Speaker 1: What is up everybody, Corey Hughes Bloody History coming back
Speaker 1: at you with more of the David Ferry file, file
Speaker 1: number three according to the documents. So let me see,
Speaker 1: we got about one hundred pages to go. It'll probably
Speaker 1: take two or three more days to wrap this up.
Speaker 1: Besides this file, there is Once we get done with this,
Speaker 1: we'll have completed all four hundred plus pages. The beginning
Speaker 1: of this I did like two years ago, so you
Speaker 1: have to go back through the old episodes to find
Speaker 1: the beginning of this file. I'm surprised it took me
Speaker 1: so long to get around to wrapping this thing up,
Speaker 1: considering David Ferry is like one of my primary focuses.
Speaker 1: So there's another file. It's about three hundred and fifty pages.
Speaker 1: We'll cover that. We might just do it next and
Speaker 1: knock it out. I don't know. I'll dig it up.
Speaker 1: I don't know how much overlap there is. There might
Speaker 1: be some duplication between the two files. It's not a
Speaker 1: completely separate file. It has a lot of stuff in it,
Speaker 1: minus a lot of the Eastern Airlines stuff. So I'll
Speaker 1: dig that up and we'll get to that after this,
Speaker 1: maybe not immediately. I'll maybe I'll find something else to
Speaker 1: jump into. I kind of just picked these based on
Speaker 1: whatever I'm interested in that day, because remember this podcast
Speaker 1: is me researching and you researching along with me, right,
Speaker 1: So today we're going to pick up where we left off.
Speaker 1: We have a memorandum here. I don't know if we're
Speaker 1: done with the Eastern Airlines documentation. We might be, we
Speaker 1: might not be. I'm not sure, but all this stuff
Speaker 1: really revolves around that era. So here we go. Memorandum
Speaker 1: April nineteenth, nineteen sixty seven to Jim Garrison from Andrew Sciambra,
Speaker 1: Assistant District Attorney. He was an employee of Garrison Reference
Speaker 1: Special Investigation. Al Landry interview with I talked with A.
Speaker 1: Landry at the New Orleans Athletic Club in the presence
Speaker 1: of Beau le Moyne, Perry Russo, Jim Alcock, Charlie Ward,
Speaker 1: and Lou Ivan, and it says in parentheses, this was
Speaker 1: during your visit to Las Vegas. Al Landry told me
Speaker 1: that he first met David Ferry in nineteen sixty. He
Speaker 1: said that he was in the Cap in fifty nine
Speaker 1: and sixty and that at the time he was around
Speaker 1: fifteen years old. Landry said that Ferry was second in
Speaker 1: command in the cap and then a man named Morrell
Speaker 1: was in command. M R R. E LLL. Ferry at
Speaker 1: that time lived at the three point thirty one Atherton Drive, Metorie,
Speaker 1: Louisiana address. Landry stated that his mother also lived in
Speaker 1: the house. That's interesting. This is really the first time
Speaker 1: I'm realizing this. M. Landry said that Leyton Martins used
Speaker 1: to stay there for two and three months at a time.
Speaker 1: Landry said to some of the people in the squadron
Speaker 1: at the time were Droe Pettini, Joe Howard, Carl Costa,
Speaker 1: Scott Sainz, Donnie Richards, Butch, marsh Al Sharem, Mike Cruschet,
Speaker 1: Johnny Espinnin Price, somebody named Price no first name lighton Martin's,
Speaker 1: Jim Landry, whose father was a mechanic for Eastern Airlines,
Speaker 1: Johnny Johnston, and Rodney Williams. So Jim and Al Landry
Speaker 1: are not related, now that we've got that clarified. Landry
Speaker 1: said that Ferry has hypnotized him twice and that he
Speaker 1: can remember. He also said that Ferry never did take
Speaker 1: him out of the country, but he did leave home
Speaker 1: of his own accord around nineteen sixty. Landry said he
Speaker 1: met Ferry in the Balter building when he came back
Speaker 1: in from out of town. Landry said he went into
Speaker 1: the service in sixty two and was in the service
Speaker 1: until well after the assassination. He says he knows Arcacha,
Speaker 1: but does not know Julian Buzznado. That's from Andrews Scamber.
Speaker 1: All right. Next page looks like a photocopy of a
Speaker 1: couple pages from a notebook. He's the spiral thing in
Speaker 1: the middle. It's got a bunch of dates and numbers here.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly what these are. Maybe coordinates, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. Maybe it's a photocopy from David Faerriy's book.
Speaker 1: All right. Next is a page with it's got a
Speaker 1: list of names and then it's got total class dates
Speaker 1: and something. It kind of almost looks like a like
Speaker 1: a military roster document. I'm looking at the names here,
Speaker 1: I don't really see anything. See any that jump out
Speaker 1: as relevant to the investigation. Kenneth arch and Skipper, Allen Gerald, Orio,
Speaker 1: Frank Ben Foddy, Tom Baker, Bob Baker, Carlos Bertat, Jeremy Brown,
Speaker 1: Brian Birch, Bobby Carbahaal Willhelm, colmbe, Charles Coolan, Neil Couvian,
Speaker 1: and James Kuran. Got a couple more as I scrolled down,
Speaker 1: Philip Dio, Grassius, Darvin, decant Or, d E. S c
Speaker 1: A n T, Keith Dufour, Cyril DuPont, Richard Dus, d
Speaker 1: u E S s E Jesse, Estapa, Charlie. I can't read.
Speaker 1: The last name begins with an F E FOA set
Speaker 1: f E w A s E T. Maybe Howard, Philby,
Speaker 1: John Flynn, Johnny Freelich, Don Fletterich, Tim George, Charles, George George, George, Harvey, Gustafsson,
Speaker 1: Spinando frayn Uh Coral Curls, Porsche, somebody else Porsche. Can't
Speaker 1: read that somebody named best. All right, So we got
Speaker 1: page upon page of these names. I'm not gonna none
Speaker 1: of them jump out as to me as significant, so
Speaker 1: I will continue on. There's really there's not even a
Speaker 1: notation of what this is. There's a number here at
Speaker 1: the bottom with in parentheses Loyola. I don't know what
Speaker 1: that's referring to. I don't think this is a school roster.
Speaker 1: There's some kind of class something, because it hasn't everyone
Speaker 1: passed with an S like satisfactory and a date. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know what the fuck this is. It must
Speaker 1: be something related to David Ferry, because it's surrounded by
Speaker 1: pages of hand notes, handwritten notes in a spiral notebook.
Speaker 1: The notes are pretty erratic. Here it looks like it
Speaker 1: has some drawing, some rectangles with a bunch of circles
Speaker 1: in and then it has some math. He was doing
Speaker 1: some math on this page, and then some miscellaneous names
Speaker 1: and stuff written over it like it's all really just
Speaker 1: a bunch of scribbles. Who knows what the hell any
Speaker 1: of this means. There's nothing really cohesive about it. Then
Speaker 1: here we have another list list of what I don't know,
Speaker 1: and then he says written on it says I make
Speaker 1: my own flight school. And then it says where underlined,
Speaker 1: So he's writing out some kind of plans last week champion,
Speaker 1: and then champion is underlined. Beneath that it says offense
Speaker 1: with a question mark in which parish did you am
Speaker 1: appear before the judge? That's written there with a question mark.
