On 4/12/2017 6:31 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 4:25 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 4/12/2017 11:27 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 4/12/2017 9:23 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/12/2017 10:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 4:03:28 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/11/2017 11:50 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:



[snip]

There are, however some factors that could screw thing up. The guy
accepted the deal and later found out the details and changed his
mind..
That is not an excuse to drag him down the aisle. There is always a
plan B or you make one.



[snip]

BTW, you missed my point in the earlier post which was simply that his
mandatory attendance at anger management classes is totally irrelevant
to this situation. He was not the aggressor, he just refused to roll
over and play dead like they wanted. Whatever his contract with UAL is
- and he does have a contract - it's a civil matter not a criminal one.
This is something that the parties involved will be learning thanks to
the forthcoming lawsuit.


it turned into a criminal matter when he did not follow instructions.

Okay, explain why he wasn't arrested, why the City and UAL are crapping
in their collective pants and issuing apologies, rewriting the rules,
regulations, and procedures. Instead, his attorney, Thomas Demetrio, is
trying to figure out how best to structure the settlement or jury award
to mitigate the tax ramifications when those checks are written.

Enough of the ****ing contest among us who are uninvolved. I suggest
you just set up a good Google search to track this puppy and perhaps
chip into a pool: Will they settle or will it go to trial? How many
millions will it bring in damages.