quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:


Unless they refuse service to some freaking homo, that's where the SHTF big time.

That is the ticket. I will claim to be gay and that they refused to transport my shipment because I am gay.

Mr. Green sounds like he is foaming at the mouth.

Written by persons who know nothing about trophies, hunting and how these things work.

Examples from the report above:
----------------------------------
"to hunt and kill a critically endangered black rhino"

"bringing the dead animal back to the U.S. with him"

"bring his prized carcass back"

"request to transport the animal from southern Africa"

"transporting this endangered animal’s butchered body out of Africa"

"only around 3 percent of trophy hunting revenues ever trickle down to the local communities"

"elephants are worth a lot more alive than dead—76 times more"

"hunting operations that have nothing to do with conservation"

"transporting dead animal trophies"
----------------------------
What else does Green and Hill lie about when they write on any subject?

Does anyone have an update on what is happening with this lawsuit?

Law suits never move very fast.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Law suits never move very fast.

Especially against a corporation with a 50 bil market cap and 10 bil in cash on balance sheet. This will take years and go nowhere.

Mike

Mike,

Seems like you have a copy of the petition or complaint. I'd love to see it. I regret that I'm not on the pleadings. I'd enjoy this one.

Thanks Mike. I actually like the tortious interference claim.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Thanks Mike. I actually like the tortious interference claim.

Sounds like latin for constipation.

My point was that they probably stated a claim that would survive a 12(b)(2) or a 12(b)(6) motion.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:


Unless they refuse service to some freaking homo, that's where the SHTF big time.

That is the ticket. I will claim to be gay and that they refused to transport my shipment because I am gay.

And that is why our4 modern society is going down the drain.

Common sense is totally ignored, and the freaks are made into heroes!

One should ask, are they federal funded or have received federal funding?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
My point was that they probably stated a claim that would survive a 12(b)(2) or a 12(b)(6) motion.

This will go nowhere is my bet. This will be litigated for years and be a rounding error for delta. If they lose they will keep appealing this and delay having to ship trophies.

Delta had no intention of doing this till cecil came along. Dal had rejected an earlier animal rights activist attempt but cecil changed the equation.

I have spoken to delta management and ir - this is on no ones radar screen at delta. Just a frivilous lawsuit to delta - in the delay for ever bucket.

Mike

Yep

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Thanks Mike. I actually like the tortious interference claim.

Sounds like latin for constipation.

I just received my 2015 End of Year Report from Conservation Force, Page 3, "Delta appears to be willing to fight our suit,so we will be going the distance, perhaps to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other airlines have also rebuffed our demand letters so the fight has just begun-and a fight it will be."

This is an epic battle that hunters need to win decisively and a huge round of applause for those involved ensuring this happens!

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews...y-shipping-ban.html/

The site is terrible and slow, at least on my computer, here is some of the text.


In October, the Dallas hunter who paid the Dallas Safari Club $350,000 for a trip to Namibia and a permit to kill an endangered black rhino sued Delta Air Lines when the carrier refused to transport his trophy back to the States. Two months later, Delta has finally responded by asking a federal judge to toss the case, insisting it has no “duty” whatsoever to transport something just because a “would-be shipper” wants it put on a plane. Says the carrier’s brief filed along with its motion to dismiss, “Delta is well within its rights to refuse to carry trophy kills.”

The initial complaint, listing hunter Corey Knowlton and the Dallas Safari Club and others as plaintiffs, was filed in Dallas federal court just two months after Delta joined a growing list of carriers that had decided not to transport game-hunting “trophies.” Delta and Fort Worth-based American Airlines joined the ban in August, after an American dentist killed Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe. Delta said on Aug. 3 that “effective immediately, Delta will officially ban shipment of all lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros and buffalo trophies worldwide as freight.” That included Knowlton’s black rhino, which conservationists claim was killed to protect the larger herd.

Knowlton and the Dallas Safari Club claim that the carriers’ embargo on transporting trophies will harm hunters’ conservation efforts and kill villages that rely on tourist-hunters to survive. Said the suit, “Because it dissuades lawful hunters, Delta’s embargo jeopardizes the benefits of tourist hunting and its centrality in the conservation programs of African range states. And worse, the embargo deprives Big Five species of essential conservation funding and support.”

In court documents filed in Dallas on Monday, Delta says that’s not its concern.

“The complaint in this case reads more like a press release than a pleading,” says the brief in support of the motion to dismiss. “Instead of detailing the operative facts or explaining the governing law, Plaintiffs make lengthy public policy arguments about the conservation benefits of trophy hunting. Whatever the merits of those arguments might be, they do nothing to establish that Delta is legally obligated to accept and carry as cargo trophies from the killing of big game.

Thanks for the update Mike.

quote:

Additionally, hunters like Knowlton have options other than Delta for transporting their hunting trophies—UPS, FedEx, and South African Airways, which rescinded its ban in July—all allow hunting trophies to be transported.

A guy who can pay $350k to pop a rhino can charter a biz jet to move his trophy.

They will lose this case unless the shooter is quadrasexual multiracial democrat Clinton donor.

quote:

A guy who can pay $350k to pop a rhino can charter a biz jet to move his trophy.They will lose this case unless the shooter is quadrasexual multiracial democrat Clinton donor.

Your last line may be true, but, just because someone has the money to charter a private plane does not mean they should have to.
There are also a whole lot of hunters who are on a budget that can't afford a charter.
On behalf of all of the tight budget hunters, I want to thank all involved in suing Delta.