Speaker 1: A notation in the column says red light school speeding.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that means. Next page has there's
Speaker 1: a notation here Oswald and the and the numbers twelve
Speaker 1: dash three and the twelve dash three is circled. And
Speaker 1: this looks like a drawing. It almost looks like what
Speaker 1: it would look like if you were like in an amphitheater.
Speaker 1: He's got a bunch of circles like probably indicating people,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of long rectangles which kind of look
Speaker 1: like benches set up before this stage. I can't really
Speaker 1: tell which way is the top because he's got stuff
Speaker 1: written from every angle here. Let me zoom out on
Speaker 1: this thing if I can. Yeah, I'm gonna screenshot this
Speaker 1: and post this on X so everyone can take a
Speaker 1: look at it. I don't know what the hell it
Speaker 1: is all about, all right, continuing on more lists, This
Speaker 1: looks like a phone book. This part here looks like
Speaker 1: a phone book. Doesn't have any phone numbers. Got a
Speaker 1: bunch of names. It's got fo Cell and Frederick O'Sullivan.
Speaker 1: So he was a masad guy who actually was a
Speaker 1: cop in New Orleans who was involved with Oswald and
Speaker 1: Civil Air Patrol all the way back in fifty five.
Speaker 1: But this handwriting here is really really fucking neat. I
Speaker 1: just don't buy that. This is fucking I just don't
Speaker 1: buy that This could be fairies handwriting. It's so fucking neat.
Speaker 1: Next thing down looks like a telegram or some kind
Speaker 1: of letter sent. Heading is Phil Lynch Aircraft Sales Inc.
Speaker 1: Sold to mister Marlos Merdia and Merda in Metairie, Louisiana.
Speaker 1: Looks like a sale of an aircraft for services rendered.
Speaker 1: Oh as for a service receipt for services rendered on
Speaker 1: three two five one y. Also the return of any
Speaker 1: tools instruments, brand new nosewheel tire Sesna one seven to
Speaker 1: two spinner and raincoat payment pass due one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty dollars. That's photocopied and in there. M M all right,
Speaker 1: So now we seem to be back to Eastern Airlines.
Speaker 1: Eastern Airlines, let me see how many pages this goes through?
Speaker 1: This here is all right? So we got like six
Speaker 1: seven pages on the summary. The finality I believe of
Speaker 1: the evidence against David Ferry as per Eastern Airlines. I
Speaker 1: do not believe we've read this. This does not look
Speaker 1: like a duplicate. It's very clean. It doesn't look like
Speaker 1: anything that I've seen before. But as I'm reading it,
Speaker 1: if I get some deja vus, I will let you
Speaker 1: know and we can skip it. But I don't think
Speaker 1: that's going to be the case. So this is a
Speaker 1: chronology of events. Brief of Eastern Airlines, Inc. On grievance
Speaker 1: of David Ferry. Chronology of events. On August twenty sixth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one, the company learned through an article in
Speaker 1: the New Orleans Times Picky Union at Ferry had been
Speaker 1: arrested on charges of committing a crime against nature and
Speaker 1: in decent acts of juvenile boys. On August twenty ninth,
Speaker 1: after unsuccessful attempts to contact Ferry, the company suspended in
Speaker 1: for an indefinite period until such time as the charges
Speaker 1: against Ferry are cleared. There followed a series of attempts
Speaker 1: by the company to obtain some explanation from Ferry in
Speaker 1: regards to those charges. Finally, on October nineteenth, nineteen sixty one,
Speaker 1: Ferry sent a letter to Captain Griner based on reports
Speaker 1: of reputable detectives. In quotes, the letter stated that quote
Speaker 1: my problem has been traced with certainty to a highly
Speaker 1: placed local official. We have positive evidence that this official
Speaker 1: is a communist and has been in charge of some
Speaker 1: highly important communistic activities involving the protection of communists in
Speaker 1: the area. Fairry's status with Eastern was finalized in Captain
Speaker 1: Griner's letter of September sixth, nineteen sixty one, to the
Speaker 1: effect that quote, the company will be willing to continue
Speaker 1: you on your present status until such time as final
Speaker 1: determinations of these charges can be made, the time a
Speaker 1: final decision as to your future employment at Eastern will
Speaker 1: be made. Some eleven criminal charges were eventually brought against Ferry.
Speaker 1: By letter of January eighth, nineteen sixty three, received by Eastern.
Speaker 1: On January tenth, nineteen sixty three, mister Gill informed the
Speaker 1: company that the last of the criminal charges against Ferry
Speaker 1: had been null prost. Although no prosequi is a technical term,
Speaker 1: does not finally dispose of a charge, since it can
Speaker 1: be refiled without prejudice, and even though the action was
Speaker 1: not final as contemplated in the Grinder letter, the company
Speaker 1: elected to treat the criminal case as finalized and to
Speaker 1: proceed with its investigation. In parentheses, it says the effect
Speaker 1: of the noll prosequi will be discussed further in a
Speaker 1: later portion of the brief. Ferry, by letter of January tenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty three, was directed to report to the office
Speaker 1: of Captain Stone on January seventeenth, to discuss the improprieties
Speaker 1: which led to your suspension and to determine what future
Speaker 1: action the company will take in your case. All right,
Speaker 1: so let's let's pause for a second. January tenth, nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty three. Where are we at with the assassination January tenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty three. Well, by my calculations, it is around
Speaker 1: this time, perhaps even late sixty two. I mean, the
Speaker 1: sentiment had been brewing. The rumblings I'm sure had been brewing,
Speaker 1: you know, for a long time, but I believe things
Speaker 1: became concrete. You know. I read an article on Perman
Speaker 1: dex and somebody, the person who wrote this article attributed
Speaker 1: the beginning of the plot to the Spring meeting of
Speaker 1: permandex A. Now, the problem I have with that is
Speaker 1: that Spring starts when March twentieth, give or take. Oswald
Speaker 1: had already ordered the rifle by the time Spring rolled around,
Speaker 1: and so that's kind of out right. It could not
Speaker 1: have been determined that late. It had to have been
Speaker 1: set up prior to the ordering of the rifle. The
Speaker 1: ordering of the rifle is the very first step in
Speaker 1: the setup. What else was going on at that time.
Speaker 1: You've got the Walker meeting, and you've got or well,
Speaker 1: the Walker meeting with Jerry Hemming and Lauren Hall, which
Speaker 1: happened in March also, right, that happened like the twenty third,
Speaker 1: twenty second of March something like that. It was towards
Speaker 1: the end of March. And then you had just a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks later the Walker shooting on April tenth.
