AOL update
06-15-2014, 06:37 PM
#3091
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
06-18-2014, 11:12 AM
#3092
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
AOL 6/18 update
As we wait for the NMB to rule on “Single Carrier Status” (SCS) Leonidas, LLC will provide its viewpoint on the legal landscape as we continue to defend against the multiple and unrelenting assaults on our careers and seniority. A finding of SCS will quickly eliminate USAPA’s role as our collective bargaining agent (CBA), and thereafter it will be legally barred from representing anyone. The Allied Pilots Association (APA) will become the CBA for all American Airlines pilots, just as USAPA became the CBA for all US Airways pilots when it was certified by the NMB. Although our legal activity has slowed recently, our fight is far from over. It was clear that shift in strategy was required in order to meet the recent developments in our quest for justice.
Over the past six years, a certain segment of former US Airways pilots have used USAPA as a weapon, engaging in a relentless campaign to denigrate and intimidate the former America West pilots in order to justify their quest to jettison their obligations from 2005. USAPA’s singular goal has been to substitute their own contrived seniority list in place of an agreed upon arbitrated decision arrived at after an arbitrators careful consideration of all the facts and equities of our unique merger situation. West pilot unity has provided a robust defense against an immoral union supported by management.
While we didn't pick this fight, defending ourselves has been worth the effort. Had we not stood up to USAPA the West pilots would have been stapled long ago and there would be no need for APA and the company to consider West pilot interest in a fair SLI process. USAPA’s desperate efforts litigating in Washington DC, and opposing SCS are aimed at keeping the West pilots out of the process at all costs because our presence will prevent USAPA from unilaterally dictating what US Airways seniority list will become part of the integrated seniority list.
As the new minority, USAPA has chosen to turn its tactics against APA and New American with multiple legal actions on multiple fronts designed to prolong its reign and exclude the past and future seniority interests of former America West pilots. USAPA's primary disagreement with APA over the protocol revolves around the inclusion of the former AWA pilots as a separate party to the seniority integration. USAPA also disagrees that APA will have absolute control over the process and the ability to amend the agreements as APA and the company see fit. This was USAPA's very own strategy when it assumed the role as the collective bargaining agent from ALPA. Today, the “shoe is on the other foot” and USAPA leaders do not like the idea that APA may do unto them as USAPA has done unto the West Pilots.
Left to their own devices, USAPA's officers will continue to interfere with the APA, the company, and the fair representation rights for the former America West pilots. A frequently heard question is, “what will happen to USAPA’s treasury fund?” We know West pilots agree with our opinion that it must be promptly returned to the pilots that were forced to pay it. It is almost certain that, without ANOTHER lawsuit, USAPA and its officers will attempt to use West dues money to advance East interests. However, USAPA and its officers will not be afforded any protection under federal labor law. It will be up to the former America West Pilots to ensure this does not happen. For the first time, the USAPA officers will be exposed to personal liability for their actions. Should USAPA continue representing any US Airways pilot after decertification, they will individually and jointly be in contempt of Judge Silver’s order because she clearly ruled (at USAPA's urging) that USAPA could no longer represent any pilots after decertification. True to form, USAPA has already filed a lawsuit in Washington to get the D.C. court to render an opinion opposing the one they convinced Judge Silver to deliver in Arizona. Never assume that USAPA will be consistent or make ethical choices.
Our funding strategy is ever-evolving to meet future challenges. The America West pilots have done an outstanding job voluntarily contributing to pay our past legal obligations, but the fight will continue as long as USAPA’s officers are able to interfere OR the APA decides to withdraw support for a separate West merger committee. Possible legal actions going forward to defend the former America West seniority rights are expected to include the Ninth Circuit appeal, possible contempt charges against USAPA’s officers, and recovering dues money from USAPA. Additionally and more importantly is the funding for a West merger committee. The APA has tepidly committed to nothing more than a few vague references found in the DC litigation documents such as, “[After APA is certified as the single bargaining representative]...'it would assume responsibility for the structure of the pre-merger groups' merger committees consistent with its legal obligations, including the discretion to provide for the separate participation of the West Pilots in the seniority integration process if APA so chooses.'” In order to ensure a fair process, there must be a level playing field, but even this has not been guaranteed and we must be prepared to fund expenses and litigation in real time as the need arises, potentially awaiting repayment of these expenditures in the future.
