PurpleTurtle

A plausible reason that Leonidas LLC persists in the implicit assumption that USAPA is guilty until they prove their innocence... well, frankly the perpetuation of that assumption may greatly increase the amount of donations sent in to the Leonidas LLC slush fund.

Now that the emails are public record, I think some West pilots may begin to question if Leonidas LLC really believes the assumptions that they have been selling. More troubling is the thought that the leaders could have possibly perpetuated the notion knowing that is was necessary to collect dues, even though they may have known the futility of it (other than a nice "director's fee " doled out to each of the inner circle).

If my username were "CactusBoss" I would be concerned that folks might assume/think I might possibly be a leader of Leonidas LLC.

cactiboss

I wonder why usapa fought the case all the way then?

cactiboss

Your confusing an individuals rights with a unions. Heck you don't even understand that a "declaratory judgement", which the current case is, deals with future events.

PurpleTurtle

You are intentionally obtuse and its reasonable to contemplate why... I'll leave that to other's personal reflection...

The current trial is a DFR trial with a specific and narrow claim, which is without question written in the past tense (do you even know what it is?), so obviously the trial is about plaintiff's claim of USAPA's past actions, not future events.

Your lawyer and Leonidas LLC leaders should have been transparent about this, even though it could possibly risk the amount of donations that West pilots would be willing to gift to the leaders.

Do you know what personal benefits are enjoyed by the leaders of Leonidas LLC? The Judge prevented discovery of that information, but perhaps the donators to Leonidas LLC can receive that information if they request the leaders to provide it.

cactiboss

Obviously a biased judge heh?

PurpleTurtle

MOU Paragraph 10i......."Nothing in this Paragraph 10 shall modify the decision of the arbitration panel in Letter of Agreement 12-05 of the 2012 CBA."

Please explain why the company included the arbitration of LOA 12-05 of the 2012 CBA (protecting the TWA) but did not include any language of the arbitration of the 2005 TA to protect the West pilots??

Or better yet, please explain why Leonidas LLC recommended a vote to ratify a provision for the arbitration of LOA 12-05 for TWA but decided it was unimportant to demand a provision for your beloved Nic arbitration of the 2005 TA to protect the West pilots?

Your beloved Leonidas, LLC didn't talk straight to you and didn't protect your interest as much as they protected TWA pilots. That was not cool.

PurpleTurtle

"It [the MOU] is clearly an attempt by USAPA to negate the transition agreement"... "Marty seemed to be dismissive of this idea last night, but I think he's dead wrong, as well." Leonidas LLC leader, DOC 281-4

PurpleTurtle

.... 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 [if we don't recommend or vote in favor of it, but the East ratifies it over our objection]. " Leonidas LLC leader, Doc 281-4

Wiskey Driver

Not completely true in this case and here is why. The person bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, has the burden of proving the elements of his lawsuit. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. That means that he must prove a fact and his damages by showing that something is more likely so than not, i.e. 50.1% versus 49.9%.
If the judge or jury believes the plaintiff and defendant equally, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof and his claim must fail. In other words, the tie goes to the defendant. The defendant does not have to prove anything. The defense is free to simply poke holes in the case of the plaintiff.


There are limited circumstances in which the defendant must prove a defense. This usually arises when the defendant has raised what is known as an affirmative defense. Also, if the defendant attempts to blame a third party, he is usually required to prove his case against that third party by a preponderance of the evidence.

This is the case with the usapa and the mou, they are claiming that the mou does a way with arbitration results and as such now must prove that it does not harm the west class. Now since its very east to see how that harm can arise usapa has now put up and affirmative defense and as such carries a burden. The mou however is not an LUP. Its evident that the courts do not want to have to make a ruling here and hoping that there could be some resolution to this between the parties but that simply will not take place nor should it. The court will however make usapa prove that by changing the arbitration results the west class will remain unharmed. How do you prove that when the first economic down turn occurs?

WD at AWA

Wiskey Driver

Then usapa should have opened this up to all pilots and not just those who were dues current! See a pilot in bad standing is a pilot here non the less but according to usapa that pilot had no right to vote on the mou. That in and of itself screams of deception and worthy of the courts review.

WD at AWA