Speaker 1: So all this is brewing. So where's the assassination at
Speaker 1: January tenth? When this when ferries going through all this
Speaker 1: shit with Eastern airlines. Well, this has to be around
Speaker 1: the time that the plot was underway, right, It had
Speaker 1: to have been starting to filter down. It had to
Speaker 1: have been in a most certainly a pre planning phase.
Speaker 1: People were being they were probably analyzing the people they
Speaker 1: had in place. You know, Clay Shaw, the obvious guy,
Speaker 1: the direct link to Permandex, centrimondiout, commercial, commercial, schlumberget who else?
Speaker 1: The mafia right, like all that stuff. So yes, do
Speaker 1: I think that Permandex was directly involved in the pre planning?
Speaker 1: One hundred percent, without question, without question. Now it just
Speaker 1: comes down to timing. When did they meet or when
Speaker 1: did they internally? Obviously it's not going to be paperwork
Speaker 1: on it. It's not going to be the fact that
Speaker 1: we even know that there was a meeting of the
Speaker 1: board in uh spring of sixty three is amazing, right,
Speaker 1: So it had to the plan, the actual planning itself,
Speaker 1: the discussion and the decision making and the implementation of
Speaker 1: action had to have started around this time, a time
Speaker 1: prior to Faery being brought into the loop, right, So
Speaker 1: they're doing that and he still has this going on,
Speaker 1: and there Fairy has not been brought into the larger
Speaker 1: plot as of yet. Now that big brings us to
Speaker 1: a bigger question, when does Ferry get brought into the plot?
Speaker 1: He's obviously directly brought into it by clay Shaw clearly
Speaker 1: h duh, right, And so when does that occur? That
Speaker 1: is just something I'm throwing out there for everybody to
Speaker 1: keep track of if we can determine when that occurred
Speaker 1: at some point, So let me continue. Ferry, by letter
Speaker 1: of January tenth, nineteen sixty three, was directed to report
Speaker 1: to the Office of Captain Stone on January seventeenth to
Speaker 1: discuss the improprieties which led to your suspension and to
Speaker 1: determine what future action the company will take in your
Speaker 1: case and quote. This meeting was delayed at Ferry's request,
Speaker 1: and instead of attending the meeting on January seventeenth, he
Speaker 1: filed Grievance fifteen sixty three. On that date. The grievance
Speaker 1: alleged that Eastern violated fairies' rights by not restoring him
Speaker 1: to flight status as of January ninth, nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 1: It should be noted that the company's action suspending Ferry
Speaker 1: in nineteen sixty one was never grieved. Thus, all the
Speaker 1: pending grievances relate only to the action taken by the
Speaker 1: company after January ninth, nineteen sixty three, as requested by
Speaker 1: the Board. All pending grievances will be covered in this brief.
Speaker 1: The second date established for the Miami meeting was January
Speaker 1: twenty eighth, nineteen sixty three. This date was again postponed
Speaker 1: at the request of Ferry or his representative, and the
Speaker 1: first step hearing in Grievance's fifteen sixty three. It was
Speaker 1: also postponed by the agreement. On February eighteenth, nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 1: Grievance twenty nine sixty three was filed by Ferry, alleging
Speaker 1: a refusal to quote air original grievance in accordance with
Speaker 1: Section thirty, refusal to provide quote pilot with written specifications
Speaker 1: of reason why he's being held out of service, an
Speaker 1: attempt to compel grievance to give testimony prior to any
Speaker 1: scheduled hearing, and quote otherwise preventing him from exercising any
Speaker 1: of his contractual rights or complying with a company request
Speaker 1: for quote informal hearing. Finally, on February eighteenth, nineteen sixty three,
Speaker 1: the meeting was held in Miami. At that meeting, Fairy
Speaker 1: positively refused to answer any questions concerning the criminal charges
Speaker 1: which had been brought against him or any other matter
Speaker 1: that had come to the attention of the company. Ferry
Speaker 1: was specifically directed to answer these questions and was carefully
Speaker 1: warned that refusal to answer would be considered grounds for
Speaker 1: disciplinary action. On March first, sixty three, by letter of
Speaker 1: from F. A. Stone, Vice President Flight Operations, Ferry was
Speaker 1: discharged on that same date. The first step hearing in
Speaker 1: Grievance fifteen sixty three was rescheduled for March eighth, nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty three. On March eleventh, nineteen sixty three, same week
Speaker 1: the rifle is allegedly ordered. Ferry filed Grievance forty eight
Speaker 1: Dashed sixty three, which pertained Here's a question, was Carrie
Speaker 1: Thornley involved in the managing of the PO box that
Speaker 1: the rifle and stuff was sent to, because we don't
Speaker 1: have any evidence that Oswald ever had any contact with
Speaker 1: that PO box. In particular, there was another PO box
Speaker 1: that Oswald is documented his having, I believe, in a
Speaker 1: totally different building. So was Carrie Thornley managing the ordering
Speaker 1: of the rifle around this time? And how close was
Speaker 1: he to David Ferry at this time? We know he
Speaker 1: had already been to David Ferry's house by the summer
Speaker 1: of sixty two. He wrote that in his Affidavid confession letter.
Speaker 1: And so here we get into March of nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 1: The rifle plot is complete. It hasn't been ordered yet,
Speaker 1: No it hasn't, but that's coming right, And so the
Speaker 1: plot is well underway at this point. And oom, you
Speaker 1: know fuck that I had already concluded that, like Shaw
Speaker 1: and Thornley and Ferry, Ferry was the most subservient of
Speaker 1: all of them. If there was a hierarchy, Kerry Thornley
Speaker 1: clearly seemed to have a different line back to cia
Speaker 1: and and his handlers. I'd say he had a different
Speaker 1: chain than clay Shaw did than Ferry did. Right. So
Speaker 1: if if and this is only a big if, we
Speaker 1: don't know this, If Carrie Thornley was the one who
Speaker 1: ordered the rifle, possibly using Marina to forge stuff, because
Speaker 1: we know she did, it's how much stuff did she forge?
Speaker 1: The question? Then if he was doing that in March
Speaker 1: of sixty three, how much of that was David Ferry?
Speaker 1: Even in on right, David Ferry might not have been
Speaker 1: in on any of it. He might not have known
Speaker 1: any of that stuff unless it was discussed separately. But
Speaker 1: that seems like it would have been a compartmentalized operation,
Speaker 1: separate from the shooting itself, right, separate from Tippett and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. You know, one thing that just jumped
Speaker 1: into my mind a couple of weeks ago that's been
Speaker 1: kind of pinging around ever since, is that in that
Speaker 1: Carrie Thornley letter to Jim Garrison, the fifty page aff
Speaker 1: of David there's one part that he writes that he
Speaker 1: who was it was it that or was this information
Speaker 1: might have come from him, or it might have come
Speaker 1: from somebody he spoke to, maybe broch Well, it came
Speaker 1: from somebody somewhere in that area. But it said that
Speaker 1: Carrie Thornley said that he had to do two things
Speaker 1: for the company, which is cia we're assuming of duh.
Speaker 1: And he said he had to show that he could
Speaker 1: sleep with a man and that he could kill somebody,
Speaker 1: and that he had proven that he could do both.