To make the point clear, the APA and the company believe that three parties are required to have a fair and equitable M/B process under the terms of the merger. The parties are defined as the legacy AA pilots, and the East and West US Airways pilots. For this process to be fair, the West Merger committee must be afforded conditions of participation equal with the other parties. This includes FPL, time off, positive space travel when needed, legal representation, and funding. While we expect some level of funding from the APA for a West merger committee, history indicates more will be required. At the beginning of the 2005 merger, West Pilots were fortunate to have a separate West Merger Fund, which exceeded 1.5 million dollars, to supplement ALPA funds. We can expect this merger will cost substantially more due to its size, complexity, and a decade of inflation. At least in the beginning of this process, we should be prepared to fund our own committee one hundred percent.
Jeff Freund, our former AWA Merger Committee attorney, was instrumental in the Nicolau proceedings. Mr. Freund recently rejoined the West efforts to obtain a fair integration at the New American Airlines. Over the last eight years Mr. Freund negotiated, or helped obtain largely favorable terms for his clients in every major airline merger. Mr. Freund will provide the best representation in our upcoming SLI and is now on retainer to represent the West merger committee. This was possible through the well-established record of West pilots have of supporting Leonidas financially over the years.
To generate the necessary funding for whatever challenges lay ahead, including the possible funding of a West Merger Committee, we are modifying the program by which you can obtain a Leonidas Liberty Tie. While you can still receive a Liberty tie for a one-time donation of $675.00, the ties are now also available for $700.00 on payments through the “Push for Justice” campaign. First Officers may contribute $50.00 per month, and Captains may contribute $100.00 per month. We encourage every West pilot to contribute on a continual basis for as long as it takes to finish this fight!
Go to cactuspilot.com, click on “Contribute to the Legal Effort/The Push for Justice” tab, click on The Push for Justice and contribute through PayPal as a First Officer or as a Captain.
After you have signed up, or if you are currently participating in the “Push For Justice” campaign or bill pay, please send an email to [email protected] and include the size of tie you prefer (REG or TALL) and your current mailing address (please no PO Boxes).
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Click here to Contribute
http://www.cactuspilot.com
Over the past six years, a certain segment of former US Airways pilots have used USAPA as a weapon, engaging in a relentless campaign to denigrate and intimidate the former America West pilots in order to justify their quest to jettison their obligations from 2005. USAPA’s singular goal has been to substitute their own contrived seniority list in place of an agreed upon arbitrated decision arrived at after an arbitrators careful consideration of all the facts and equities of our unique merger situation. West pilot unity has provided a robust defense against an immoral union supported by management.
While we didn't pick this fight, defending ourselves has been worth the effort. Had we not stood up to USAPA the West pilots would have been stapled long ago and there would be no need for APA and the company to consider West pilot interest in a fair SLI process. USAPA’s desperate efforts litigating in Washington DC, and opposing SCS are aimed at keeping the West pilots out of the process at all costs because our presence will prevent USAPA from unilaterally dictating what US Airways seniority list will become part of the integrated seniority list.
As the new minority, USAPA has chosen to turn its tactics against APA and New American with multiple legal actions on multiple fronts designed to prolong its reign and exclude the past and future seniority interests of former America West pilots. USAPA's primary disagreement with APA over the protocol revolves around the inclusion of the former AWA pilots as a separate party to the seniority integration. USAPA also disagrees that APA will have absolute control over the process and the ability to amend the agreements as APA and the company see fit. This was USAPA's very own strategy when it assumed the role as the collective bargaining agent from ALPA. Today, the “shoe is on the other foot” and USAPA leaders do not like the idea that APA may do unto them as USAPA has done unto the West Pilots.
Left to their own devices, USAPA's officers will continue to interfere with the APA, the company, and the fair representation rights for the former America West pilots. A frequently heard question is, “what will happen to USAPA’s treasury fund?” We know West pilots agree with our opinion that it must be promptly returned to the pilots that were forced to pay it. It is almost certain that, without ANOTHER lawsuit, USAPA and its officers will attempt to use West dues money to advance East interests. However, USAPA and its officers will not be afforded any protection under federal labor law. It will be up to the former America West Pilots to ensure this does not happen. For the first time, the USAPA officers will be exposed to personal liability for their actions. Should USAPA continue representing any US Airways pilot after decertification, they will individually and jointly be in contempt of Judge Silver’s order because she clearly ruled (at USAPA's urging) that USAPA could no longer represent any pilots after decertification. True to form, USAPA has already filed a lawsuit in Washington to get the D.C. court to render an opinion opposing the one they convinced Judge Silver to deliver in Arizona. Never assume that USAPA will be consistent or make ethical choices.
