Well ok did the KASHER hearing hit the street today?
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Good for you, never paid much attention to it! I know you don't notice, been to busy using other skills, office staff jobs attorneys they focus on that stuff, good for you though !
HPearlyretiree
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,614
I got a good laugh 5 weeks ago when you said the LOA93 decision was just a few days away.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Iclubbabyseals,
Can you show me where I said anything was a done deal? I bet you can't.
USA320Pilot
Injunction junction
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 169
Listen, it really doesnt matter to me what you believe. People lining up with AWA are you serious? Pilots were lining up to the tune of 30 plus a month for years after 01! This "deal" helped you one hell of lot more than it did us and that my good man is a fact. Like I told Reed you dont have to take my word for it, do the research on your own . I have zero to gain by lying to you or anyone else for that matter on the east.
LAS closed but if memory serves me correctly PIT, LGA, BOS all closed too, funny thing is you failed to mention that part of it. I think I told you before about taking bits and pieces of the whole in order to make the portion you like sound good. Call Doug all the names you like but one of the names you can call him is smart because he has played you very well and you're still making him bonuses while making the industries worst wage.
Correct as many compasses as you like but it still wont change the fact that no court in this land is going to offer LCC indemnity and without that you never ever see DOH as an integration method.
Injunction
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 571
Deleted by me.
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 571
You left out one very important word from your reply. It begins with a "S".
crazystnic
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 781
- Reaction score
- 727
You sir are wrong, you are sure sounding like throwing your fellow aviators under the bus, I'm sure you are in the left seat and have been for some time. Why don't you tell us how long? I'm glad you have such little regard for those who sit to the right of you and for the furloughs who made the ultimate sacrfice.. How would you of done in Nov of 2002 going from making 125,000 to the streets? The NIC is a travesty, sorry way wrong. I'm glad there are supporters of the junior on the list like NYC bus driver, Black Swan, US 320 Driver, PI Brat, Bob Moore and others! so people like you don't get your way and throw people under the bus.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Sorry pal, you don't get to steal jobs from the West just because we worked for a airline that got cut in half.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Seham Files Lawsuit Against USAPA
Compass Correction Coalition: November 15, 2011
Jane and John Doe
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 whec715@hotmail.com” 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 whec715@hotmail.com” 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…NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ... 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 whec7l5@hotrnai1.com" 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 ... ngranath@ssmplaw.com ...
18. Lee Seham and Louis Meltz are the managing partners of SSMP.
19. Meltz's SSMP email is, "Ismeltz@ssmplaw.com." Seham's email address is "SSMPLS@aol.com."
20. Neither Granath nor SSMP have ever created, registered, or used the email address, "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" nor have they ever authorized or consented to the creation, registration, or use of the email address .. NickGranathwhec7I5@hotmail.com ...
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 .. NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ...
25. Defendant Does' registration of the email "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com." 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 … NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ...
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 whec715@hotmail.com .. email was generated.
38. An analysis of the originating IP address (68.207.236.9) specific to the "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 .. NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ...
41. Defendant Does have acted intentionally to use the "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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).
Compass Correction Coalition: November 15, 2011
Jane and John Doe
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 whec715@hotmail.com” 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 whec715@hotmail.com” 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…NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ... 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 whec7l5@hotrnai1.com" 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 ... ngranath@ssmplaw.com ...
18. Lee Seham and Louis Meltz are the managing partners of SSMP.
19. Meltz's SSMP email is, "Ismeltz@ssmplaw.com." Seham's email address is "SSMPLS@aol.com."
20. Neither Granath nor SSMP have ever created, registered, or used the email address, "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" nor have they ever authorized or consented to the creation, registration, or use of the email address .. NickGranathwhec7I5@hotmail.com ...
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 .. NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ...
25. Defendant Does' registration of the email "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com." 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 … NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ...
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 whec715@hotmail.com .. email was generated.
38. An analysis of the originating IP address (68.207.236.9) specific to the "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 .. NickGranathwhec715@hotmail.com ...
41. Defendant Does have acted intentionally to use the "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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 whec715@hotmail.com" 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).
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Page #2:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, 18 U.S.c. § 1030)
52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
53. Defendants intentionally, without authority, with a purpose to defraud, accessed and used a protected computer, using an Internet Service Provider and an email service provider under false pretense so as to deceive both of their true identity, and caused the transmission of false information, used in interstate commerce and communication, and by such means furthered their intended fraud, to defraud plaintiffs.
54. Such action violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. by intentionally accessing protected computers in a manner that exceeded authorization to obtain information from a protected computer in violation of § 1030(a)(2)(C), and separately by intentionally accessing protected computers with the intent to defraud to obtain something of value in violation of § 1030(a)(4), and separately by knowingly and with intent to defraud by trafficking in information similar to passwords in violation of § 1030(a)(6).55. Plaintiffs have suffered harm by reason of said violations.
56. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and/or other equitable relief as well as compensatory damages.
57. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 provides that "n the case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such."
58. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendants' use of the email address "Nick Granath whec715@hotrnail.com" to engage in internet correspondence with any parties constitutes misappropriation of electronic identity, or civil impersonation, that establishes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C); 1030(a)(4); 1030(a)(6).
59. Plaintiffs are aggrieved of the violations of law alleged herein. Unless the Court issues declaratory relief as requested, plaintiffs will be irreparably injured. Plaintiffs have no prompt, adequate and effective remedy at law. Plaintiffs will be successful on the merits of this action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Fraudulent Representation/Civil Fraud)
60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
61. Defendants knowingly and intentionally acted to impersonate plaintiff Granath' s identity by registering a "Hotmail.com" email account to "Nick Granath" and did so without plaintiff's permission in order to fraudulently represent themselves and to further plans or conspiracies to commit fraud to obtain valuable business, clients, income or economic advantage from plaintiffs.
62. Defendants knowingly and intentionally used the email address "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" for electronic correspondence to make false representations of material fact with the intent of misleading, deceiving and defrauding plaintiffs into justifiable reliance on said representations or to obtain valuable business or income, intending to cause injury to plaintiffs and to benefit defendants thereby.
63. Plaintiffs have been harmed by defendants' aforesaid acts.64. Defendants' acts constitute fraudulent misrepresentation or civil fraud.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Tortious Interference With Contractual or Business Relations)
65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as iffully set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
66. Plaintiff had, at all times relevant, an ongoing contractual or business relationship with its client, the US Airlines Pilots Association.
67. Defendants' emails of September 4'h and 19'h, 2011, sent under the impersonated email address of "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com," intentionally interfered with plaintiffs' business relations with USAPA by using means amounting either to tortious conduct or crime.68. Plaintiffs have been harmed by defendants.
RELIEF DEMAND WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, plaintiffs pray for judgment jointly and severally against defendant Does as follows:
1. For a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that the actions of defendants complained of herein constitute a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a), and further that all defendants are jointly and severally liable;
2. For injunctive relief in the form of an order temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoining defendant Does to immediately cease using the email address "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" and to refrain from impersonating any attorney or employee of plaintiffs by any means and to take reasonable steps to verify compliance with such order;
3. Judgment for an award of compensatory damages;
4. Interest on the aforesaid amount; 5. For an order awarding to all plaintiffs the costs of this action, including payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, as provided by law;6. Granting such additional relief as the Court deems proper and just.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all claims to which they are entitled.
Dated: White Plains, New York
September 26, 20 II
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PEn:RSEN, LLW' By: lsi Lucas K. Middlebrook
Lucas K. Middlebrook, Esq.
Imiddlebrook@ssmplaw.com
Stanley J. Silverstone, Esq.
George Diamantopoulos, Esq.
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1204
White Plains, New York 10601
Tel: (914) 997-1346; Fax: (914) 997-7125Nicholas P. Granath, Esq. pro se
ngranath@ssmplaw.com
2915 Wayzata Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 55405
Tel. (612) 341-9080; Fax (612) 341-9079Attorneys for Plaintifft
Eric Rowe
PHL AB 330
Jed Thomas
PHL AB 320
Dave Ciabattoni
PHL AB 320
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, 18 U.S.c. § 1030)
52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
53. Defendants intentionally, without authority, with a purpose to defraud, accessed and used a protected computer, using an Internet Service Provider and an email service provider under false pretense so as to deceive both of their true identity, and caused the transmission of false information, used in interstate commerce and communication, and by such means furthered their intended fraud, to defraud plaintiffs.
54. Such action violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. by intentionally accessing protected computers in a manner that exceeded authorization to obtain information from a protected computer in violation of § 1030(a)(2)(C), and separately by intentionally accessing protected computers with the intent to defraud to obtain something of value in violation of § 1030(a)(4), and separately by knowingly and with intent to defraud by trafficking in information similar to passwords in violation of § 1030(a)(6).55. Plaintiffs have suffered harm by reason of said violations.
56. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and/or other equitable relief as well as compensatory damages.
57. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 provides that "n the case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such."
58. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendants' use of the email address "Nick Granath whec715@hotrnail.com" to engage in internet correspondence with any parties constitutes misappropriation of electronic identity, or civil impersonation, that establishes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C); 1030(a)(4); 1030(a)(6).
59. Plaintiffs are aggrieved of the violations of law alleged herein. Unless the Court issues declaratory relief as requested, plaintiffs will be irreparably injured. Plaintiffs have no prompt, adequate and effective remedy at law. Plaintiffs will be successful on the merits of this action.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Fraudulent Representation/Civil Fraud)
60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
61. Defendants knowingly and intentionally acted to impersonate plaintiff Granath' s identity by registering a "Hotmail.com" email account to "Nick Granath" and did so without plaintiff's permission in order to fraudulently represent themselves and to further plans or conspiracies to commit fraud to obtain valuable business, clients, income or economic advantage from plaintiffs.
