AOL update
11-19-2013, 09:50 PM
#1732
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
Cacti, usapa could not bury within a document an illegal act. It would be illegal for the MOU to be constructed in such a way as to hide the fact that if signed it would do away with a groups rights.
WD at AWA
11-19-2013, 10:00 PM
#1733
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
11-19-2013, 10:08 PM
#1735
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Don't bother trying to persuade me of anything. First off I am not the majority that voted in favor of the MOU.
Second, I am not interested in joining your opposition of the majority, and its really pointless anyway. By definition the majority doesn't need to explain itself and has already decided. If you want the court to force the majority to do something other than what it wants then ya gots to prove that the court has jurisdiction, authority, and cause to intervene.... and then ya gots to prove it again and again through all the appeals. That should already be obvious. No need to waste your efforts trying to persuading me.
Cheers!
11-19-2013, 10:13 PM
#1736
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
In truth, the company is attempting to get the court to award a provision in the MOU that the company didn't bother to negotiate, but that is not the most egregious thing.
The real ridiculous thing is that the company's motion is a motion for Declaratory Judgement (about the future) on the presumption that USAPA will not act fairly in the future,... the company submitted this motion for Declaratory Judgement in a trial about a DFR claim for past actions.
The real ridiculous thing is that the company's motion is a motion for Declaratory Judgement (about the future) on the presumption that USAPA will not act fairly in the future,... the company submitted this motion for Declaratory Judgement in a trial about a DFR claim for past actions.
11-19-2013, 10:14 PM
#1737
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Don't bother trying to persuade me of anything. First off I am not the majority that voted in favor of the MOU.
Second, I am not interested in joining your opposition of the majority, and its really pointless anyway. By definition the majority doesn't need to explain itself and has already decided. If you want the court to force the majority to do something other than what it wants then ya gots to prove that the court has jurisdiction, authority, and cause to intervene.... and then ya gots to prove it again and again through all the appeals. That should already be obvious. No need to waste your efforts trying to persuading me.
Cheers!
Second, I am not interested in joining your opposition of the majority, and its really pointless anyway. By definition the majority doesn't need to explain itself and has already decided. If you want the court to force the majority to do something other than what it wants then ya gots to prove that the court has jurisdiction, authority, and cause to intervene.... and then ya gots to prove it again and again through all the appeals. That should already be obvious. No need to waste your efforts trying to persuading me.
Cheers!
11-19-2013, 10:41 PM
#1738
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
My prediction is that in the end it will go very close to relative position, category, and status, with some fences on the wide bodies, and the majority will accept that. Oh, sure you will still have some folks that will pay a lawyer to hear sweet nothings whispered in their ear, about Nic or DOH.
11-19-2013, 10:48 PM
#1739
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
My prediction is that in the end it will go very close to relative position, category, and status, with some fences on the wide bodies, and the majority will accept that. :
11-19-2013, 11:42 PM
#1740
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