Speaker 1: That's in there somewhere. It's either in the Brocheers stuff
Speaker 1: or in the Yeah, probably isn't in the Kerry Thorny
Speaker 1: main file or the letter to Garrison. It's probably in
Speaker 1: the Brochier stuff. But I remember that and it just
Speaker 1: jumped off the page for me, And so I think
Speaker 1: that's pretty interesting that he would say that. And who
Speaker 1: was the person that he would have killed? He didn't
Speaker 1: kill anybody when he was in the military. Who was
Speaker 1: that person he would have killed that he would have
Speaker 1: talked to Brochiers about years later? JD. Tippett. JD. Tippett,
Speaker 1: And who was the guy he slept with? Broch Ears right, So, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was my little tangent for today. Let me continue
Speaker 1: on on March first, sixty three. I already read that part.
Speaker 1: On March eleventh, sixty three, Fairy filed grievance forty eight
Speaker 1: sixty three which pertained his discharge. Ferry was then provided
Speaker 1: with a more extensive breakdown of the items relied upon
Speaker 1: in discharging him review of evidence on behalf of the company.
Speaker 1: The Board, in considering this case should keep in mind
Speaker 1: the fact that the main energies of the grievance were
Speaker 1: devoted to the suppression of the pertinent facts about his behavior.
Speaker 1: The hearing was probably the most technical in the long
Speaker 1: history of arbitrations under the Railway Labor Act, insofar as
Speaker 1: objections and rulings and proffered evidence time and time again,
Speaker 1: evidence was excluded which would normally be received. As a
Speaker 1: matter of course, the grievance efforts to suppress evidence and
Speaker 1: keep the board in the dark as to his activities
Speaker 1: were so successful that probably the majority of the company's
Speaker 1: evidence was excluded. However, in the long run, the efforts
Speaker 1: of the grievance were unavailing for even the minor portion
Speaker 1: of the company's case which has succeeded in getting before
Speaker 1: the Board proved conclusively that these charges brought by the
Speaker 1: company were true, and that the company's actions were justified.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Fourtya, the New Orleans police officer who conducted a
Speaker 1: major portion of the investigation that led to the filing
Speaker 1: of the eleven criminal charges, testified extensively concerning that investigation.
Speaker 1: His testimony showed a normal, conscientious police investigation which started
Speaker 1: with a routine investigation of the report that juvenile Alexander
Speaker 1: Landry had run away from home. The only non routine
Speaker 1: aspect of the investigation was the fact that at every
Speaker 1: step of the police investigation of the runaway juvenile, evidence
Speaker 1: of the criminal activities on the part of Ferry were uncovered. Thus,
Speaker 1: the investigation grew in significance and the criminal charges against
Speaker 1: Ferry multiplied. A review of Sergeant Fournier's testimony leads one
Speaker 1: inescapably at the conclusion that the criminal charges against Ferry
Speaker 1: were not the result of any sinister forces at work
Speaker 1: or the result of the activities of an outraged mother.
Speaker 1: The criminal charges resulted directly and solely from Fairiy's nefarious activities.
Speaker 1: There can be no doubt that Ferry was intimately connected
Speaker 1: with Alexander Landry's runaway from home. It is even admitted
Speaker 1: that the first time Landry ran away, he went directly
Speaker 1: to Ferry. The second time he ran away, he did
Speaker 1: not return until his parents signed a statement agreeing not
Speaker 1: to prosecute Ferry again. This is admitted by Fairry. Nor
Speaker 1: can there be any doubt that Faerry was intimately connected
Speaker 1: with the al Chamei's runaway from home. Sergeant Fournier testified
Speaker 1: that as to Ferry visiting Charem in the youth Detention
Speaker 1: center under the pretext of being a doctor. The connection
Speaker 1: is also confirmed by the passport obtained for Chamie by
Speaker 1: Ferry at approximately the time of the runaway. The evidence
Speaker 1: points directly to the fact that Fairy assisted that child
Speaker 1: in running away and that his visit to the child
Speaker 1: was for the purpose of ensuring that he would conceal
Speaker 1: the part played by Ferry. Sergeant Fournier's testimony the charges
Speaker 1: that Ferry had purported to be a medical doctor and
Speaker 1: his connection with the Holy Apostle, the Catholic Church of
Speaker 1: North America and with the Yeah whatever medical equipment, a priest,
Speaker 1: robe and chalice were found when Faery's house were searched.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Fournier's testimony showed that the statements of the juveniles
Speaker 1: involved as to Fairie's sexual deviations were obtained freely involuntarily.
Speaker 1: While this type of thing is not easy for a
Speaker 1: boy to admit, it must have been a great relief
Speaker 1: to get these matters off their conscienceness. Certainly, these are
Speaker 1: not the type of matters one makes up to tell
Speaker 1: about oneself merely out of sympathy for the mother of
Speaker 1: a friend. It should also be pointed out that the
Speaker 1: relatively brief cross examination of Sergeant Fournier did not reveal
Speaker 1: any inconsistencies in his testimony, nor did that cross examination
Speaker 1: reveal any hints of undue pressure brought to bear on
Speaker 1: the sergeant during his investigation. Sergeant Fournier was allowed to
Speaker 1: allowed on the stand by James Joseph Landry. James Landry,
Speaker 1: who is now eighteen, testified that he met Ferry in
Speaker 1: August of nineteen sixty at the New Orleans Airport. Landry
Speaker 1: was sixteen at the time. The meeting was a result
Speaker 1: of a discussion between Ferry and Landry's father, who was
Speaker 1: an Eastern Ramp serviceman. Ferry had inquired as to whether
Speaker 1: or not James Landry would be interested in joining a
Speaker 1: Civil Air Patrol Squadron known as the METAI Falcon Squadron.
Speaker 1: On meeting Ferry, James Landry joined squadron and was issued
Speaker 1: a membership card. Landry's testimony as to his understanding of
Speaker 1: the status of the squadron as an official part of
Speaker 1: the Civil Air Patrol was his follows, well, for a
Speaker 1: long time we did not have a charter. Then I
Speaker 1: guess it was over a year. He finally showed up
Speaker 1: with a charter and said, we're officially in the CAAP.
