AOL update
11-20-2013, 02:25 PM
#1751
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
The exhibits demonstrate that the West leadership had clear concerns/knowledge of what affect the MOU had on the 2005 TA, and despite this Leonidas LLC still recommended the West pilots vote for the MOU...
"We recommend that West pilots vote yes if they want to see a merger with American according to the terms of the MOU. Sincerely, Leonidas, LCC"
Now if one implicitly assumes that USAPA is guilty of a DFR then of course this does nothing to prove a legitimate union purpose. These exhibits merely show that any West claim that they didn't have fair warning about what they voted on is not borne out by the facts. If anything their leadership was greatly informed and some of them disagreed vehemently with Marty Harper, some even suggesting he should have been fired. If one is trying to prove USAPA is guilty of bad faith for hiding info, then the facts of the exhibits clearly show the accusation is misplaced or misdirected.
"We recommend that West pilots vote yes if they want to see a merger with American according to the terms of the MOU. Sincerely, Leonidas, LCC"
Now if one implicitly assumes that USAPA is guilty of a DFR then of course this does nothing to prove a legitimate union purpose. These exhibits merely show that any West claim that they didn't have fair warning about what they voted on is not borne out by the facts. If anything their leadership was greatly informed and some of them disagreed vehemently with Marty Harper, some even suggesting he should have been fired. If one is trying to prove USAPA is guilty of bad faith for hiding info, then the facts of the exhibits clearly show the accusation is misplaced or misdirected.
11-20-2013, 02:31 PM
#1752
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
11-20-2013, 02:34 PM
#1753
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
"10G and H worry me greatly. On the face, these paragraphs appear to allow USAPA, aided and abetted by the company to amend (abandon) our TA which demands the Nic.... if the West votes for the MOU, USAPA will bring out the PHX vote and attempt to use it like Ozark/TWA in any DFR case....
.... I think Leonidas should not endorse the MOU. Further, if we come out against [the MOU] for this reason, the east will see it as justification to vote for the MOU and it will pass by a 2/3 margin. We get ripeness without risking weakening our claim, [ie. if we don't recommend or vote in favor of the MOU and the East passes it over our objection]. " Doc 281-4
.... I think Leonidas should not endorse the MOU. Further, if we come out against [the MOU] for this reason, the east will see it as justification to vote for the MOU and it will pass by a 2/3 margin. We get ripeness without risking weakening our claim, [ie. if we don't recommend or vote in favor of the MOU and the East passes it over our objection]. " Doc 281-4
11-20-2013, 02:43 PM
#1754
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
11-20-2013, 03:08 PM
#1755
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Sure its a simple question. I didn't say it was complicated. Simple or complicated isn't the issue. Its an entertaining question if one assumes the defendant must prove innocence.
11-20-2013, 03:31 PM
#1756
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
The defendant abandoned the Nicolau award in the mou, the defendant must prove it had an LUP to do so. Did you forget judge Silvers order? You must have an LUP to abandon the Nic. We are asking, what is your LUP?
11-20-2013, 03:41 PM
#1757
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Question with a very simple answer. The MOU is a clear and vast improvement in wages and other benefits for the entire group. The only way to get the MOU ratified was to not include the Nic. Ergo not including the Nic had a clear union purpose benefiting the entire pilot group.
11-20-2013, 03:48 PM
#1758
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Question with a very simple answer. The MOU is a clear and vast improvement in wages and other benefits for the entire group. The only way to get the MOU ratified was to not include the Nic. Ergo not including the Nic had a clear union purpose benefiting the entire pilot group.
11-20-2013, 04:09 PM
#1759
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Do you not understand how a trial works? Seriously. I don't mean to offend you but I am trying to understand why the West continually assumes that the court will require the defendant to prove they are innocent. That is not the way trials work.
The Plaintiff must make a claim and then they must prove it. No where did Silver ever premise this trial on the necessity of the defendant to make a claim that they have a legitimate union purpose, and then upon making the claim require them to prove it. In fact Silver helped out the Plaintiffs and wrote a claim for you because your lawyer had trouble sticking with one claim. By the way, that claim that Silver wrote for Marty is the claim he was assigned to prove (and it had nothing to do with assuming USAPA had to prove anything).
Do you not understand that the Plaintiff must carry the burden of proof regarding its claim?
Your continual desire to have USAPA answer your question, regarding their LUP, is merely a poor attempt to get USAPA to make a claim of innocence, and then by assumption you expect the court to require USAPA to prove its claim.
Ergo, your lawyer is attempting to get the court to allow him to shirk his responsibility to prove your claim against USAPA, and instead force the defendant to make a claim of innocence and then prove it.
Big mistake.
Your nauseous question about USAPA having a legitimate union purpose is entertaining only if one assume USAPA is guilty until they prove their innocence.
11-20-2013, 04:18 PM
#1760
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Do you not understand how a trial works? Seriously. I don't mean to offend you but I am trying to understand why the West continually assumes that the court will require the defendant to prove they are innocent. That is not the way trials work.
The Plaintiff must make a claim and then they must prove it. No where did Silver ever premise this trial on the necessity of the defendant to make a claim that they have a legitimate union purpose, and then upon making the claim require them to prove it. In fact Silver helped out the Plaintiffs and wrote the claim for them because they had trouble sticking with one claim. By the way, that claim that Silver wrote for Marty is the claim he was assigned to prove (and it had nothing to with the assuming USAPA and to prove anything).
Do you not understand that the Plaintiff must carry the burden of proof regarding its claim?
Your continual desire to have USAPA answer your question, regarding their LUP, is merely a poor attempt to get USAPA to make a claim of innocence, and then by assumption you expect the court to require USAPA to prove its claim.
Ergo, your lawyer is attempting to get the court to allow him to shirk his responsibility to prove your claim against USAPA, and instead force the defendant to make a claim of innocence and then prove it.
Big mistake.
The Plaintiff must make a claim and then they must prove it. No where did Silver ever premise this trial on the necessity of the defendant to make a claim that they have a legitimate union purpose, and then upon making the claim require them to prove it. In fact Silver helped out the Plaintiffs and wrote the claim for them because they had trouble sticking with one claim. By the way, that claim that Silver wrote for Marty is the claim he was assigned to prove (and it had nothing to with the assuming USAPA and to prove anything).
Do you not understand that the Plaintiff must carry the burden of proof regarding its claim?
Your continual desire to have USAPA answer your question, regarding their LUP, is merely a poor attempt to get USAPA to make a claim of innocence, and then by assumption you expect the court to require USAPA to prove its claim.
Ergo, your lawyer is attempting to get the court to allow him to shirk his responsibility to prove your claim against USAPA, and instead force the defendant to make a claim of innocence and then prove it.
Big mistake.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