Our funding strategy is ever-evolving to meet future challenges. The America West pilots have done an outstanding job voluntarily contributing to pay our past legal obligations, but the fight will continue as long as USAPA’s officers are able to interfere OR the APA decides to withdraw support for a separate West merger committee. Possible legal actions going forward to defend the former America West seniority rights are expected to include the Ninth Circuit appeal, possible contempt charges against USAPA’s officers, and recovering dues money from USAPA. Additionally and more importantly is the funding for a West merger committee. The APA has tepidly committed to nothing more than a few vague references found in the DC litigation documents such as, “[After APA is certified as the single bargaining representative]...'it would assume responsibility for the structure of the pre-merger groups' merger committees consistent with its legal obligations, including the discretion to provide for the separate participation of the West Pilots in the seniority integration process if APA so chooses.'” In order to ensure a fair process, there must be a level playing field, but even this has not been guaranteed and we must be prepared to fund expenses and litigation in real time as the need arises, potentially awaiting repayment of these expenditures in the future.
To make the point clear, the APA and the company believe that three parties are required to have a fair and equitable M/B process under the terms of the merger. The parties are defined as the legacy AA pilots, and the East and West US Airways pilots. For this process to be fair, the West Merger committee must be afforded conditions of participation equal with the other parties. This includes FPL, time off, positive space travel when needed, legal representation, and funding. While we expect some level of funding from the APA for a West merger committee, history indicates more will be required. At the beginning of the 2005 merger, West Pilots were fortunate to have a separate West Merger Fund, which exceeded 1.5 million dollars, to supplement ALPA funds. We can expect this merger will cost substantially more due to its size, complexity, and a decade of inflation. At least in the beginning of this process, we should be prepared to fund our own committee one hundred percent.
Jeff Freund, our former AWA Merger Committee attorney, was instrumental in the Nicolau proceedings. Mr. Freund recently rejoined the West efforts to obtain a fair integration at the New American Airlines. Over the last eight years Mr. Freund negotiated, or helped obtain largely favorable terms for his clients in every major airline merger. Mr. Freund will provide the best representation in our upcoming SLI and is now on retainer to represent the West merger committee. This was possible through the well-established record of West pilots have of supporting Leonidas financially over the years.
To generate the necessary funding for whatever challenges lay ahead, including the possible funding of a West Merger Committee, we are modifying the program by which you can obtain a Leonidas Liberty Tie. While you can still receive a Liberty tie for a one-time donation of $675.00, the ties are now also available for $700.00 on payments through the “Push for Justice” campaign. First Officers may contribute $50.00 per month, and Captains may contribute $100.00 per month. We encourage every West pilot to contribute on a continual basis for as long as it takes to finish this fight!
Go to cactuspilot.com, click on “Contribute to the Legal Effort/The Push for Justice” tab, click on The Push for Justice and contribute through PayPal as a First Officer or as a Captain.
After you have signed up, or if you are currently participating in the “Push For Justice” campaign or bill pay, please send an email to [email protected] and include the size of tie you prefer (REG or TALL) and your current mailing address (please no PO Boxes).
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Click here to Contribute
http://www.cactuspilot.com
06-18-2014, 04:15 PM
#3094
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
...
Should USAPA continue representing any US Airways pilot after decertification, they will individually and jointly be in contempt of Judge Silver’s order because she clearly ruled (at USAPA's urging) that USAPA could no longer represent any pilots after decertification.
Should USAPA continue representing any US Airways pilot after decertification, they will individually and jointly be in contempt of Judge Silver’s order because she clearly ruled (at USAPA's urging) that USAPA could no longer represent any pilots after decertification.
06-18-2014, 05:18 PM
#3095
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 19
Yes she did
Try Doc 298 listed in the Cactus Pilot legal library. Scroll down to page 20.
vi. USAPA’s Position is Unwise
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU,
in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration
proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will
change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority.