Speaker 1: Who's he David Ferry. Landry went on to describe parties
Speaker 1: at Ferry's house during which Ferry supplied and served alcohol
Speaker 1: to miners who were in the CAAP. Landry then testified
Speaker 1: as to having sexual relations with Ferry on nights that
Speaker 1: he stayed at Ferry's home. The Board's special attention is
Speaker 1: called to this witness's demeanor on the stand and the
Speaker 1: fact that vigorous cross examination and attempt to show a
Speaker 1: motive for the testimony failed to reveal any motive except
Speaker 1: that the testimony was true. Landry's testimony had the ring
Speaker 1: of truth in contrast to the false notes struck by
Speaker 1: the witnesses for the grievance. Landry was followed to the
Speaker 1: stand by doctor Yeger. Doctor Yeager testified concerning complaints received
Speaker 1: about Fairry practicing medicine without a license. Ferry was called
Speaker 1: in by doctor Yeager and warned against such action, whereupon,
Speaker 1: through a forty minute interview, Ferry spun a fantastic web
Speaker 1: of lies about his background and activities. Note particularly the
Speaker 1: testimony about Ferry claiming to have several PhDs at page
Speaker 1: one forty four, and compare with Irion's testimony on the
Speaker 1: same subject. Unfortunately for Fairy, doctor Yeger was in a
Speaker 1: position to check many of these statements and found them
Speaker 1: to be completely false. Doctor Yeager's testimony in regards to
Speaker 1: the complaints received should be considered in connection with company
Speaker 1: Exhibit four, which shows that Ferry had himself listed in
Speaker 1: the telephone directory as doctor, with Sergeant forty a's testimony
Speaker 1: in regard to the medical instruments found in Ferry's home,
Speaker 1: and with the testimony of Irion, a witness called by Ferry,
Speaker 1: who testified the Fairy often treated him for various sicknesses.
Speaker 1: The next witness on behalf of the company was John
Speaker 1: Roger Espinen, mister a Spinnin's son had been a member
Speaker 1: of Fairies's unauthorized CAAP Metarie Falcon squadron. Mister Spinin testified
Speaker 1: as to having become suspicious of the squadron's authenticity, of
Speaker 1: Fairy's statements that it was an authorized squadron, and of
Speaker 1: his obtaining the forged certificate and taking it to the
Speaker 1: Air Force CAAP sergeant, who confirmed a suspicion of its
Speaker 1: being invalid. He Esponon also testified that the supposed certificate
Speaker 1: was on a form used for CAAP certificates. After mister A.
Speaker 1: Spinin's testimony, there could be no doubt that Ferry organized
Speaker 1: a bonus, a bogus CAAP squadron and deceived the parents
Speaker 1: and members as to its status. To why, at the
Speaker 1: questions about its status he forged a CAAP certificate. Mister A.
Speaker 1: Spinnin's testimony was of course, completely confirmed by the records
Speaker 1: of the CAAP and particularly the sergeant's memo to file
Speaker 1: regarding A. Spinnin's visit to the headquarters with the Ford's certificate.
Speaker 1: The Board should particularly note the representations of mister Gill
Speaker 1: and Ferry that appear on page three h two to
Speaker 1: three oh four of the transcript. Both gentlemen assured the
Speaker 1: board there was a state charter which was obtained in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one and which would be introduced in evidence
Speaker 1: by them. These representations proved to be completely false, as
Speaker 1: no such document was ever tendered by them. There was
Speaker 1: no state charter issued until nineteen sixty two, long after
Speaker 1: Fairy's arrest and the breakdown on the breakup of the squadron. Moreover,
Speaker 1: they knew they could not produce any charter issued in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one. The company did produce the only state
Speaker 1: charter issued. It was in nineteen sixty two and it
Speaker 1: was signed by Ferry. This attempt to mislead the board
Speaker 1: was typical of the Grievance case from beginning to end.
Speaker 1: The next witness for the company was Ronald Hubner. Three
Speaker 1: exhibits were introduced during his testimony. The first exhibit was
Speaker 1: a letter from the American Vice Consul in Italy, and
Speaker 1: it exploded completely Faerry's contention that he had a PhD
Speaker 1: from Phoenix University in Barr, Italy. The second exhibit was
Speaker 1: the minutes of the New Orleans Chapter of the Military
Speaker 1: Order of World Wars meeting of July twenty fourth, nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty one, at which Ferry made a speech which inflamed
Speaker 1: the membership. This record of the meeting shows that Ferry
Speaker 1: was indulging in these activities as an Eastern Airlines captain,
Speaker 1: not as a private individual. The third exhibit was a
Speaker 1: letter from Colonel Christiansen of the U. S Air Force
Speaker 1: detailing some of the difficulties Ferry got into in the
Speaker 1: CAP during the period that he was a legitimate member.
Speaker 1: The remainder of the company's case consisted of a series
Speaker 1: of exhibits. Exhibits forty four to fifty four were records
Speaker 1: of the Civil Air Patrol regarding Ferry. They showed that
Speaker 1: from nineteen fifty five to nineteen fifty nine Ferry was
Speaker 1: out of the Civil Air Patrol. Apparently, he was put
Speaker 1: out in nineteen fifty five against his wishes, and it
Speaker 1: took him approximately one year starting in nineteen fifty eight
Speaker 1: to obtain permission to return. He was in the Civil
Speaker 1: Air Patrol from approximately September fifty nine until June of
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty. He was then again forced out because of
Speaker 1: his misbehavior. Company Exhibit forty eight shows that he used
Speaker 1: his claim to have a PhD in gaining readmission to
Speaker 1: the Civil Air Patrol Company. Exhibits fifty one to fifty
Speaker 1: four show that it was generally believed in New Orleans
Speaker 1: that Ferry had an authorized squadron in sixty one, and
Speaker 1: these misrepresentations had reached the point that the Civil Air
Speaker 1: Patrol was considering obtaining newspaper coverage of their denials of
Speaker 1: any connection to Ferry. Exhibits seventy two and seventy three
Speaker 1: were rebuttal exhibits of Fairy's testimony regarding Italian universities. They
Speaker 1: show the actual methods of accreditation, the requirements for attendance
Speaker 1: of foreign students, the degrees awarded in that Phoenix University
Speaker 1: is not a recognized Italian university. You don't say these
Speaker 1: exhibits should be compared to the Faery's testimony on the subjects.
Speaker 1: The result is that Fairi's testimony regarding the Italian system
Speaker 1: of higher learning, molded by him to fit his claimed
Speaker 1: alma mater, is completely refuted by the impartial documentary exhibits
Speaker 1: introduced by the company. Other company exhibits were Fairiy's application
Speaker 1: for employment and the physical record he filled out when
Speaker 1: applying for employment. Most of the company's testimony showing that
Speaker 1: many facts were concealed by Fairy and making out these
Speaker 1: forms was excluded. However, Fairy testified about these matters, and
Speaker 1: his testimony alone convicts him of omitting many derogatory items.
Speaker 1: His explanation for not listing his total educational and employment
Speaker 1: record is certainly amazing, but hardly persuasive. The health records
Speaker 1: introduced by Fairy himself show mental and physical problems which
Speaker 1: should have been revealed to the company, especially the record
Speaker 1: of the Cleveland Clinic, which was introduced after a demand
Speaker 1: for its production by the company. Mister Gill explained this
Speaker 1: medical report as being due to Fairies tender age at
Speaker 1: the time. At the time, Fairies's tender age was twenty six.
