I wrote earlier about a doctor who was dragged off a United Express flight (operated by Republic Airlines) last night when the airline needed to transport crew instead of four passengers. He needed to get to work at a hospital the next day. United, though, needed crew in place in Louisville.
Credit: @Tyler_Bridges
United didn’t just decide crew were more important than passengers, they needed those crewmembers in place in order to work a flight in the morning.
Here’s how United explains the progression:
- The gate announced the overbooking of one passenger and offered $400 a hotel night plus rebooking on the 3 p.m. Monday flight.
- Boarding commenced. Upon completion, they announced they needed 4 passengers to give up their seats and that the plane wouldn’t leave until the 4 crewmembers were accommodated on the flight.
- The bump offer was increased to $800 but there were no takers.
The crew needed to make it to Louisville that night, and they’d have to meet federal rules for minimum rest before operating a flight the next day.
United Express Embraer Regional Jet
So United involuntarily denied boarding to four passengers. The first couple got off without incident. The doctor, traveling with his wife, refused to leave. That’s when three officers boarded the plane and removed him. He was injured in the altercation as he was literally dragged off the aircraft.
So what happens when you’re involuntarily denied boarding? When you have a ticket and reservation for a flight but the airline doesn’t give you let you fly on a flight which otherwise operates, and they don’t get volunteers, under 14 CFR 250.5 they’re required to pay:
- Nothing if you are offered transportation to your first connecting city (or final destination in the event of a non-stop) scheduled for within an hour of your original booking.
- Double your fare up to $675 if you’re rescheduled to arrive within 1-2 hours of original time.
- Four times your fare up to $1350 if you aren’t given transportation scheduled to arrive at either your first connection or final destination within 2 hours of schedule.
Under the law the Department of Transportation will review these maximum amounts again this year.
However here’s what happened after the man was removed from the flight:
The man was able to get back on the plane after initially being taken off – his face was bloody and he seemed disoriented, Bridges said, and he ran to the back of the plane. Passengers asked to get off the plane as a medical crew came on to deal with the passenger, she said, and passengers were then told to go back to the gate so that officials could “tidy up” the plane before taking off.
The 1 hour 19 minute flight wound up delayed 2 hours.
Update: While this was a 70 seat aircraft, so the rules above applied, it’s worth noting that there are exceptions to the airline owing the compensation described above:
- If the airline substitutes a smaller plane than what was originally scheduled
- For 30-60 seat aircraft, if the bump is the result of weight or balance issues limiting the number of people that can fly.
I appreciate that you have toned down your tenor from your last pathetic article, but you are still off-base and on the wrong side of this argument. This guy was deplaned for United’s profits. It is now costing United fantastically for this blunder, as it should. And, I suggest you start trying to understand why the rest of America is outraged.
Gaby ,
Dr. David Dao was acting like my 7-year-old – sometimes you don’t agree with things not saying he was right or wrong – but classy people don’t hold on to seats and get forced off planes – it’s like a self-inflicted situation –
Also, It was TSA or police that removed him physically and they did it in a bad way – Sorry Dr. David Dao is a straight up idiot – and now we see he has some character flaws – serious one at that.
http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-doctor-convicted-drugs-sex/
@Jeffrey Lehmann – I understand why people are outraged, I believe that the police who actually dragged the guy down the aisle and bloodied him are getting too much of a pass. And calling the cops on customers is something that US airlines do in our heightened security environment. That’s a problem.
@Moron Morgan
So typical of the moronic Trump bimbette to blame the victim with completely irrelevant information to try to build back up the authoritarian regime that’s toppling itself. The man was terrorized by brutal thuggery. The entire plane was jeering the thugs, not the victim. He ran back onto the plane like a scared mouse trying to find a place to hide. Any decent human would have compassion. A teacher traveling with his students was so appalled and his students so tramautized by just watching this man’s assault and then run back and try to hide amongst them that he removed the entire group from the plane. Only the most callous inhuman authoritarian bootlicker would support this and then try to smear the man with hick redneck gossip. Fortunately while we live in a country with a third know-nothing redneck baboons who can elect twice the worst Presidents any country ever elected because he’s a stupid moron like them, we also have no history of authoritarian dictators like Russia, so this kind of rule isn’t going to survive here. Trump, United and the whole thuggish authoritarian structure is going to be rooted out by a new generation who want nothing to do with authoritarian nonsense.
