GJ Pilot car gets keyed!...What the hell?

[FN FAL]

Also something else to consider is this trend I have been monitoring lately with "RICO" lawsuit filings by individuals.

If the owner of the car catches who did the vandalism and that person is a member of an "organized" union and the act was meant to strike "terror" in the victim...I can see where this could go beyond the "It's just property damage!" phase.

Currently there are two other RICO lawsuits that are making headlines, one is the case of woman who is using RICO laws in suing the RIAA (recording industry) and another case is Diaz v. Gates. In Diaz, he is suing the LAPD under RICO.

I don't have a dog in this race, but times have changed and I'd be a little careful out there.

RICO LAW Newest Weapon in the Hands of Angered California Injured Workers
RICO lawsuit goes forward in California. A Nurse Practitioner and injured worker has decided that nearly 12 years is enough. She is taking on Corporate Corruption in the Insurance Industry under "RICO"

Bakersfield, CA (PRWEB) October 19, 2005 -- According to Barbara Clark, a Registered Nurse Practitioner who is successfully suing her ex-employer under the racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations law (RICO, Superior Court of Kern County Case No. S-1500-CV-0000245966). The erosion in delivery of health care to patients is a direct result of the "constant meddling in Workers' Compensation by the cash register governor," as she puts it.

"I am the living proof that many hospitals are deadbeats when it comes to paying their bills and lawful court-ordered judgements," cited Clark, referring to her nearly twelve-year legal battle with San Joaquin Community Hospital, part of the Adventist Health System.

"Our present Governor continues to meddle in a complex Workers' Compensation System to give his employer -- based supporters an easy answer to their problems; that is reduce work comp premiums employers pay by screwing individual injured workers," cited Clark. “This is creating a climate where employers ordered long ago by courts to pay work comp judgments simply refuse to do so, they're answer ‘so sue us’,” Clark said.

Apparently that is exactly what Clark did. She hauled San Joaquin Community Hospital into court under RICO laws. It seems to be working; Clark’s case has survived the latest motion to dismiss and is pressing forward to trial.

Her latest legal victories seem to be inspiring a new class of angered injured workers that are considering similar actions against other “work comp dead beats,” to cite Clark.

 

[FN FAL]

"Any person who operates or manages an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity may be in violation of the RICO Act. Any group may be a RICO enterprise regardless of whether its members wear pinstripes, poster boards, fatigues or hoods."

"In 2002, civil RICO claims were brought against the Catholic Church by parishioners who were allegedly sexually abused by priests. RICO has been used against the Mafia, businesses, political groups and now churches. Literally anyone can find themselves in the crosshairs of a RICO claim"

http://www.ricoact.com/

The above website is direct information regarding RICO and RICO lawsuits.

G@jets the company or a G@jets employee, could bring a RICO suit against a union or individuals in a union, if there is pattern of crimes committed against them that were part of an organized attempt to disrupt their profitability, especially since the company operates in "interstate commerce".

 

[AbOvo]

I'm sure this has been asked before but have any of you had a GJ pilot ask to jumpseat?

 

[FN FAL]

ALPA and United Sued in RICO lawsuit...

Plaintiffs/appellants are nine non-striking pilots for United Airlines ("United"). Plaintiffs brought suit against United Airlines and the Airline Pilots Association ("ALPA") and the ALPA Master Executive Council ("MEC") [1] based on post-strike harassment of the non-striking pilots. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United and ALPA, ruling that plaintiffs' civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., claims were not filed within the requisite statute of limitations and that all of plaintiffs' state-law claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

The plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment on all of their federal and state-law claims against United and ALPA. The plaintiffs' RICO claims were not filed within the four-year statute of limitations provided for civil RICO actions and the plaintiffs' state-law claims are preempted by the RLA.

We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Prior to 1985, the pilots of United operated under a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between United and ALPA. On May 17, 1985, ALPA declared a strike against United that lasted twenty-nine days. In anticipation of this strike, United recruited "fleet qualified" pilots, i.e., pilots already experienced and qualified to operate the aircraft then in United's fleet. These pilots were hired as permanent employees to replace the striking pilots. United ultimately hired 539 replacement pilots, including eight of the nine plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiff, Joseph Salomone, was already a pilot for United when the strike began, and he continued to work for United during and after the strike. Each fleet qualified pilot received a letter confirming that the pilot was being hired as a permanent replacement for striking pilots and that the job offer would remain valid even if a settlement were reached between United and ALPA. The employment letters also represented that due to the fleet qualified pilots' commitment during the strike, the pilots would have the full support of management in any difficulties they encountered during their employment.

The strike was settled on June 15, 1985, at which time ALPA and United formed a new collective bargaining agreement (the "1985 Agreement") which governed the employment of all pilots employed by United, including the plaintiffs. As part of the settlement, ALPA and United executed a "Back-to-Work" agreement, setting forth the terms under which striking pilots would return to their jobs. This agreement contained a "no-reprisal" clause which provided in pertinent part:

The Association and the Company agree that neither will engage in or condone any activities which might constitute reprisals or recriminations as a result of the ALPA strike.... ALPA agrees not to level fines or take action against non-striking pilots.

