata
Veteran
Already distancing yourself? Will it soften the blow? Either way, you've forced a pilot group to lose over a billion dollars with nothing to show for it. USAPA was a SUPREME failure for everybody but Dug Parker. I. Can't wait for this to go to the 9th so those fat idiots can see how badly they screwed up over turning an OBVIOUS DFR. Then again, to be fair, it's you idiots that never understood what the 9th was warning you about either. High IQ's and Scabs never occur simultaneously.
"More recent cases have held
that a claim does not accrue when the union merely announces its intention
to breach its DFR in the future. See Ramey v. Dist. 141, Int’l Ass’n
of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 378 F.3d 269, 279 (2d Cir. 2004)
(“[W]e do not require, or even permit, union members to bring a suit
against their union simply because the union has announced its future
intention to break its duty.&rdquo😉; Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825
F.2d 608, 615-16 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Knowledge of a party’s predisposition
to commit an unfair labor practice or suspicion that, when the moment is
opportune, the knife thrust will follow, is not enough to galvanize § 10( B).
The statute begins to run only when the impermissible act or omission —
the unfair labor practice — actually takes place.&rdquo😉.
You west pilots remember that is when andy jacobs sounded like a lp record with a scratch.
"Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))."
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))."
You want your Nic windfall so bad you can taste it.
If the Nic didnt hurt us, then how can I backslide the rest of my career? I would have neen in the top 1%.
The 9th Circuit Court disection of the west's claim.
"Moreover, because the seniority systems at issue
already had been effectuated in both cases, the courts simply
were not faced with the possibility of interfering in a union’s
internal conflict before the conflict manifested as concrete injury to the plaintiffs.
We also note in these cases the apparent absence of contingencies
that stood between the union’s advocating to the
employer a position on a certain policy and the implementation
of that policy."
"Moreover, because the seniority systems at issue
already had been effectuated in both cases, the courts simply
were not faced with the possibility of interfering in a union’s
internal conflict before the conflict manifested as concrete injury to the plaintiffs.
We also note in these cases the apparent absence of contingencies
that stood between the union’s advocating to the
employer a position on a certain policy and the implementation
of that policy."
- Status
