Compass Correction Coalition Update: December 3, 2011
From Lee Seham to the Officers and BPR of USAPA:
A letter dated November 21, 2011
To the Members of the USAPA BPR:
Dear Sirs,
It was only last week that we learned that neither Sarah McShea nor Mr. ODwyer disclosed to the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives our letter dated October 31, 2011. We understand that the BPR is now in possession of that letter and we attach hereto the subpoenaed information identifying the owner of the IP address from which the offending e-mails were sent.
As discussed in greater detail in the October 31 letter, the subject e-mails misappropriate the identity of SSMPL employee Nick Granath and falsely ascribe to his authorship statements against his employer alleging alcoholism and extortion. The federal litigation that produced the subpoenaed evidence establishing of the ownership of the IP address from which the e-mails originated has been discontinued pending a definitive determination of the e-mails author.
Because it appears that the e-mails were authored by a USAPA Officer and / or USAPA attorney, we request the BPRs assistance in making a final identification. We are further requesting that the BPR confirm that the association condemns the actions of the author(s) and that it no way authorized or ratifies the actions involved.
In a similar vein, our legal counsel advised us last week that Ms. McShea declined to listen to our objections to the Associations letter to its membership dated November 6, 2011 titled the "Lee Seham issue," stating that the matter was beyond the scope of her assignment. We are obliged, therefore, to present our concerns to the BPR directly.
As a threshold matter, we want to state that there is no "Lee Seham" issue in terms of the scope of our relationship with the Association. We fully accept the BPRs decision to remove our firm from all representational duties other than those related to negotiations. Nor do we seek reinstatement to any of the litigation matters now pending because in each instance, we could not endorse the Associations current legal strategy. If it is USAPAs desire to remove our firm from its negotiations-related work, it meets with no resistance on our part.
What our firm will resist, however, is the malicious publication of statements that Board members known to be defamatory and which are, in fact, contradicted by the Associations own published communications.
Following publication of misleading statements relating to our relationship with other clients, the November 6, letter asserts that our firm breached its "fiduciary obligation" to USAPA by participating in teleconferences with certain Board members.
One of the two teleconferences involved the BPRs request for advice concerning its obligation to investigate the allegations that USAPA Vice President had physically assaulted the USAPA Secretary-Treasurer in the Association Offices. We are advised by a Representative of the Communications Committee that a Board majority had requested our advice and we, therefore, considered ourselves under a fiduciary obligation to respond.
The second teleconference was called pursuant to Association policy, which granted authority to any four members of the BPR to discuss issues with legal counsel. Far from being a breach of"fiduciary obligation", here too we had an affirmative obligation to participate in the teleconference and answer Board members questions. Moreover contrary to the letters insinuations, the Boards participants can confirm that no one in our firm contacted a single Board member prior to that teleconference. In short, we avoided political conflict as much as we were permitted to under the policy of USAPAs Board.
The truth of what transpired is confirmed by the DCA Domicile update dated November 14, 2011, which was presumably by the Associations Communications Committee. In sum, USAPA, itself has confirmed that the November 6 letter untruthfully asserts that our firm violated its fiduciary obligations.
Equally defamatory is the statement that "Mr. Seham was in full favor and support of the of EDNY filing- right up until the time that he wasnt the one filing the case." This repeats the slander stated to the BPR that the firms legal opinion changed due to the fact that we would not be receiving fees generated by the litigation.
While the firm had discussed with a USAPA officer the possibility of a first-strike litigation based on safety-related issues, we never did and never would have approved the EDNY filing. As we advised the Board, since key allegations contained in the complaint cannot be sustained, the puts the Grievance Committee and Negotiating Committee at risk. As we further advised the Board, the EDNY litigation undercuts what had been the Associations position in the declaratory judgment action in a manner that we would never have condoned.
The EDNY litigation was kept secret from our firm. Paul Diorio stood before the Board and advised that he had been directed not to let negotiating counsel have any notice of the lawsuit. No draft of the suit was sent to us nor any notice whatsoever of the intended filing. There is no correspondence of e-mail that could show otherwise.
We would never have approved the EDNY filing. In our view, it has potentially disastrous consequences for the Association and we herein repeat our strongest advice that it be withdrawn without delay. The allegation that we approved of the EDNY filing and then changed our legal opinion due to monetary considerations is defamatory. Indeed at the time the firm was investigating and preparing litigation over the disclosure of confidential pilot information and was doing so in accordance with the Presidents instructions.
As the BPR is aware, two of my colleagues reported to me that the Vice President stated to them that it was his objective to "destroy" our law firm based on his displeasure over the firms treatment of his girlfriend. At the BPRs August 25, 2011 meeting, the Vice President read a written statement which previously had been delivered to me and our colleague Stanley Silverstone, in which he asserted that notwithstanding USAPAs "very productive" relationship with our firm, the professional relationship was subject to termination due to the firms purported ill--treatment of his girl friend. The e-mails falsely attributed to Nick Granath and the November 6 letter to the membership reflect a level of malice that we have never before confronted. We request that the Association print a retraction of the above-referenced defamatory statements and that it desist from any further efforts to destroy our firm.
The apparent willingness to interfere with our firms electronic communications also leads us to request that the BPR direct the vice President to disclose the source of the confidential e-mail correspondence between me and Nick Granath that he read to the BPR at its meeting of August 25, 2011, in which Mr. Granath expressed concerns about the impact that the USAPA Vice Presidents relationship with his girlfriend would have on our firm.
Such disclosure is compelled by the interests of the Association, the law firm, and the law firms clients so that we may investigate whether the integrity of our electronic files have been compromised.
Unfortunately, Ms. McShea has demanded that we not discuss with the BPR audit-related issues, including the Associations failure to pay any of our bills subsequent to August 1, 2011, and we will comply with that demand.
Sincerely,
Lee Seham