Speaker 1: Review of testimony on behalf of grievant, it would be
Speaker 1: a kindness to Fairy if the board simply ignores all
Speaker 1: the testimony introduced on his behalf. Unfortunately, for Ferry, the
Speaker 1: board must consider the entire record. It is submitted that
Speaker 1: the grievance side of the case standing alone, is sufficient
Speaker 1: to justify the board in upholding the discharge. Ferry, on
Speaker 1: the stand, testified that everyone knew his squadron was not
Speaker 1: part of the Civil Air Patrol, and that in early
Speaker 1: sixty one he had obtained a state charter for a
Speaker 1: nonprofit corporation. An unsworn, unsigned deposition in absentia of Martin's
Speaker 1: was offered as an exhibit at this time by Ferry
Speaker 1: to support his testimony. According to mister Gill, this deposition
Speaker 1: was based on a letter written by mister more Martin's. Mysteriously,
Speaker 1: Martin's had not had an opportunity to sign it. The
Speaker 1: deposition stated that a charter for a nonprofit corporation was
Speaker 1: obtained in early nineteen sixty one and was kept at
Speaker 1: Faerry's house. The deposition went on to state that this
Speaker 1: was the document mister Espinin has said and the sergeant
Speaker 1: of the Civil Air Patrol examined. Unfortunately, this explanation was
Speaker 1: doomed to fall apart practically before it was offered for
Speaker 1: To assist the board, the company at this point produced
Speaker 1: a copy of the only state charter for a nonprofit
Speaker 1: corporation obtained by Ferry. This charter was applied for in
Speaker 1: sixty two, not nineteen sixty one. The date is, of course,
Speaker 1: long after Fairiy's arrest, even longer after mister Espinin had
Speaker 1: checked and forged checked the Forge Caap charter. Moreover, the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty two document was signed by Ferry, which establishes
Speaker 1: beyond question his knowledge that no previous charter existed. Of course,
Speaker 1: this nineteen sixty two charter or also exploded the unsworn,
Speaker 1: unsigned deposition in absentia of Martin's. Indeed, when it was
Speaker 1: pointed out the deposition contained parenthetical portions indicating that Martin's
Speaker 1: was being handed various documents for inspection while his deposition
Speaker 1: was in progress, mister Gill found it necessary to explain
Speaker 1: further that the deposition was not alone based on upon
Speaker 1: a letter from Martin's after all, but was also based
Speaker 1: upon a personal interview in his office, sort of a
Speaker 1: mixture of the two. That's funny. As Martin's is giving
Speaker 1: a deposition, Gill's handing him papers to read, Fairy's story
Speaker 1: changed rapidly. He next claimed that, despite being the leader
Speaker 1: of the squadron, he did not check details such as
Speaker 1: a charter that was the responsibility of the young boys
Speaker 1: in the squadron. He ignored completely the fact that when
Speaker 1: he signed the nineteen sixty two charter he had to
Speaker 1: know there was no previous charter in that name, and
Speaker 1: that when he introduced the Martins deposition, he knew the
Speaker 1: facts stated therein were untrue. Fairy proceeded with testimony to
Speaker 1: the effect that the Landry accusation originally related to April
Speaker 1: twenty sixth, nineteen sixty one. He testified about visiting one Prince,
Speaker 1: an Eastern crew scheduler, and obtained absolute proof that he
Speaker 1: was not in New Orleans on April twenty sixth. The
Speaker 1: information supposedly obtained from Prince was to the effect that
Speaker 1: Fairry was on a flight, as shown by flight records.
Speaker 1: Ferry then implied that the district Attorney was tipped off
Speaker 1: to this proof, and the date on the indictment was
Speaker 1: changed to April twenty eighth, nineteen sixty one. The on
Speaker 1: cross examination, he first refused to answer any questions about
Speaker 1: the proof obtained from Prince. He then became vague and
Speaker 1: could not remember what the proof was or whether the
Speaker 1: proof regarding April twenty six was even obtained from Prince.
Speaker 1: This initial refusal to testify and the subsequent vagueness is
Speaker 1: understandable in view of the proof offered by the company
Speaker 1: in the form of pay records showing he was on
Speaker 1: vacation the last half of April nineteen sixty one. Fairry's
Speaker 1: other testimony was as wild and unconvincing as the first
Speaker 1: two instances noted. First, he had good solid PhD. Then,
Speaker 1: after cross examination on red direct by his attorney, he
Speaker 1: took the position that, regardless of its validity, he felt
Speaker 1: he had benefited by obtaining it. Of course, the board
Speaker 1: should not forget his testimony that he obtained this PhD
Speaker 1: to impress Harvard professors with his ability in the area
Speaker 1: of air safety. Also noteworthy was his testimony that he
Speaker 1: listed himself in the telephone book as doctor for the
Speaker 1: same purpose. Ferry left to the board's imagination how the
Speaker 1: Harvard professors were going to be impressed by his listening
Speaker 1: in by his listing in the New Orleans telephone Book.
Speaker 1: It would serve no useful purpose, and space scarcely permits
Speaker 1: a discussion of all the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Faerry's testimony.
Speaker 1: One other aspect of his testimony is so important that
Speaker 1: it must be touched upon. Ferry had some eleven criminal
Speaker 1: charges brought against him. On direct examination, he did not
Speaker 1: attempt any detailed explanation of why this should happen to him,
Speaker 1: other than implications that it was done by Missus Landry.
Speaker 1: He had previously explained in a letter to Captain Grennier
Speaker 1: that it all happened because he was hot on the
Speaker 1: trail of communists and some worked for Eastern Airlines. On
Speaker 1: cross examination, he was offered the chance to explain along.
Speaker 1: Statement was made that based on investigations by private detectives,
Speaker 1: it could be shown that his troubles with the law
Speaker 1: were due to communists and Missus Landry. However, when details
Speaker 1: were requested, it became apparent that there was no evidence
Speaker 1: to support this explanation. A district attorney was supposed to
Speaker 1: be the key figure. However, Ferry testified this district attorney
Speaker 1: refused to have anything to do with the charges, and
Speaker 1: the majority of the charges were actually brought in an
Speaker 1: entirely different parish. No connection was shown between this district
Speaker 1: attorney and Missus Landry and the individuals who signed statements.