62. Defendants knowingly and intentionally used the email address "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" for electronic correspondence to make false representations of material fact with the intent of misleading, deceiving and defrauding plaintiffs into justifiable reliance on said representations or to obtain valuable business or income, intending to cause injury to plaintiffs and to benefit defendants thereby.
63. Plaintiffs have been harmed by defendants' aforesaid acts.64. Defendants' acts constitute fraudulent misrepresentation or civil fraud.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Tortious Interference With Contractual or Business Relations)
65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as iffully set forth herein, all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
66. Plaintiff had, at all times relevant, an ongoing contractual or business relationship with its client, the US Airlines Pilots Association.
67. Defendants' emails of September 4'h and 19'h, 2011, sent under the impersonated email address of "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com," intentionally interfered with plaintiffs' business relations with USAPA by using means amounting either to tortious conduct or crime.68. Plaintiffs have been harmed by defendants.
RELIEF DEMAND WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, plaintiffs pray for judgment jointly and severally against defendant Does as follows:
1. For a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that the actions of defendants complained of herein constitute a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a), and further that all defendants are jointly and severally liable;
2. For injunctive relief in the form of an order temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoining defendant Does to immediately cease using the email address "Nick Granath whec715@hotmail.com" and to refrain from impersonating any attorney or employee of plaintiffs by any means and to take reasonable steps to verify compliance with such order;
3. Judgment for an award of compensatory damages;
4. Interest on the aforesaid amount; 5. For an order awarding to all plaintiffs the costs of this action, including payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, as provided by law;6. Granting such additional relief as the Court deems proper and just.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all claims to which they are entitled.
Dated: White Plains, New York
September 26, 20 II
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PEn:RSEN, LLW' By: lsi Lucas K. Middlebrook
Lucas K. Middlebrook, Esq.
Imiddlebrook@ssmplaw.com
Stanley J. Silverstone, Esq.
George Diamantopoulos, Esq.
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1204
White Plains, New York 10601
Tel: (914) 997-1346; Fax: (914) 997-7125Nicholas P. Granath, Esq. pro se
ngranath@ssmplaw.com
2915 Wayzata Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 55405
Tel. (612) 341-9080; Fax (612) 341-9079Attorneys for Plaintifft
Eric Rowe
PHL AB 330
Jed Thomas
PHL AB 320
Dave Ciabattoni
PHL AB 320
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
I wonder how USAPA is going to pay for this lawsuit, damages, and other claims by the Plaintiffs?
Should USAPA raise pilot dues, assess the pilots, or cut services to pay for the union's ever growing deficit? After all stipends, GSA per diem, and LOA 95 pay are off limits.
Should USAPA raise pilot dues, assess the pilots, or cut services to pay for the union's ever growing deficit? After all stipends, GSA per diem, and LOA 95 pay are off limits.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Oh ya, USAPA is much better.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
What an excellent summary:
First the union sues 18 of it's own members, and appeals when it is thrown out of court, only to be thrown out again. Then the union sues the company. The company then sues the union. Then the union sues it's lawyer. Now the lawyer is suing the union.
The union vice president is first sleeping with one of the lawyers, but is now living with her. She is fired by the lawyers for sleeping with the union officer (client). The union fires the lawyers. The union hires new lawyers, and the fired lawyer who is sleeping with the union officer now works for the new lawyers.
Meanwhile, the union hires yet more lawyers to "audit" the billing statements of the first lawyers, presumably in an effort to discover grounds to sue the original lawyers.
The "new" lawyers say the original lawyers created a "mess", and now are preparing to defend against the suit filed by the company against the union.
All the while....the CBA negotiations are stagnant, except the three sections completed, and the new lawyers also have to keep the union from violating a Federal Injunction against the union. BUT...in the interest of representing the membership, the union pushes a proposal across the table costing $1.2B, and seems flabbergasted the company laughed all the way out of the room.
First the union sues 18 of it's own members, and appeals when it is thrown out of court, only to be thrown out again. Then the union sues the company. The company then sues the union. Then the union sues it's lawyer. Now the lawyer is suing the union.
The union vice president is first sleeping with one of the lawyers, but is now living with her. She is fired by the lawyers for sleeping with the union officer (client). The union fires the lawyers. The union hires new lawyers, and the fired lawyer who is sleeping with the union officer now works for the new lawyers.
Meanwhile, the union hires yet more lawyers to "audit" the billing statements of the first lawyers, presumably in an effort to discover grounds to sue the original lawyers.
The "new" lawyers say the original lawyers created a "mess", and now are preparing to defend against the suit filed by the company against the union.
All the while....the CBA negotiations are stagnant, except the three sections completed, and the new lawyers also have to keep the union from violating a Federal Injunction against the union. BUT...in the interest of representing the membership, the union pushes a proposal across the table costing $1.2B, and seems flabbergasted the company laughed all the way out of the room.
flybynite
Veteran
Dear lord! What kind of fresh hell is this!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