Greg, you are a PC Snow Flake. Did they use to much force removing him, Yes. Was he completely uncooperative and act like a child, Yes.
Greg, thank you for providing further proof of the ability of people like yourself to ignore all facts and rant away like an insane clown. Airport Security removes a guy forcefully from a plane, bloodies him, and you end up with a Trump tirade? A well executed, Leftist playbook piece of psycho babble. Yet none of you Enlightened and Elite Left had any problem with the guy who threatened Trump’s family on a plane, stopped free speech and set a campus of fire, or attacked women and senior citizens at a Trump rally in the Socialist Republic of California. You guys commit all the violence and try to end free speech. And you talk crap on Trump? How did he even get put in this article? It’s about a guy on a plane. Man, no wonder you lost Congress, Senate, over 2/3 of State Governors and over 1000 nation wide before you lost the Presidency. Grab a mitt and get in the game.
Buck you ignorant fat hick:
You try to throw your 500 pounds around with a career Spec Ops commander lying like Pumpkinhead about “leftists” which is the very tirade you complain about. And if “leftists” are such violent extremists why does the UN recognized resource on US terrorism Southern Poverty Law Center document in “Terror from the Right” almost weekly far right terrorist attacks starting with your guy McVeigh bombing the day care center at the OKC Federal BUilding killing 170? Not. one. single. leftist. attack. Not one. Take your fake news and shove it up your waddling hick redneck lardass.
Morgan,
You sound stupid snd ignorant. I wonder how you would have reacted if it was you or your mother being kicked off the plane.
Dr. David Dao and Greg are very much alike – childish, insane fools.
Obidient sheep get pushed around. Insane fool brought national attention to the abuse and some changes will happen. Every one will benefit from the fool.
And how insane is he again? $50 million or $200 million? He’ll be buying his own plane now he’s so nuts.
So does no one realize this man committed a felony by running back onto the plane? These are FAA regulations that were put in place after 9/11. Also, these 4 passengers were NOT just so United could make a profit. These were so the FAA (meaning ALL air traffic controllers) could keep the sky schedule on track. Cancelling one flight means adjusting all paths in the air affecting thousands of people. So they chose to impact 4 instead of thousands. Just because this guy refused to abide by the fine print of his ticket. His injuries were sustained during his resisting and thus his own actions caused his injury. The police did not beat this man. They were simply removing him from the seat that he committed a crime to get to. Imagine a criminal being chased on foot by police and tackled. Injuries sustained during said tackle to detain the criminal are not the fault of the police but the fault of the criminal for not simply complying with the police commands.
Also, just to put it in perspective, what if this man was thought to have some sort of explosive device and upon being deplaned he ran back to the plane and sat back down hoping to blow up the plane elsewhere. Everyone would be up in arms that regulations didn’t exist to stop someone from being able to run onto the plane correct? So although this man was injured in the process let’s stop and think about his actions that caused his forceful removal. This man deserves a one-way ticket back from Kentucky to Chicago to fulfill the terms of his prison sentence.
Jason my dear, in the course of time we will see just how many millions of dollars this costs United and/or the Chicago Airport Police for their disgraceful conduct [United] and unlawful assault [Chicago Airport Police]. Unlike the one who attacked him, this man did nothing illegal. He bought a ticket, received a boarding pass, passed security, boarded the plane and sat in his assigned seat. Period. When he was sitting in that seat some gorilla from the local airport police assaulted him. After he was beaten up by that hooligan and illegally dragged off the plane, he simply legally returned down the walkway to take his legally assigned seat. He was, so the contemporary video shows, somewhat disorientated by the beating. He was then illegally detained and removed from the plane a second time. All those illegal acts add up to a lot of compensation.
Can one of you answer two simple questions?
One, under ANY circumstaces can an airline legitimately remove a bumped passenger involuntarily?
Two, if yes, what technique would YOU use to get that hypothetical passenger off the plane?
Please answer the questions after reading them carefully, and please don’t change the question to suit your answer.
Their contract of carriage does not address bumping some one they have already boarded. They only address denial of boarding or refusal to transport. Words are important in a court of law. I would like some one to point out language of the contract that covers the situation faced by the doctor.
Greg- For the record, I’m a skinny guy that was born in Boston. Apparently you think that the 3 Chicago cops were hired post-inauguration on the Trump-thuggery EEO program? Are all Leftists such nitwits?
For the rest of you nitwits, do you think the individual policemen had any details about Dao’s transgression? No. They were told that a passenger was ordered to deplane and refused. For Tom the lawyer: he was refused transport per the contract. Stop bashing the blue! Especially you liberal elitists! They lay their lives on the line for all of us every day for low wages and little appreciation. They must encounter volatile situations and react to the unexpected while being held to a higher standard than the majority of you nitwits would ever hold yourselves to. Thank goodness they weren’t white cops or you liberal elitist nitwits would be losing your minds.
Bottom line: if you’re breaking the law and you resist arrest or disobey a lawful order, it it NOT going to end well for you.
Morgan Is correct .
Fish – the passenger can be refused transport only for safety or security reasons not that they need a seat for their crew. This makes the order unreasonable and unlawful.
Overbooking was neither the reason he was ordered to de-board or the contractual clause that governed his removal.
The CoC was a legal contract. The orders to leave were pursuant to that contract. His failures to comply with crew and police were criminal acts. All orders are considerred lawful until proven otherwise. The venue to challenge them is the court, not the airplane.
He was ordered removed per Rule 21 sections B and H of the Contract of Carriage he agreed to when he purchased his ticket:
Rule 21: “UA shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any passengers for the following reason:”
Section B: Includes “…whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation…”
Section H: “Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a passenger may be necessary for the safety of such passenger or other passengers or members of the crew, including but not limited to;”
Subsection 2: “Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives”
To comply with government regulations limiting number of persons on the flight, UA could order the removal of passengers. (Rule 21, Section B) The original order to de-board was legal.
The passenger failed to comply with the order to leave the plane, a federal felony and grounds for removal. (Rule 21, Section H, Subsection 2)
The Chicago Aviation Police are an independent law enforcement agency for the City of Chicago. It is an Illinois state misdemeanor to disobey their orders. The passenger disobeyed their order to leave the plane.
Resisting arrest is an Illinois state felony. The passenger stated his intention to resist, and acknowledged force would be used to remove him. Force was used, he did resist, and all of his injuries were a direct result of that resistance.
Tom- I’m not a lawyer. I just try to apply common sense to each situation as it arises. Here’s my common sense approach: if 3 of Rahm Emanuel’s finest tell me to get off the plane, I’m going to get off the f_ckin’ plane. If I think I was wronged, thankfully our wonderful system of government has a process to handle that. I am reminded of the sage wisdom of Chris Rock: obey the law, turn that sh*t off; be polite, shut the f_ck up; and get a white friend.
Our wonderful system of government process would have compensed him OK but abuse of passenger rights by United would have continued and the situation would have been swept under the rug. Now it got international attention. United would not have appolosized if they had acted within CoC. Some time we need a Rosa Parks to highlight the unjust practices commonly accepted. There will be no felony charge for disobeying an unlawful order. Agreed, he would have saved the injuries if he had obeyed, lawful order or not. Corporate behaviour does not change easily, it takes some outrageous situation that threatens their deep pockets through public outrage. Also agreed that most people will not behave this way, but I am glad that he acted on his instincts exposing himself to be man-handled because he felt it was wrong. I doubt that he knew what is in the CoC, but it just felt wrong.
1. United did not offer $400/$800 dollars. They offered vouchers for United flights in those amounts. That is not the same thing, especially if you don’t want to get bumped off another flight, like the next flight they were offering to take the ‘volunteers’ to their destination, which was not until the following afternoon ~ ie, after missing a full day’s work.
2. The men with ‘police’ on their uniforms are not Chicago Police. They are Aviation police, who had been ordered in January to remove Police from their uniforms and replace it with security. Which evidently they have refused to do. They have to meet basic standards for police training but are trained for only 4 months. They are not allowed to carry guns (thankfully), nor to make arrests. They can hold people for the real police. Note they do not tell the 69 year old man he is under arrest.
3. The man ran back down the aisles after he was forcibly dragged away and injured. His running was not the reason he was dragged and injured.