That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should
participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it
will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be
allowed to participate. The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified
representative. But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of
CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and
that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration. National
Airlines, Acquisition, 84 C.A.B. 408, 477 (1979). And when USAPA is no longer the
certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.
06-18-2014, 06:39 PM
#3096
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Try Doc 298 listed in the Cactus Pilot legal library. Scroll down to page 20.
vi. USAPA’s Position is Unwise
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU,
in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration
proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will
change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority.
That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should
participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it
will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be
allowed to participate. The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified
representative. But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of
CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and
that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration. National
Airlines, Acquisition, 84 C.A.B. 408, 477 (1979). And when USAPA is no longer the
certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.
vi. USAPA’s Position is Unwise
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU,
in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration
proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will
change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority.
That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should
participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it
will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be
allowed to participate. The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified
representative. But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of
CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and
that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration. National
Airlines, Acquisition, 84 C.A.B. 408, 477 (1979). And when USAPA is no longer the
certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.
Dicta legal definition of Dicta. Dicta synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
06-18-2014, 08:25 PM
#3098
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 19
Damn you got me! Dicta, wow, does any of the following dicta give you pause that maybe Pat Szymanski is at least as big a douchebag as Seham. Why has USAPA been able to skate this far? Because they were recognized by NMB. Well desertification and freedom from the highest dues in the industry is coming our way.
It is easy to sit on the side line and cheer when you are out of the line of fire. PurpleHelmet are you willing to bet the farm not to mention your freedom that all this is dicta and can be ignored? Gary Hummel who continues to milk USAPA membership for captain's pay because he has no medical will be personally liable for any contempt charges. No more hiding behind NMB. Actually responsible in a personal way. Are you going to take the heat, Purple?
See you on court.
The following come from Judge Silver when considered in the context of bloody Friday the 13th court spankings, I think they are prescient.
Pat Szymanski, counsel for USAPA, was the driving force behind the original provision as
well as Paragraph 10(h). (Transcript at 86-88). Mr. Szymanksi did not sit for a deposition
nor did he testify at trial. But inappropriately during the trial, from the well of the courtroom,
Mr. Szymanski tried to offer testimony about why USAPA proposed these provisions. The
Court refused to allow Mr. Symanski to offer unsworn statements about his motivations and
invited him to take the stand, testify under oath, and be subject to cross-examination. He
declined.2
The evidence establishes, however, that Mr. Szymanski was motivated in large part simply by a desire to ensure the Nicolau Award never take effect.
Mr. Szymanski’s actions on this point have been troubling. Pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, incorporated here by Local Rule 83.2(e), “[a] lawyer shall
not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless . . .
the testimony relates to an uncontested issue . . . the testimony relates to the nature and value
of legal services . . . or . . . disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on
the client.” It does not appear that any of these exceptions apply and, given his central role in crafting the crucial portion of the parties’ agreement, Mr. Szymanski likely should have
withdrawn from this case.
Having agreed to the MOU, USAPA set out to convince its members to ratify the
MOU. In oral presentations to pilots, USAPA representatives, including Mr. Szymanski,
made very different statements depending on whom was being addressed. For example,
when Mr. Szymanski was speaking to East Pilots, he explained the MOU was beneficial
because, in effect, it confirmed the Nicolau Award was “dead.” (Transcript at 166). But
when talking to West Pilots, Mr. Szymanksi stressed that the MOU was merely “neutral”
regarding seniority. (Transcript at 54, 95). In its written statements, USAPA reiterated this
alleged neutrality: “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they
are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.”
Before directly addressing Mr. Hummel’s declaration, some context is important.
During the course of this case, USAPA employed almost every conceivable delaying tactic.
A brief recap of USAPA’s tactics includes a motion to transfer venue and suspend deadlines
(later withdrawn); a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction
(denied); opposition to the West Pilots’ motion to accelerate trial on the merits (West Pilot’s
motion granted); opposition to class certification (class certified); a renewed motion to
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 298 Filed 01/10/14 Page 7 of 221
SUCK my DICTA PURPLEDUDE!
