THE COURT: Nice to see you all. Please be seated. So just a couple of preliminary remarks and then we'll get started.We have a pretty ambitious agenda today, which is to have essentially a series of reports of status on some rather critical areas. One relates to the funds, another relates to the status of the provisions of the bylaws, the another to the restructuring plan, another to negotiations with Wall and Ceiling, and in relation thereto to work rules, and then lastly the election schedule.
So that's a lot -- that is a mouthful. And from my point of view, I am going to try and devote this following rough timeframe: A half hour to the first topic, 20 minutes to the second and third, and then 10 each to the fourth and fifth. And then we'll be able after that to hear from people who haven't spoken.
6.28.11 U.S. v. D.C. Conference Transcript
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Court Transcript June 28, 2011
3 comments:
I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ohn, can you post mays transcript as well?
ReplyDeletePage 27
ReplyDeleteMr. Walsh: Certainly, the Union reserved the right to say we've gone as far as we think we can go. They are in some respects restrained by a lot of the By-Laws they use in all jurisdictions Nationwide.
Flat out lie - translated, we break the law in 49-1/2 States and have no intentions of complying with the National Labor Relations Act, Taft-Hartley or LMRDA here in New York - we just won't do it & you don't have the balls to make us do it!!!!
page 27
"They do recognize the uniqueness, however, of the situation in New York and they have made an attempt to address the unique problems reflected by the corruption in New York."
Translation - Liar - Doug McCarrons 1997 Restructuring Plan caused the corruption, he was involved with all of the key players who have been convicted and sentenced and he is now claiming to be Saint Doug.
Walsh spoke of diminishing returns of member participation. The chief reason is he, like the UBC has an agenda, Walsh is not following the law and he is not enforcing the NLRA.
How in God's name did you ever make it as a Prosecututor when you refuse to look at the laws, fail to enforce them and readily ignore them?
The entire process should be an embarassment for the Court and for all the Attorneys involved. The actions to date are an utter disgrace. The court and the law are apparently a complete joke!
The UBC will buy their way out of any form of compliance with the Courts blessing. Easy money, easy billable hours - ZERO JUSTICE.
Turn in your Bar Cards - you are all an embarassment to the practice & profession of law! At this rate, this Abortion of a Consent Decree will go on for another 20-years - while you all pretend to be doing your Job and while you produce nothing in return
Love how Cary-Kane, the all star ERISA firm of the year (please) babbled their way through the proceeding and the dumbass still was w/o a clue as to the fact that he had no standing in the matter.
Absolute dope - you got a seat at the table for Court Conferencing moron - that was it. Your letters to the Court were semi-literate and meaningless. (Hint, use spell check and hire a competent paralegal to write and proof your work)
Can we bring the Rat to the next Court Conference your Honor. He belongs in Courtroom 21B as a permanent reminder of the failure of this Court under Haight to produce effective results. He was senile in his later years & everyone kissed his ass instead of having him removed!
PIGEON SOUP
ReplyDeleteLincoln Douglas Debate # 6
Ocotber 13, 1858
____________________
Change the names & Kenneth Conboys arguments for the UBC's Restructuring Plan are as unpersuasive - as was this historic classic.
______________________
Abraham Lincoln
"Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not.
In the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I have said and what I do not hesitate to repeat today. I have said that, as the Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understood it."
Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so.
Let me talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a Constitutional right. The first thing you do, is to swear you will support the Constitution and all rights guarantied therein; that you will, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his Constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation.
If you withhold that necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and Constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible man, if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a Constitutional right.
Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, nullify that Constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does he mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that?
The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paens to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing Sovereignty-that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of "Sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully?
Has it not got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the domain of thought.
It is precisely no other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground."