American Airlines' Preaching Pilot

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:12:15 -0800, PTRAVEL wrote:


"BTR1701" wrote in message

Member of the Texas Bar since 1993.

Federal law enforcement agent since 1998.


No need. Member of the California bar since 1992, admitted to all four
United States District Courts in California, the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts
of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. I've litigated in courts all over the
country and can count the number of frivolous actions I've encounter on two
fingers of one hand.


Oh, will you two put your dicks away?

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message ...
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:
Whose plane it is has nothing to do with it either. There is an
agreement to transport passengers in accordance with certain rules.

I haven't seen anyone credibly claim that the rules prohibit discussing
religion.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Many newspaper articles made
it clear that his behavior violated the airline's rules.



There is consideration. (i.e. money paid by the passenger.) So the
passenger certainly has grounds to sue.

If my plumber asks me whether I'm a Christian, can I sue?


What does that have to do with anything?

If my cat flies an airplane into North Korea, do I get free cheese?

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message ...
"Wai Doan Hsu" wrote in message
om...
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
"Mike Painter" wrote in message
...

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(jwk) wrote:
That's not what we're talking about. Please try and keep up.

The assertion was the PASSENGERS could sue for violation of their
rights.

Since it's not their plane, they CAN'T SUE.

Of course, it's not the pilot's plane, either, but since no one is
claiming the pilot is going to sue anyone, your observation is
wholly
irrelevant and pointless.

So I have to be on property I own to sue somebody?
The insurance companies will be happy to hear that.
Or perhaps you think that only some physical injury is required?
The insurance companies will be happy to hear that.

I suspect that someone will win a large amount based on the argument
that
a
reasonable person would have known that making a religious statement
to a
captive audience during an airplane flight might do irreparable harm
to
them
in light of the religious nature of the 9/11 flights where everyone
"knows"
crazy religious people flew into buildings.

The legal term of art that you want is either intentional or negligent
infliction of emotional distress. The latter requires proof of injury,
e.g.
visits to a shrink or medical doctor, inability to sleep, etc. The
former
doesn't require any injury but, of course, requires intent (which,
arguably,
could be present under the facts as reported).

If you haven't figured out by the reaction here that it created
emotional distress, you are not paying attention. Except, of course,
we have no standing. When we have people coming off the plane telling
us very clearly how distressed they were, it's not a stretch to assume
that there was emotional distress.

Ahem. Talk about not paying attention . . .

"Emotional distress" is a legal term of art, not a subjective description.
Negligent infliction requires proof of physical injury, and that proof is
introduced through competent expert testimony, i.e. a doctor, psychiatrist,
etc. Intentional infliction doesn't require proof of injury, but does
require a statement sufficiently outrageous that injury would be the
presumed result, as well as intent to achieve that result.

It is not enough to say, "I was distressed."

That's the law.

As for standing, obviously only the passengers would have standing to sue;
no one has suggested otherwise.

PTRAVEL, Esq.

This reminds me of an anecdote that is commonly taught to first year
law students. An attorney is watching a wildlife program on
television. In the show, a lion stalks and kills a zebra. The
announcer explains how the lion does it merely to eat, and there is no
malice involved in the killing. The attorney jumps up and says, "of
course there was malice! It intended to kill the lion!"

The point of the story is, of course, that the attorney was missing
the point. The word malice has perfectly valid definitions that are
found in any dictionary. While there may be a specialized legal
definition, the others are unquestionably valid. They represent how
the word is used every day. That's simply how language works.

In this case, there is clearly emotional distress as the term is
properly used. While nobody said that sufficient supporting evidence
has been presented to prove it in court, to argue that there was no
emotional distress shows that you share a problem that many lawyers
have. You don't understand English.

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"None" wrote in message

If the HR department says . . .we fired his ass . . . then
they
become culpable.

Culpable for what?

Theoretically, claims of slander and defamation.

Absolutely wrong.

No, it's not wrong. Companies *have* been sued for such things and
now
seek to protect themselves from even frivolous lawsuits.

The fact that truth is a defense is irrelevant to whether companies
are
refusing to provide this information to insulate themselves against
lawsuits, frivolous or not.

Though it may not seem like it, lawyers can not, and will not, bring a
completely frivolous suit.

The contention being whose definition of "frivolous" is operant at any
given moment.

"Frivolous" has a legal meaning, and is discussed, at some length, in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which provides for sanctions against
the
lawyer who makes frivolous filings. Some pertinent excerpts:

[The claim] is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to
harrass . . . [is] warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument
for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the
establishment of new law . . . the allegations and other factual
contentions
have evidentiary support .


Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is
fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no defamation,
nor have any so-called "privacy rights" been breached.

Irrelevant. See above.

Spoken like someone who has little or no experience of the legal
system.

Member of the Texas Bar since 1993.

Is the Texas bar in such a sorry state that its members routinely bring
frivolous actions?


Federal law enforcement agent since 1998.

Try again.

No need. Member of the California bar since 1992, admitted to all four
United States District Courts in California, the 9th and 11th Circuit
Courts
of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. I've litigated in courts all over
the
country and can count the number of frivolous actions I've encounter on
two
fingers of one hand.


Well . . . . I'm impressed!


NOT!

--
***/***/***
When life gives you lemons
Skull**** everyone in sight!
http://wonderofitall.com/

***/***/***

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , Matt
Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom wrote:

In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "PTRAVEL"
:

I've never heard of a company whose privacy rules prohibit disclosing
the fact of an employee's termination. What makes you think AA has
such
rules?

Actually quite frequently such terminations include a clause that
says both parties will not talk about it. Neither side likes the
publicity.

I don't know... I'm not saying it's never happened but if I'm being
fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that
prohibits me from talking about it.

No need to sign any "clause" as most employees sign one on the day they are
hired that follows them for life.

--
***/***/***
When life gives you lemons
Skull**** everyone in sight!
http://wonderofitall.com/

***/***/***

"mrtravelkay" wrote in message
om...
PTRAVEL wrote:
I don't know... I'm not saying it's never happened but if I'm being
fired from a company I have zero incentive to sign any "clause" that
prohibits me from talking about it.


The usual incentive is severence pay.


If such an agreement were required to get severance pay, then wouldn't
that move it from "wages" to a "settlement" for tax purposes?


Or a bribe.

--
***/***/***
When life gives you lemons
Skull**** everyone in sight!
http://wonderofitall.com/

***/***/***

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article , "PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"BTR1701" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PTRAVEL"
wrote:

"None" wrote in message

If the HR department says . . .we fired his ass . . .
then
they
become culpable.

Culpable for what?

Theoretically, claims of slander and defamation.

Absolutely wrong.

No, it's not wrong. Companies *have* been sued for such things
and
now seek to protect themselves from even frivolous lawsuits.

The fact that truth is a defense is irrelevant to whether
companies are
refusing to provide this information to insulate themselves
against
lawsuits, frivolous or not.

Though it may not seem like it, lawyers can not, and will not,
bring
a completely frivolous suit.

The contention being whose definition of "frivolous" is operant at
any
given moment.

"Frivolous" has a legal meaning, and is discussed, at some length, in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which provides for sanctions
against
the lawyer who makes frivolous filings. Some pertinent excerpts:

[The claim] is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to
harrass . . . [is] warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous
argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law
or
the
establishment of new law . . . the allegations and other factual
contentions have evidentiary support .

Right. And the judge decides whether the facts fit the law, so it's
his/her opinion of frivolous which is operant at any given moment.

Sure, though I don't recall off-hand if it's an abuse of discretion
standard. Still, judges have a considerable interest in precluding
frivolous filings -- it's their docket that gets cluttered if not.


Truth is a defense to defamation. If the pilot is
fired, and AA says, "He was fired," there has been no
defamation,
nor have any so-called "privacy rights" been breached.

Irrelevant. See above.

Spoken like someone who has little or no experience of the legal
system.

Member of the Texas Bar since 1993.

Is the Texas bar in such a sorry state that its members routinely
bring
frivolous actions?

Frivolous actions are brought everywhere. Just search the state bars of
any state for attorneys who have been sanctioned for bringing them. I
betcha California has a few of its own.

Of course. The statutes exist for a reason. The number, however, is
small.


As for "routinely", well that depends on your definition of "routine",
now doesn't it?

However you want to define it, it is far, far fewer than the popular
conception, and that was my point.


I mean, Halley's comet routinely visits the inner solar system every 75
years. Does that count?

I'd say that the number of actual frivolous filings is far closer to the
number of Halley's comet visits per century, than to either the number of
total filings or the number of filings which most people _think_ are
frivolous. In other words, both the comet visits and frivolous filings
are
rare events.


But none of that was really your contention here, was it, counselor? I
believe it was a question of not having experience..... Nice change of
subject.... subtle. I like it.

And I'll say it again -- if you believe that frivolous filings are so
numerous as to constitute a significant problem, then you haven't much
experience of the legal system, your bar membership notwithstanding.



Most judges frown on frivilous suits, and award fees and costs accordingly.
You don't **** around with judges time, the courts are backed up enough as
it is. Any lawyer that would take on a frivilous and groundless suit is a
schlock out to take your money!

--
***/***/***
When life gives you lemons
Skull**** everyone in sight!
http://wonderofitall.com/

***/***/***

mrtravelkay wrote in message om...
Wai Doan Hsu wrote:



Perhaps you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? SEC. 703.
(a) makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on religion in that
circumstance. They cannot hire pilots based on religion, nor can they
"otherwise ... discriminate against, any individual because of his ...
religion." If they are telling a pilot what religious views to hold,
they are breaking the law.

They can stop him from preaching to the passengers, and they can
determine what religious reading material to put on the plane. They just
can't force him to read it.

If they tape it all over the cockpit, they are forcing him to read it.
That's different from putting a Bible in with the reading material.

BTR1701 wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:

BTR1701 wrote in message
...
In article , devil
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:01 +0000, BTR1701 wrote:

You could file a lawsuit but you'd have no grounds for it. American
Airlines is a private company. They can plaster the inside of their
airplane cabins with bible verses if that's what they want to do.

Methinks you got mixed up. That's Alaska, not AA.

The point is the same either way.

Perhaps you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? SEC. 703.
(a) makes it ILLEGAL to discriminate based on religion in that
circumstance. They cannot hire pilots based on religion, nor can they
"otherwise ... discriminate against, any individual because of his ...
religion." If they are telling a pilot what religious views to hold,
they are breaking the law.

Who said they have told anyone, let alone a pilot, what religious views
they can hold?


I suppose that you could make the argument that telling you in writing
what religious views to hold by taping the writings in front of your
face isn't telling you what views to hold. You could make the
argument, but it would be a stupid argument.

"None" wrote in message
k.net...

snip

Most judges frown on frivilous suits, and award fees and costs
accordingly.
You don't **** around with judges time, the courts are backed up enough as
it is. Any lawyer that would take on a frivilous and groundless suit is a
schlock out to take your money!

Well, at least we agree on that.



--
***/***/***
When life gives you lemons
Skull**** everyone in sight!
http://wonderofitall.com/

***/***/***