It is easy to sit on the side line and cheer when you are out of the line of fire. PurpleHelmet are you willing to bet the farm not to mention your freedom that all this is dicta and can be ignored? Gary Hummel who continues to milk USAPA membership for captain's pay because he has no medical will be personally liable for any contempt charges. No more hiding behind NMB. Actually responsible in a personal way. Are you going to take the heat, Purple?
See you on court.
The following come from Judge Silver when considered in the context of bloody Friday the 13th court spankings, I think they are prescient.
Pat Szymanski, counsel for USAPA, was the driving force behind the original provision as
well as Paragraph 10(h). (Transcript at 86-88). Mr. Szymanksi did not sit for a deposition
nor did he testify at trial. But inappropriately during the trial, from the well of the courtroom,
Mr. Szymanski tried to offer testimony about why USAPA proposed these provisions. The
Court refused to allow Mr. Symanski to offer unsworn statements about his motivations and
invited him to take the stand, testify under oath, and be subject to cross-examination. He
declined.2
The evidence establishes, however, that Mr. Szymanski was motivated in large part simply by a desire to ensure the Nicolau Award never take effect.
Mr. Szymanski’s actions on this point have been troubling. Pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, incorporated here by Local Rule 83.2(e), “[a] lawyer shall
not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless . . .
the testimony relates to an uncontested issue . . . the testimony relates to the nature and value
of legal services . . . or . . . disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on
the client.” It does not appear that any of these exceptions apply and, given his central role in crafting the crucial portion of the parties’ agreement, Mr. Szymanski likely should have
withdrawn from this case.
Having agreed to the MOU, USAPA set out to convince its members to ratify the
MOU. In oral presentations to pilots, USAPA representatives, including Mr. Szymanski,
made very different statements depending on whom was being addressed. For example,
when Mr. Szymanski was speaking to East Pilots, he explained the MOU was beneficial
because, in effect, it confirmed the Nicolau Award was “dead.” (Transcript at 166). But
when talking to West Pilots, Mr. Szymanksi stressed that the MOU was merely “neutral”
regarding seniority. (Transcript at 54, 95). In its written statements, USAPA reiterated this
alleged neutrality: “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they
are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.”
Before directly addressing Mr. Hummel’s declaration, some context is important.
During the course of this case, USAPA employed almost every conceivable delaying tactic.
A brief recap of USAPA’s tactics includes a motion to transfer venue and suspend deadlines
(later withdrawn); a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction
(denied); opposition to the West Pilots’ motion to accelerate trial on the merits (West Pilot’s
motion granted); opposition to class certification (class certified); a renewed motion to
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 298 Filed 01/10/14 Page 7 of 221
SUCK my DICTA PURPLEDUDE!
06-18-2014, 08:45 PM
#3099
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Damn you got me! Dicta, wow, does any of the following dicta give you pause that maybe Pat Szymanski is at least as big a douchebag as Seham. Why has USAPA been able to skate this far? Because they were recognized by NMB. Well desertification and freedom from the highest dues in the industry is coming our way.
It is easy to sit on the side line and cheer when you are out of the line of fire. PurpleHelmet are you willing to bet the farm not to mention your freedom that all this is dicta and can be ignored? Gary Hummel who continues to milk USAPA membership for captain's pay because he has no medical will be personally liable for any contempt charges. No more hiding behind NMB. Actually responsible in a personal way. Are you going to take the heat, Purple?
See you on court.
The following come from Judge Silver when considered in the context of bloody Friday the 13th court spankings, I think they are prescient.
Pat Szymanski, counsel for USAPA, was the driving force behind the original provision as
well as Paragraph 10(h). (Transcript at 86-88). Mr. Szymanksi did not sit for a deposition
nor did he testify at trial. But inappropriately during the trial, from the well of the courtroom,
Mr. Szymanski tried to offer testimony about why USAPA proposed these provisions. The
Court refused to allow Mr. Symanski to offer unsworn statements about his motivations and
invited him to take the stand, testify under oath, and be subject to cross-examination. He
declined.2
The evidence establishes, however, that Mr. Szymanski was motivated in large part simply by a desire to ensure the Nicolau Award never take effect.