Speaker 1: The net result of Faerry's testimony on this subject was
Speaker 1: that he had no explanation at all. Thus, Sergeant Fournier's testimony,
Speaker 1: such as he was allowed to give involving his normal
Speaker 1: impartial police investigation stands completely unrefuted. The other witnesses called
Speaker 1: by Ferry contributed more to the company's case than to
Speaker 1: Ferri's case. Irion's testimony on cross examination was about the
Speaker 1: most damaging testimony the Fairies presented during the hearings. He
Speaker 1: stated that during nineteen fifty five through nineteen sixty, Ferry
Speaker 1: participated in CAAP meetings and wore a captain's uniform. Of course,
Speaker 1: the previously introduced CAAP documents proved conclusively that Ferry was
Speaker 1: not an official member of the CAP during most of
Speaker 1: this period. Hmm wow Arian also testified that it was
Speaker 1: unlawful to wear this uniform unless you were an official
Speaker 1: member of the CAAP. His prejudice was shown on his
Speaker 1: testimony that his opinion of Fairy would not be changed
Speaker 1: even if it were proven to him that Ferry was
Speaker 1: not a member of the CAAP and was not authorized
Speaker 1: to wear a uniform during most of the nineteen fifty
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty five to nineteen sixty period. Despite approximately a
Speaker 1: half hour of leading questions and prompting by Grievance attorney
Speaker 1: on redirect Struck to his story about Fairies, wearing a
Speaker 1: CAP uniform during periods when he, by his own admission,
Speaker 1: was not a member of the Cap. His other testimony
Speaker 1: directly supported the position of the company. It was directly
Speaker 1: contrary to Fairiy's testimony. He testified that Ferry had medical
Speaker 1: instruments in his home prior to his mother's coming to
Speaker 1: live with him. Fairry had testified that they were only
Speaker 1: for his mother, That Fairry had three college degrees, that
Speaker 1: Ferry was supposedly studying to be a medical doctor, that
Speaker 1: Fairry hypnotized some of the boys, and that Ferry had
Speaker 1: a chalice at his home. Lewallen's testimony on behalf of
Speaker 1: Ferry was totally unpersuasive. Apparently, the main purpose of calling
Speaker 1: LewAllen was to support Fairy's account of how he filled
Speaker 1: out his inaccurate employment application form in Cleveland just before
Speaker 1: being hired by Eastern. Since Luallen was in the Air
Speaker 1: Force at the time, many miles away in the Carolinas,
Speaker 1: he explained his presence in Cleveland by testimony that his
Speaker 1: superior had given him three or four days off in
Speaker 1: the middle of the week. According to Llewellyn, he was
Speaker 1: not on lever On pass. He was just given some
Speaker 1: time off and just happened to be in Cleveland and
Speaker 1: looking over Fairy's shoulder at the time. The form was
Speaker 1: filled in and signed as true. He remembered the exact
Speaker 1: details vividly. That's fucking hilarious, Jesus lleu. Allen also confirmed
Speaker 1: Irian's testimony about fairies participating in the Civil Air Patrol
Speaker 1: during nineteen fifty five to nineteen sixty, although under extensive prompting.
Speaker 1: He later changed his testimony and attempted to come in
Speaker 1: line with the story that Ferry had previously given. When
Speaker 1: mister Banister took the stand, the board was treated to
Speaker 1: the rare experience of having one attorney for the grievance
Speaker 1: elicit testimony, while the other attorney for the grievance objected
Speaker 1: to the testimony and had it stricken ha about the
Speaker 1: only conclusion that could be drawn from mister Banister's testimony
Speaker 1: was that he had interviewed Fairy's friends and his friends
Speaker 1: had spoken well of him. From all indications, he interviewed
Speaker 1: only people whose names Ferry had supplied. Mister Banister testified
Speaker 1: about his investigation of fairies speech before the Veterans Organization
Speaker 1: in the role of an Eastern fairy must have spoken
Speaker 1: before that organization twice and had both speeches stopped. Either
Speaker 1: that or mister Banister's investigation was woefully inadequate, for he
Speaker 1: testified as the fairies attacking the then President Eisenhower. The
Speaker 1: company's evidence all related to a speech attacking President mister Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Here's the last I think this is the last part discussion.
Speaker 1: It would seem obvious that the evidence introduced on behalf
Speaker 1: of the company or the evidence introduced on behalf of
Speaker 1: the grievan, either or both establishes beyond any doubt the
Speaker 1: company's discharge of Ferry was justified. The only real defense
Speaker 1: set forth on behalf of the grievment was that he
Speaker 1: is smart enough to stay out of jail, so he
Speaker 1: is certainly good enough to be an Eastern captain. Truly,
Speaker 1: this is an amazing defense. That's wild. One might expect
Speaker 1: to hear it offered in defense of a janitor, but
Speaker 1: it grates on the sensibility is to hear it offered
Speaker 1: on behalf of an Eastern captain. An Eastern captain holds
Speaker 1: a highly paid, highly respected, highly responsible position. He is
Speaker 1: responsible for the lives of thousands of passengers and millions
Speaker 1: on millions of dollars of equipment during the course of
Speaker 1: a year. If Eastern is to secure passenger revenue with
Speaker 1: which to pay its thousands of employees, it its pilot
Speaker 1: group must retain the respect and trust of the traveling public.
Speaker 1: The general public is in no position to judge the
Speaker 1: flying ability of a pilot. It makes its judgments on
Speaker 1: the appearance and general reputation of an airlines pilot personnel.
Speaker 1: One does not lightly put one's life in the hands
Speaker 1: of another, and certainly not in the hands of a
Speaker 1: man like Ferry. The Airline Pilot's Association has long been
Speaker 1: in accord with these principles. It has worked for years
Speaker 1: to create a professional status for the airline pilot. Each
Speaker 1: base has its professional standards committee, which is interested in
Speaker 1: far more than just a pilot's flying ability. Neither the
Speaker 1: company nor the ALPA would ever be satisfied to have
Speaker 1: a standard set at the level necessary for the board
Speaker 1: to find in favor of Fairy. Contrary to Fairy's contention,
Speaker 1: one is not proven that his behavior meets the standards
Speaker 1: for an airline captain. By merely proving one has not
Speaker 1: been sentenced to jail. During the course of the hearing,
Speaker 1: there were many discussions on the effect of the case
Speaker 1: being null pross. Fairry would have had the Board believe
Speaker 1: that in some ways this completely clears his record, that
Speaker 1: it is in effect a finding of not guilty. Actually,
Speaker 1: it amounts to nothing more than a decision by the
Speaker 1: district Attorney not to proceed at the time. This is
Speaker 1: spelled out in Title fifteen of the Louisiana Revised Statute,
Speaker 1: Section in fifteen three twenty eight, which reads, a null
Speaker 1: pross simply discharges a particular indictment or part thereof, and
Speaker 1: is no bar to a subsequent prosecution for the offense
Speaker 1: as to which the null pross was entered. Thus, if
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations, a procedural rule having nothing to
Speaker 1: do with whether or not a person is guilty of
Speaker 1: a charge, has not run, ten of the original cases
Speaker 1: could be refiled in Louisiana in the future. Certainly, in
Speaker 1: such circumstances, the entry of a null pross is no
Speaker 1: bar to this board's looking into the actions of Fairy.
Speaker 1: Faerry Blandly took the position that the not guilty verdict
Speaker 1: in the criminal case relating to James Landry prohibited this
Speaker 1: board from considering any of his activities in connection with landry.
Speaker 1: This is not even the rule in connection with the
Speaker 1: courts of law, let alone action by an administrative board
Speaker 1: under the Railway Labor Act. A Professor Prosser in the
Speaker 1: Law of Torts a second Edition, nineteen fifty five, page
Speaker 1: seven points out quote the same act may be both
Speaker 1: a crime against the states and a tort against an individual.
Speaker 1: In such a case, since the interests invaded are not
Speaker 1: the same and the objects to be accomplished by the
Speaker 1: two suits are different, there may be both a civil
Speaker 1: tort action and a criminal prosecution for the same offense.
Speaker 1: The two may be conducted successively or at the same time,
Speaker 1: and a decision for or against the defendant in one
Speaker 1: is not conclusive as to the other and quote. Perhaps
Speaker 1: the most common example of this is in automobile accident cases.