DSC could buy their own cargo plane. It would be good business.

What about hunters boycotting Delta?

quote:

“The complaint in this case reads more like a press release than a pleading,” says the brief in support of the motion to dismiss. “Instead of detailing the operative facts or explaining the governing law, Plaintiffs make lengthy public policy arguments about the conservation benefits of trophy hunting. Whatever the merits of those arguments might be, they do nothing to establish that Delta is legally obligated to accept and carry as cargo trophies from the killing of big game.

…and they just told you exactly where to focus your energy. The plaintiffs can whine all they want, but unless Delta has done something illegal (discriminatory would be the best route - I would think), it's all puff.

MJines?

I am not someone that knows much about common carrier and airline regulations. I do have a lot of respect for John Jackson and I understand John believes there is a substantial basis for the claim. Also when I hear John make statements to the effect of digging in for a battle and being prepared to fight at the district court level, the appellate level if necessary and even the Supreme Court, makes me believe that this was not an effort in just suing Delta to try and garner a quick settlement. Insofar as what Delta says in their pleadings or press releases, candidly that is not worth diddly-squat. In fact, sometimes the more strident the rhetoric, the worse they feel about the substance of their argument. All that said, even if the case is meritorious, the bad news is that it will take a good long time to litigate.

Surely the case is about discrimination?

The complaint is informative. Thanks for the post. The law is intended to be even-handed, and it usually is. Delta has deep pockets, but we are not without resources. Mr. Jackson is a very important one.

The general thrust of the complaint is that Delta has ignored the law in favor of public opinion. Jackson's legal arguments and citations of fact seem compelling to me.

I suggest AR members read the complaint before posting. Could prevent embarrassment in the future.

From the complaint:

Delta operates as a U.S. airline under a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Under FAA guidelines, a common carrier is a company that “‘holds itself out’ as willing to furnish transportation … to any person who wants it.” Under federal common law, a “common carrier” is required to transport freight or passengers without refusal if the fare is paid. The Supreme Court has called a common carrier’s duty “comprehensive[,] and exceptions are not to be implied” and has held “[r]efusal to carry the goods of some shippers” but not others to be unlawful. E.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 397, 406-07 (1967).

In a nutshell that is the basis of the complaint. Being a common carrier carries with it certain obligations, one of which is that you cannot pick and choose who and what you will carry unless your tariff or regulations give you the explicit ability to do so for specific items.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
From the complaint:

Delta operates as a U.S. airline under a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Under FAA guidelines, a common carrier is a company that “‘holds itself out’ as willing to furnish transportation … to any person who wants it.” Under federal common law, a “common carrier” is required to transport freight or passengers without refusal if the fare is paid. The Supreme Court has called a common carrier’s duty “comprehensive[,] and exceptions are not to be implied” and has held “[r]efusal to carry the goods of some shippers” but not others to be unlawful. E.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 397, 406-07 (1967).

In a nutshell that is the basis of the complaint. Being a common carrier carries with it certain obligations, one of which is that you cannot pick and choose who and what you will carry unless your tariff or regulations give you the explicit ability to do so for specific items.

The way things are going this will be a moot issue in a few years. Delta will drag this out forever at the same time trophy hunting will for big 5 will be restricted to buffalo.

Mike

quote:

From the complaint:

Delta operates as a U.S. airline under a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Under FAA guidelines, a common carrier is a company that “‘holds itself out’ as willing to furnish transportation … to any person who wants it.” Under federal common law, a “common carrier” is required to transport freight or passengers without refusal if the fare is paid. The Supreme Court has called a common carrier’s duty “comprehensive[,] and exceptions are not to be implied” and has held “[r]efusal to carry the goods of some shippers” but not others to be unlawful. E.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 397, 406-07 (1967).

In a nutshell that is the basis of the complaint. Being a common carrier carries with it certain obligations, one of which is that you cannot pick and choose who and what you will carry unless your tariff or regulations give you the explicit ability to do so for specific items.

It took them 7 points until they got to their main complaint in their initial argument. Maybe this is how cases are presented, but bringing in so many objectionable/questionable/challengeable concepts such as poaching and wildlife conservation only seem to open doors through which Delta will usher a phalanx of witnesses to rebut if only to drain the bank accounts of the plaintiffs. The case is built on the idea that "one legal cargo is the same as another legal cargo so long as the fare is paid." If that is the case, why make such an argument showing how exceptional trophy cargo is? In other words to tie it to the larger concepts of wildlife preservation? It seems they want to argue two things at once: a) that hunting the big 5 is a wildlife conservation tool and has value, and b) Delta failed to follow the law. Not sure why they want to mix up these two ideas. I would think leaving out the emotional aspects would benefit the plaintiffs in this case, to convolute it with all the other stuff just seems unnecessary. It also gives Delta a better position on the public stage because they can refute (whether true or not) the statements made by the plaintiffs. It's easier to say publicly, "Delta is taking a stand against the illegal trade in endangered species and will no longer transport endangered animals," than it is to say, "Hunting/killing (some) endangered species benefits those species," or from the complaint, "The Big Five need hunting and hunting needs the Big Five." If that's a basis for an argument showing the illegality of refusing paid cargo, it's going to be a long (or maybe incredibly short) trial.

quote:

"The Big Five need hunting and hunting needs the Big Five." If that's a basis for an argument showing the illegality of refusing paid cargo, it's going to be a long (or maybe incredibly short) trial.

Bingo