Mr. Szymanski’s actions on this point have been troubling. Pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, incorporated here by Local Rule 83.2(e), “[a] lawyer shall
not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless . . .
the testimony relates to an uncontested issue . . . the testimony relates to the nature and value
of legal services . . . or . . . disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on
the client.” It does not appear that any of these exceptions apply and, given his central role in crafting the crucial portion of the parties’ agreement, Mr. Szymanski likely should have
withdrawn from this case.
Having agreed to the MOU, USAPA set out to convince its members to ratify the
MOU. In oral presentations to pilots, USAPA representatives, including Mr. Szymanski,
made very different statements depending on whom was being addressed. For example,
when Mr. Szymanski was speaking to East Pilots, he explained the MOU was beneficial
because, in effect, it confirmed the Nicolau Award was “dead.” (Transcript at 166). But
when talking to West Pilots, Mr. Szymanksi stressed that the MOU was merely “neutral”
regarding seniority. (Transcript at 54, 95). In its written statements, USAPA reiterated this
alleged neutrality: “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they
are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.”
Before directly addressing Mr. Hummel’s declaration, some context is important.
During the course of this case, USAPA employed almost every conceivable delaying tactic.
A brief recap of USAPA’s tactics includes a motion to transfer venue and suspend deadlines
(later withdrawn); a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction
(denied); opposition to the West Pilots’ motion to accelerate trial on the merits (West Pilot’s
motion granted); opposition to class certification (class certified); a renewed motion to
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 298 Filed 01/10/14 Page 7 of 221
SUCK my DICTA PURPLEDUDE!
It is easy to sit on the side line and cheer when you are out of the line of fire. PurpleHelmet are you willing to bet the farm not to mention your freedom that all this is dicta and can be ignored? Gary Hummel who continues to milk USAPA membership for captain's pay because he has no medical will be personally liable for any contempt charges. No more hiding behind NMB. Actually responsible in a personal way. Are you going to take the heat, Purple?
See you on court.
The following come from Judge Silver when considered in the context of bloody Friday the 13th court spankings, I think they are prescient.
Pat Szymanski, counsel for USAPA, was the driving force behind the original provision as
well as Paragraph 10(h). (Transcript at 86-88). Mr. Szymanksi did not sit for a deposition
nor did he testify at trial. But inappropriately during the trial, from the well of the courtroom,
Mr. Szymanski tried to offer testimony about why USAPA proposed these provisions. The
Court refused to allow Mr. Symanski to offer unsworn statements about his motivations and
invited him to take the stand, testify under oath, and be subject to cross-examination. He
declined.2
The evidence establishes, however, that Mr. Szymanski was motivated in large part simply by a desire to ensure the Nicolau Award never take effect.
Mr. Szymanski’s actions on this point have been troubling. Pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, incorporated here by Local Rule 83.2(e), “[a] lawyer shall
not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless . . .
the testimony relates to an uncontested issue . . . the testimony relates to the nature and value
of legal services . . . or . . . disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on
the client.” It does not appear that any of these exceptions apply and, given his central role in crafting the crucial portion of the parties’ agreement, Mr. Szymanski likely should have
withdrawn from this case.
Having agreed to the MOU, USAPA set out to convince its members to ratify the
MOU. In oral presentations to pilots, USAPA representatives, including Mr. Szymanski,
made very different statements depending on whom was being addressed. For example,
when Mr. Szymanski was speaking to East Pilots, he explained the MOU was beneficial
because, in effect, it confirmed the Nicolau Award was “dead.” (Transcript at 166). But
when talking to West Pilots, Mr. Szymanksi stressed that the MOU was merely “neutral”
regarding seniority. (Transcript at 54, 95). In its written statements, USAPA reiterated this
alleged neutrality: “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they
are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.”
Before directly addressing Mr. Hummel’s declaration, some context is important.
During the course of this case, USAPA employed almost every conceivable delaying tactic.
A brief recap of USAPA’s tactics includes a motion to transfer venue and suspend deadlines
(later withdrawn); a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction
(denied); opposition to the West Pilots’ motion to accelerate trial on the merits (West Pilot’s
motion granted); opposition to class certification (class certified); a renewed motion to
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 298 Filed 01/10/14 Page 7 of 221
SUCK my DICTA PURPLEDUDE!
Dicta often contains a political rant, or "everyone gets a trophy" happy language.
Dicta can even be useful for plastering a message board---sort of a cut and paste rant, and every bit as influential too!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
