Originally Posted by
Ronaldo
2. IBT is alleging that they were not consulted in the LOA/Commercial agreement, so unless the new witness gets up there and whips off his Jeff Thomas mask, I doubt there will be any evidence here.
JT isn’t the witness in question, the IBT witness was the one that failed to educate himself or be educated by counsel on the items of which he was disposed.
Originally Posted by
Ronaldo
The magistrate judge is following civil procedure rules and allowing deposition of a properly prepared IBT witness. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing relevant to the defense that can be garnered from deposition of the new witness. The magistrate says as much in her ruling.
And yet ruled that there needed to be additional depositions of an IBT Representative that has even a remote clue regarding the matters on which he or she is disposed.
Originally Posted by
Ronaldo
This last round of rulings/pleedings is not progress, it is minutia. You forgot to mention that two new attorneys appeared on behalf of the defendants...Wow!
That is relevant in what way? Maybe the IBT or at least Local 357 should consider the same thing, Wilder is spread too thin, Robert Mann lives in a fantasy world full of pretty graphs with squiggly lines that, on more than one occasion, were equally valid whether you held them upright or upside down.
You might benefit greatly from replacing your entire NC as well.
Originally Posted by
Ronaldo
I predict a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs. Clearing up this procedural abnormality with the IBT witness prevents an appeal unless a new germane set of facts is revealed (and still unlikely there). If you've read the docket, you'd be hard pressed to see any other outcome. Had RAH/FAPAInvest not continued in their juvenile arrogant fashion, illegally dealing after the election, and had BB not written to Jeff and Scott saying "LOA/Commercial Agreement" "To keep it out of the IBT's hands", they might have a defense. However, those emails and the wire transfer, clearly establish the illegal activity.
Of course you do, that’s the IBT way, you’re right all the way through until the Arbitrator rules against you. Then it’s everyone else’s fault. You’re welcome to your opinion, you know what they say, opinions are like, let’s say belly buttons, everybody’s got one.
I’ve read the docket and many other briefings, motions and rulings through the years. Depending on the outcome you want, you can find parts that support your preconceived conclusion in any of these documents.
You can also read one party’s brief and think, “How could anyone argue against that." Then you read the next, opposing, brief and think the same thing. I think I’ll wait for the Judge to rule.
After all the IBT rhetoric, is anyone at the IBT willing to admit that LOA 67 was drafted, put out to the FAPA represented Frontier pilot membership and overwhelmingly ratified by the Frontier pilots prior to the hostile takeover by the IBT and is therefore a valid LOA?