On April 3, 1987, United and ALPA executed a "Letter of Agreement," wherein United agreed to retain the replacement fleet qualified pilots on the condition that they be placed below the returning fleet qualified pilots on the United-ALPA seniority list. ALPA agreed not to challenge that placement. This agreement also contained "no-reprisal" clauses in which ALPA agreed to take "extensive active measures to eliminate the residual tension between those pilots who struck and those who worked during the strike." United further agreed "to take extensive measures to restore a positive working relationship with all pilots."

The plaintiffs allege that harassment commenced with the strike in May of 1985. Plaintiffs allege that they underwent continuous, illegal harassment from ALPA pilots for working during the strike and that the harassment continues to this date. The harassment alleged includes, inter alia, physical threats, vandalism, assault and battery, the theft and destruction of personal property, ostracism by ALPA pilots at work and during flights, hate mail, verbal insults, and ridicule.

Plaintiffs contend that United and ALPA have breached the no-reprisal clauses of the aforementioned agreements by condoning the harassment against the fleet qualified pilots. They claim that United has failed to enforce the agreements against ALPA and that ALPA has condoned and actually encouraged the harassment. United initially attempted to protect the plaintiffs through various protective measures and by making strong statements against the harassment. It is alleged, however, that within a few years of the strike, United determined that, in an effort to further labor harmony, it was more beneficial for it to please ALPA than for it to protect the plaintiffs.

On March 23, 1994, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, alleging five claims for relief based on the post-strike harassment. [2] United and ALPA filed separate motions for summary judgment. On March 27, 1996, the district court granted the summary judgment motions of both United and ALPA, dismissing the RICO claim and holding that all of the plaintiffs' state-law claims were preempted by the RLA.

Additionally, this court notes that the Tenth Circuit has already decided a case very similar in many respects to the case sub judice. In Fry v. Airline Pilots Association International and United Airlines, Inc., 88 F.3d 831 (10th Cir.1996), the court addressed the issue of RLA preemption of many of the state-law claims that are raised in the current controversy before this court. The background and basic facts of Fry are virtually identical to those in the present case. Although the plaintiffs in Fry are different from the plaintiffs in this case, both sets of plaintiffs were part of the same group of fleet qualified pilots employed by United during the strike and allegedly harassed during and after the strike

/////

 

[FN FAL]

In another case, Bailey v. United Airlines, a pilot who claims age discrimination attempts to get RICO suit filings against United...but is denied.

Filed February 1, 2002

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 00-2537

JAMES BAILEY,
Appellant

v.

UNITED AIRLINES...

...Bailey commenced this action on a pro se basis on
August 14, 1997 and later filed two amended complaints.1
After Bailey retained counsel, he commenced discovery. On
June 4, 1999, United submitted a motion for summary
judgment. The Magistrate Judge granted an extension of
the discovery deadline and dismissed United's motion for
summary judgment without prejudice to re-file at the close
of discovery. On September 27, 1999, Bailey filed another
motion to extend discovery and a motion to amend the
complaint to assert claims dealing with fraud, evidence
tampering, and civil RICO. The Magistrate Judge denied
both of these motions. United then renewed its motion for
summary judgment. After all briefing was complete on June

 

[nimtz]

With the world terror situation the way it is, don't you think it would make sense that someone is watching the parking lot, especially the employee parking lot?

BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA! Man I needed a good laugh on sh!tty Noreaster day. Yep Employee Lot at EWR is the model of secure parking. Any attempts to key a car would result in blackhawks swooping in and men with dark sunglasses emerging from suburbans! Having parked my ride at several major airports I can assure you the level of 'security' isn't what you dream it to be. Welcome to the real world.

 

[synchoff]

I'm sure this has been asked before but have any of you had a GJ pilot ask to jumpseat?

Naw, but for those who are so inclined, you can politely deny them a JS for a whole host of B.S. reasons (max gross weight, takeoff performance, UNQUESTIONING OBEDIENCE TO ALMIGHTY ALPA). You don't get any flack, and they get the message anyway.

 

[millhouse21]

Theo is right. Millhouse you spread nothing but rumors and half truths on this site. Mngt. CAN NOT select a UNION. Only the employees can. The PILOT and can only pick for the PILOTs and the FA's only for the FA's.

Millhouse....keep your mouth shut if u don't know what you are talking about and stop the rumors.

What comes next? Are you going to threaten me with the death penalty?

Oh, BTW, management CAN select the union if the entire pilot group consists of 4 pilots hand picked by management.

 

[Britpilot]

A GJ pilot's car got keyed at the hotel where he was staying.

Aww, what a shame.

 

[fuelflow]

This who car keying thing never happened. Nobody in the union, company management nor flying the line know anything about it. Sounds like somebody trying to flame things up a bit.

But don't let the truth interfere with your fun here.