4. His checkered past has nothing to do with the rights & wrongs of his treatment.
5. The fine print of the contract will be an interesting debate during his lawsuits. His lawyers will likely argue that it is an adhesion contract, one in which one party has no choice nor any power within the agreement, and that this does not cover actions which the law would define as unconscionable. His lawyers will argue this was a contract dispute, not a law-breaking event. Anyone who has been ordered by police to, eg, dispose of a water bottle before entering an event, because water must be purchased inside the arena, has seen public law enforcement used to enforce private adhesion contracts.
All the comments here about legal process, fine print etc. etc. etc. are all essentially irrelevant. United will not want this to go anywhere near a courtroom where their terms and conditions of carriage will be examined, still less will they wish what actually happened to be examined.
They will settle for a figure that will probably be, in relative terms, exorbitant just to keep this out of the public eye and to avoid any possibility of a judgment against them on any detail of the claim.
Most likely it will be a term of the settlement that the amount of the compensation is not disclosed.
1. They offered cash. Fed regs require it be cash.
2. Chicago Aviation Police are a law enforcement agency for the City of Chicago. They do have arrest authority.
3. Reentry after being removed was a violation of Homeland Security rules. It’s a felony.
4. If he expects special treatment because he’s a doctor, the facts that he used his license to traffic drugs and disgraced the profession by exchanging drugs for sex with a patient are relevant. No special privileges for convicted drug trafficking sexual predators. Don’t want character to be an issue, don’t claim entitlement you’ve thrown away.
5. The CoC has been challanged before and it is legal and enforceable. United was not the only available carrier. Planes were not the only form of transportation. He agreed to the contract, he breeches the contract, he broke the law, he resisted arrest. The CAP officers were enforcing a federal law against disobeying a flight crew instruction.
@Janiece Eaton
Go back to your United whoremongers and tell them it’s too late to smear the doctor who raised five professionals including four doctors. The stock market and public opinion are already decided no matter how much crap you sling. We live in a country where questioning authority is what’s patriotic, not bootlicking authoritarian thugs whose own City Council is disowning them. There are tens of millions of people who will never shake the image of a 70 year old battered doctor trying to hide somewhere so he could just get home. An entire school class trip to Europe was so traumatized they were removed by their teacher from the plane. Tell me, apart from having your facts all wrong, how could you be any sleazier? I need a shower just from reading your two pukes.
@Greg, you go man, you rock.
@Janiece Eaton why don’t you do an analysis of the front end, why this happened in the first place? You did it on the back end, about the passenger, you wrote at least two comments that I saw. Guess what? It started at UA crew scheduling. Start there. Who are these folks? Why did they screw up? Go look up their background and find out about their history and lay it all out. Come on, you can do it.
Tell me, other than throwing insults at me because I disagree with your position, exactly which fact, law or contract rule I misstated.
Accurately describing a felon’s criminal history is not smearing him. While he was raising those doctors and professionals he was using his medical license to get drugs that he could trade to men for sex. Those are simply facts. If you wish the privileges afforded a doctor, don’t disgrace the profession. Asking for professional consideration brings your professional conduct into the conversation.
We live in a country governed by laws and rules of conduct. Breeching a contract is not a civil rights protest. It’s a tort, a civil law violation. Failing to follow the instructions of the flight crew is not a blow against authority: it’s a federal felony.
Dao was being arrested for his crimes, not his race or his age. His civil rights were never violated. He was injured resisting arrest. That his behavior led to such a shocking display that school children were traumatized is unsurprising, but I doubt he cared how his behavior would affect others.
Please do take that shower. If your body odor is as foul as your mouth you need it. Don’t bother to reply unless you are prepared to discuss the facts or the relevant laws. The rest of your post, almost its entirety, was a juvenile rant.
Carlos: Gate agents added the four crew members at the last minute. This was.not the result of some conspiracy hatched at a pre-flight meeting. There are myriad reasons why a crew might suddenly be needed, and neither of us is privy to the why of this case. I’ll stick to discussing the facts as they are known, not some hypothetical scenario cooked up by people with tin foil hats. Sorry, not playing that silly game with you.
@Janiece Eaton, thank you for your reply. There is no rule or law that allows UA crew scheduling to do what they did.
Actually, there is. Federal regulation REQUIRED the crew members be accommodated, as they were categorized as “must ride”. The terms of the Contract of Carriage allowed for passengers to be removed to comply with government regulation.
