Well quite a rant there 'BasedonFacts'! Hysterical, but a rant. I'm not altogether convinced about you. However, since you included me by name, please reread my postings. Far from actively defending the individual involved, I have merely explained the legal basis of such a decision and asked that he be given discretion to make his case. He, in fact, had every legal basis to make such a decision, but he knew it would be a decision he has to justify to UA. If he felt his leadership was not recognised for some reason, and it has become apparent there are some severe historical human factors problems washing around UA, then he took a possibly very valid decision to 'remove a problem'. I have known it happen in a big British Airline, though always still on the ground.
But if you were present as you claim, you could provide some answers. After the expulsion of the IFM, if you were so concerned about the Captain, why were you so happy to continue with him one more flight? Was it 'after this next flight, we will nail him and claim him to be unbalanced/wife beater/paedophile etc and really take the guy apart? How is he different now than at MIA? At MIA he was given your endorsement to continue in charge of a flight of your UA passengers and your own good self. Why did that change at ORD? Did he do a bad landing or something? You claim out of concern for your passengers, you continued. If you were truly concerned about his judgement and decision making and the possible effects on your passengers, you would have refused to continue. I don't understand what changed once you decided 'he was OK to continue, one mo' time'. I think you, if indeed you were really onboard, have a little explaining to do yourself. Perhaps you are still fighting a bizarre 24 year old battle nobody really cares about anymore.
I do find it very repellent you were happy to subject your passengers to what you allege was an unsuitable pilot for one more flight, then you jump up and down screaming he's unbalanced and unsafe and all the rest. How on earth could you subject your customers to such a 'hazard'?