PurpleTurtle

Of course they owe the pilots they represent a duty to fairly represent them. The court is not required to share (indeed is prohibited to share) your implicit assumption that USAPA has breached that duty. I really have a hard time believing you are so obtuse that you think the court will share your implicit assumption that USAPA is guilty.

cactiboss

The court requires an LUP from usapa, what part don't you get?

PurpleTurtle

Are you trying to be obtuse or does it come naturally.

The court is prohibited from sharing your implicit assumption that USAPA is guilty until they prove they are innocent.

cactiboss

What is in the water out there? The court assumes nothing, the court requires an LUP for changing the Nicolau. That's it, come up with an LUP and you walk. The judge ordered you to have an LUP to not use the Nic. What is your LUP?

crzipilot

He gave it to you, and Judge Silver provided it in the first little hearing she had. Something about increased wages, security, stability, etc etc.

I.E. this new contract that gets out of the road block to getting a contract, and future contracts to come. Possible growth and more jobs.

Seems Legit to me.

I find it also amazing, it wasn't until the court presided by Judge Silver, did anything come out as USAPA requiring a LUP. You guys hung on to that wording.

Now I believe the law of the land is not that USAPA must have a LUP, but more like it must act within a "Wide range of reasonableness"

The best part of that is that USAPA does NOT have to prove that they stayed within that. But YOU have to prove to the court that they have strayed outside that wide range.

So what about this do you not understand. Sure you can FEEL they acted outside that range, but a court of law must agree with you. It's similar to many of the West's filings. Very heavy on emotion and heart pulling rhetoric, a little short on facts....

cactiboss

Was this contract contingent on usapa discarding the Nic.? Did the company or apa require the Nic. Go away in exchange for the deal?

crzipilot

It was not contingent on discarding the nic nor was it contingent on using the nic. It was inside the MOU that discarded the nic.

Why didn't US require a section in there upholding the nic, requiring the nic, like the twa arbitration that's mentioned?

No where does it say the NIC must be used. And if you remember correctly, Judge Silver has framed your complaint to the point of, DID Usapa DFR based on not using the NIC in the MOU. You guys and US are arguing on something the 9th told you, you couldn't do. Your assuming something might happen in the future. Sorry it hasn't happed. But judge, they have shown they are going to be bad and mean to us when the SLI happens, so we must intervene now. How do you know how it's going to turn out?


So did AOL have some heart burn over the MOU? Did AOL think Marty was wrong? Did AOL think they might be better off voting it down? Why did AOL come out in support of the MOU and suggest that all of the west vote for it? (such as you did 98%) ???

Explain those emails, looks a little more in depth than simply trying to get an understanding of the MOU. Looks to me like they understood it perfectly clear.

"Does this mean USAPA is smarter than us? "

cactiboss

You obviously don't understand the case. You don't understand what a declaratory judgement is, what the 9th said and what Silver ruled on last time. Words like "LUP", "dangerous ground" and "unquestionably ripe dfr" have no meaning to you beasties.

crzipilot

Sure it does, but we don't have to prove it. YOU have to prove that USAPA has crossed the line. Just not that you feel like they have. That they have crossed beyond a wide range of reasonableness.

Was it reasonable that AOL thought the MOU might nullify the nic? That the MOU would not require USAPA to use the Nic?

From the emails it seems as though AOL had a clear understanding, but decided the MOU was good enough to vote for...Hmmmm

PurpleTurtle

Let's make this easy for you..

The notion that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty... and that a plaintiff must carry the burden of proof.... where does that come from? Hint: Its a premise to provisions in the Constitution of the United States.

The notion that a defendant must present a Legitimate Purpose... ie. that a defendant must carry the burden of proof to be found innocent... Where does that come from? Hint: Not the Constitution of the United States.

Which notion is dispositive?

You are obtuse by choice.