@Janiece Eaton, thank you for your reply. Please copy and paste
1) the exact ‘Federal regulation REQUIRED the crew members be accommodated, as they were categorized as “must ride” ‘ language
and
2) the exact “terms of the Contract of Carriage allowed for passengers to be removed” language you are referring to please.
I posted the relevant CoC rules. Do your own homework.
Janiece clearly has a has degree from the Upstairs Institute of Aviation Law. Well done.
Janiece has a Masters in Arrogance
@Janiece Eaton, I don’t know why you are being so difficult. You posted it, so why could you not go back and copy and paste it here or paste a link that I can refer back? Why tell me to do my homework? Do you know how much time it took to go back and search for all your comments? You keep twisting the facts.
By the way, what is your background?
You said “The CoC was a legal contract. The orders to leave were pursuant to that contract.” It started with Crew Scheduling and that is where the focus needs to be, not downstream about the passenger. There would have been no order if Crew Scheduling did their job properly. Crew Scheduling did NOT do their job properly. Can you please address this?
You wrote “Rule 21: “UA shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any passengers for the following reason:”
Section B: Includes “…whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation…””
What you quoted is not relevant, there is NO government regulation that states paid passenger can be removed and replaced with crew member. I have asked you to copy and paste that here and you are unable to do that. It started with Crew Scheduling and that is where the focus needs to be, not downstream about the passenger. Crew Scheduling did NOT do their job properly. Can you please address this?
You wrote “Section H: “Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a passenger may be necessary for the safety of such passenger or other passengers or members of the crew, including but not limited to;”
Subsection 2: “Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the flight crew, federal regulations, or security directives””
What you quoted is not relevant, passenger was sitting peacefully minding his own business. You keep going downstream. Focus @JanieceEaton, focus on where it all started. It started with Crew Scheduling and that is where the focus needs to be, not downstream about the passenger. Crew Scheduling did NOT do their job properly. Can you please address this?
You said “To comply with government regulations limiting number of persons on the flight, UA could order the removal of passengers. (Rule 21, Section B) ” I don’t you are understanding that everyone paid money and had legal boarding passes and were seated on board. Do you not understand that? UA never limited number of persons on the flight. It started with Crew Scheduling and that is where the focus needs to be, not downstream about the passenger. Crew Scheduling did NOT do their job properly. Can you please address this?
Thank you for your time.
Carlos: DOT regulation states that person’s designated “must ride” MUST be accommodated. To comply with THAT regulation, four passengers had to be removed. Rule 21b authorizes such removals.
The flight crew is not responsible for designating crew as “must ride”. That decision is made by airport operations. There are myriad reasons why a crew may be suddenly needed: weather, illness, etc. The why is irrelevant.
I’ve explained every rule and law applicable. If you still do not understand I am sorry but I am done repeating myself.
It doesn’t matter what caused the crew’s need to be accommodated. What precluded the order to deplane is irrelevant to the law. Disobeying a flight crew order is a breech of contract and a federal felony. It does not matter if you don’t like the reason behind the instruction. He was obligated to obey the order unless he could prove that the order was unlawful. As the order was lawful and he was not targeted because of membership in a protected class, his avenue for relief was the court system.
Matthew and George: If I sound arrogant I’ve earned the right to be. I’ve researched contract law, federal regulations and Illinois state law where it applies to this incident. I’ve put in the work that informs my opinion and analysis. I do not have to respect the ill-considered opinions of those who could not be bothered to make that same effort. Respect is earned, and you have earned none.
@Janiece, thank you for your reply. Please provide the exact text of “DOT regulation states that person’s designated “must ride” MUST be accommodated.” Show us where it says that pretty please. You are obviously very well informed, please help educate us. Thank you for your time.
Carlos: if you want the exact text, track it down yourself.
[offensive personal attack deleted -gl]
You’ve shown your cards and you have no citations to back up any of your officious lies whoring for United to try to drive down public support for their victim. Now slither back under the bridge with the other paid trolls.
Greg: I have supported every statement that is in dispute. [offensive personal attack deleted -gl] This is my last response to you. Your childish rant disqualifies any participation in an adult discussion.
PLEASE keep this b.s. civil —> resorting to personal attacks/insults merely undermines your own point(s)-of-view, and have no place is discussions such as this. (Indeed, what else is there left to possibly say?)
