Round 1 went to the little guy. The Judge denied TTI’s and SSA’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Or for those who prefer PDF format: us-district-court-order-denying-tti-ssa-motion-for-tro.
If you think that slowed down the lawyers with the big underwear, you would be mistaken.
The day after the Judges’ denial they filed the following paperwork, doubling down on trying to pressure the little guy into dropping his Small Claims case.
Or for those who prefer PDF format: tti-initial-disclosures
Check it out, 15 witnesses, none of whom were in Small Claims Court, and all of whom may or may not have anything to say.
This is a classic lawyer put-on; a mixture of word fogging and half truths with the illusion of relevancy, pretending to have what they lack.
According to Sydney C. Schweitzer, in his book Winning with Deception and Bluff; “To manipulate the ordinary so it looks extraordinary, is the highest form of deception.”
The lawyers with big underwear are taking an ordinary Small Claims case over $515, and trying to make it look extraordinary by claiming their clients will be “stripped of their collective bargaining rights” if the case is even allowed to go forward.
They are well aware of the Robert K. Frazier, an individual v. ILWU Local 19 and PMA, [westlaw-frazier-case] where it is clearly spelled out that an individual only has the right to file 2 kinds of complaints under the PCLCD: Discrimination grievances under Section 17.4, and a grievance regarding job dispatching under Section 17.73 related to individuals returned to the dispatch hall by the Employer.
The Small Claims Court case is neither a claim of discrimination nor a claim that someone was improperly returned to the dispatch hall by the Employer, and therefore not covered by the grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement.
Round 2 has yet to be determined.
More to come……