Speaker 1: Individual A may be criminally charged with speeding which caused
Speaker 1: an accident which injured B. If A is found not
Speaker 1: guilty of speeding in the criminal case, the jury in
Speaker 1: a later civil action for damages may still find that
Speaker 1: A was speeding and award damages to B. Indeed, it
Speaker 1: would be a reversible error to permit the jury in
Speaker 1: the civil action to be told that a had been
Speaker 1: found not guilty of speeding in the criminal case, as
Speaker 1: they must be left free to decide the issue for themselves.
Speaker 1: This same theory carries over to the instant case. In
Speaker 1: the criminal case involving Ferry, the interest of the state
Speaker 1: was involved. The issue was whether or not Ferry had
Speaker 1: violated state statute on the date set forth in the charges.
Speaker 1: In this case, the interest of Eastern is involved. This
Speaker 1: board is concerned with the question of whether or not
Speaker 1: Faerry's conduct was such that Eastern had the right to
Speaker 1: discharge him. The decision by Judge Jason Berkman, sitting as
Speaker 1: neutral with these mechanical system Board of Adjustment in the
Speaker 1: Clements case is direct authority for the proposition that Eastern
Speaker 1: may discharge an employee for the same behavior upon which
Speaker 1: the employee has successfully defended himself on a criminal case.
Speaker 1: There's no distinction between the Clements case and Ferry case
Speaker 1: in this question. It has been settled off for some
Speaker 1: thirteen years that only a system Board of Adjustment may
Speaker 1: decide an issue involving reinstatement and back pay. The leading
Speaker 1: case establishing that principle and holding that only adjustment boards
Speaker 1: under the Railway Labor Act have jurisdiction of such disputes.
Speaker 1: Are Slocom v. Delaware and Railway Conductor's v. Southern Railway
Speaker 1: three nine nine US two fifty five. Those Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decisions extend the doctrines announced in Railway Conductors versus Pitney
Speaker 1: to the effect that the administrative agency created under the
Speaker 1: Railway Labor Act to decide just matters of contract interpretation
Speaker 1: and applications should be given primary jurisdiction of such matters.
Speaker 1: In the Slocom case, which involved interpreti and collective agreements
Speaker 1: with respect to job assignments and backpay, the Court concluded,
Speaker 1: we hold that jurisdiction of the board to adjust grievances
Speaker 1: and disputes of this type is exclusive. The doctrine of
Speaker 1: the Slocum case has been followed in many cases, including
Speaker 1: cases involving airline adjustment boards. See for example will Leavy
Speaker 1: Eastern Airlines. It lists a whole bunch of cases here. Thus,
Speaker 1: no court, whether state or federal, criminal or civil, has
Speaker 1: the right to determine the issue presented to this system
Speaker 1: board as to whether or not Ferry is entitled to
Speaker 1: reinstatement and backpay. This system board should and make should
Speaker 1: and must make its own independent decision and on the
Speaker 1: record before it. One of the company grounds for the
Speaker 1: discharge of Ferry was that he refused to cooperate when
Speaker 1: the company was conducting its investigation in January of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty three to determine what action, if any, of the
Speaker 1: company should take. The transcript of that hearing, wherein Ferry
Speaker 1: refused to answer even simple preliminary questions, is clear proof
Speaker 1: of the charge. No defense whatsoever was offered by the
Speaker 1: agreement on this point, justifying the company action on this
Speaker 1: ground alone, Ferry took the position that the company had
Speaker 1: no right to require him to cooperate in that investigation,
Speaker 1: and making this contention, he relies on Section twenty nine
Speaker 1: A of the agreement. According to Ferry, the company must
Speaker 1: first take some action, and then at the first step
Speaker 1: hearing he could be required for the first time to
Speaker 1: offer some explanation or be required to cooperate with the
Speaker 1: company's investigation. A brief example in another context should be
Speaker 1: sufficient to show the absurdity of this contention. An aircraft
Speaker 1: may be severely damaged in a landing and there or
Speaker 1: at least three possibilities exist. There are, of course, others
Speaker 1: as to the captain's responsibility. One the captain was a
Speaker 1: hero who saved the lives of the passengers. Two the
Speaker 1: captain was caught in an unusual circumstance and neither contributed
Speaker 1: to the accident nor could he prevent it. And three
Speaker 1: the captain was careless and caused the accident. According to
Speaker 1: Fairy's contention, in order to get to the captain's side
Speaker 1: of the story, in order to determine whether he was
Speaker 1: a hero or a victim of circumstance or careless, the
Speaker 1: company must first discharge him and then discuss the matter
Speaker 1: with him at the first step hearing. Of course, Faery's
Speaker 1: interpretation is absurd. The company has an absolute right to
Speaker 1: investigate in question and employee about things that might affect
Speaker 1: his employee status. The employee must cooperate or lose his employment.
Speaker 1: As every individual realizes, when you take a job, you
Speaker 1: must give up a portion of your right of privacy
Speaker 1: or face the consequence of being discharged. This is the
Speaker 1: effect of the decision of Judge Keyho in the O'Neill case. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, so I don't think I need to read
Speaker 1: the rest of this. You know why David Ferry got
Speaker 1: fired because he's a weirdo pedophile and he didn't want
Speaker 1: to cooperate. And that's basically what they're saying here, Umm
Speaker 1: continuing on just to see if there's anything I'm missing,
Speaker 1: It doesn't really appear to be that way, so fairy.
Speaker 1: He tried to use like legal ease and you know,
Speaker 1: the letter of like the statements in the contracts and whatnot,
Speaker 1: to get around having to cooperate with Eastern Airlines. But
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's just like police. You know, let's
Speaker 1: say you're getting to a police ie investigation and you
Speaker 1: get let's say a cop gets arrested for some bs,
Speaker 1: but then the charges get dropped, right internal affairs at
Speaker 1: his own agency. If he went in there and said, oh,
Speaker 1: well the charges were dropped, so we're good here, the
Speaker 1: agency he works for would be like no, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I don't think so what the fuck happened? Right? And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what Eastern Airlines did, and they had an
Speaker 1: absolute right to investigate. But he's trying to like legal
Speaker 1: ease his way out of it. And the last paragraph
Speaker 1: here conclusion on the evidence introduced at the hearings. The
Speaker 1: Board should and must find that grievances fifteen sixty three,
Speaker 1: twenty nine sixty three, and forty eight sixty three must
Speaker 1: be denied, respectfully. William G. Belt Junior or September ninth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty three. So this didn't even wrap up to
Speaker 1: like two months before the assassination, right. I wonder how
Speaker 1: much that played a part in David Ferri's persona, because
Speaker 1: both of these things were overlapping at the time. That
Speaker 1: motherfucker must have been under some stress, all right. So next,
Speaker 1: it looks like we get onto the Alexander Landry stuff
Speaker 1: and we will talk about this on the next Corey
Speaker 1: Hughes Bloody History. Thanks for tuning in, everybody,