Yes, Jason, this is what we were told as over 30 years they raised an army via nasty vile talk radio (fronting for corporate rule) that has now taken over the country with a President that only talk radio could vomit. So you can disarm if you want, but there are no more kid gloves for those who want to win. These were always bullies (cowards) to begin with. We saw that when those who bullied us into Iraq were all shown to be chickenhawks. The whole game was duping the 30% rubes. No more kid gloves.
Greg, this blog — in the Grand Scheme of the World — is not politics. It’s not Democrat or Republican; Labour or Conservative; le Parti socialiste ou le Front National; Единая Россия или Демократическая партия России . . . it’s about airlines, points, travel, and all things related.
Totally off the subject — OFF THE SUBJECT — I’ve been marching out in the streets since 1967, and my first anti-Vietnam war rally; I was at the ’68 Democratic National Convention & Grant Park; and I haven’t stopped since. But this is not an internet equivalent to Talk Radio, and whether the rhetoric here is anti-Trump, anti-Obama, or anti-Easter Bunny, it is NOT RELEVANT to the conversations taking place HERE. Neither are personal attacks, insults, or questioning one’s genetic heritage. None of that accomplishes anything but to DESTROY — from any side, from any position — the stated purpose of this forum and of Gary Leff’s blog posts and their subsequent discussion(s).
I shall happily discuss, debate, defend or denounce the policies of the proverbial powers-that-be, but only in the appropriate forum . . . and this ain’t it!
I do get your point, Jason, and agree up to the point there are those trying to enforce corporate hegemony here, because this is both the byproduct and purpose of the right wing’s ascension to total power in the US.
Of all the comments I have read, I have not read or heard why Dr. Dao was selected to de-board the plane or relinquish his seat.
Was his seat the last ticket sold and part of the over-sell of seats?
Had he originally accepted compensation offered by United to give up his seat and then changed his mind when he realized he wouldn’t be able to get a flight back that day to be at his Practice or Meducal Clinic the next day?
In my opinion, when he would not leave the Plane voluntarily, the Authorities should have called a “time out” to discuss their options, instead of letting their Brawn over rule their Brain.
In this day of “Cell phone cameras,” people may have to “temper” their actions and control their “tempers”.
Even though United may have been acting on a procedure that may have been a “Contractual Right”, I think they handled this very “wrong ” and Dr. Dao will come out the winner because of the “Court of Public Opinion” and violence against individuals is not tolerated and seemingly our “worst thugs” can’t be mis- handled by Law Enforcement personnel.
Dr. Dao might be a hundred pounds soaking wet and farthest removed from being a “thug” and a DOCTOR.
United and Enforcement Personnel, What were you Thinking?
I appreciate a forum like these and want to have a meaningful discussion with anyone.
With everything going on in Korea, Russia and Syria, there is enough fighting going on.
Fearing the response I may get, can we just have a discussion and not make unkind remarks to each other, just because we don’t share the opinion of someone else?
This is Easter, a time of reflection
The time that sends us to Eternity may be closer than we think.
If someone is able to answer any of the questions I have asked, Thank you in advance
Happy Easter Everyone
Thanks
Reg Ealey
@Reg EALEY — the priority list is based on fare paid, status and time of checkin [with a few additional carveouts]
Mr Dao’s selection was done by the computer. After higher priority passengers, the disabled, etc, are removed from the equation, the remains passengers are weighted in an algorithm by time of purchase and other factors. He was chosen from a pool of passengers each equally likely to be selected. He had the bad luck to be chosen.
He and his wife originally agreed to accept the involuntary removal and the compensation. It was only after discovering that another flight would not be available until morning that he balked.
Public opinion counts for less in the court room, and I would urge United not to settle. I would, in fact, file a cross complaint for the cost of the three hour delay his acts incurred. I would push authorities to enforce the laws he broke and take him to jail. He may get away with a slap on the wrist, but the point needs to be made: he broke the law.
I sneer every time he is refered to as a doctor. He disgraced the profession and does not deserve the special consideration one might afford a physician.
@Janiece Eaton “I would, in fact, file a cross complaint” are you an attorney?
I read in various reports that all four people “chosen” were Asian.
No, all four people were not Asian. When the computer chooses one person, it automatically chooses their spouse or other travelling companion. That’s how both Dao and his wife were chosen. The computer picked one, the algorithm aoto selected the partner.
No, I am not an attorney. I have worked in legal research, and research of all types is my avocation.