Originally Posted by
IA1125
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.
This is precisely my point! The IBT witness knew nothing of the illegal negotiation after IBT became the representative. That's part of the suit. Failure to negotiate with the representative union...
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.
I think you'll be hard pressed to get any information out of an IBT national or local member that can build a defense for the remaining counts in this case. Did the LOA get split into a Commercial Agreement and an LOA? Yes. The leverage of negotiating extensions to the LOA was lost to the IBT because JT took a pay-off from BB.
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.
I was pointing out the absurd 3662 foot-stomping because we weren't updated on ALL the developments. I don't consider anything that went on this week a development. Delay, yes...
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.
I've read hundreds of cases in my life and I'd say that ^^^statement is completely accurate.
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.
Agreed again.
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?
Not hard to admit the facts. I'll admit that (I'm not a union rep though). But in admitting the facts I'd also like to point out that BB sent emails to the FAPA leadership at the time and asked them to split the LOA into a commercial agreement as well, and it was agreed that FAPAInvest would negotiate for LOA issues AFTER the representative was chosen. The emails and actions after IBT became the union, do not help the case.