Yesterday Larry Cary, of the law firm of Cary Kane LLP, filed an Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction, before United States District Judge Richard M. Berman, ordering that Review Officer Dennis Walsh (RO), show cause in writing on or before Friday October 21, 2011 (5:00pm) why an order should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1) reversing the Review Officer's decision to disqualify Michael Ciechorski, Kevin Corrigan, John
DeFalco, Shawn Eichorn, George LaMontagne, Charles Lucas, Tommy McGonnigle and Bill Walsh, from their candidacy for office with the New York City District Council of Carpenters and (2) restoring these applicants names to the ballot in the upcoming December 15, 2011 Council election.
Last Wednesday the RO turned a routine nomination meeting on it's
head by vetoing 16 of the 34 candidates who were expecting to
be nominated. After hearing about the veto, I spoke to Walter Kane and Larry Cary, (the attorneys representing the Carpenters Committee for Democracy and Workers Rights) they said the firm is willing to help vetoed
candidates make an appeal.
Eight of the sixteen candidates responded to the offer and met with the law firm last Thursday for a consultation and deposition.
The complaint filed by Cary, argues that the candidates were vetoed for various "arbitrary and capricious" reasons and that the RO exceeded his authority under the June 3, Stipulation and Order and is "reviewable by the court."
The RO's authority over a candidate for Council Officer is very broad
and final. The Stipulation and Order paragraph 5.k.iv (page 13) states:
"Any candidate seeking to run for a position as an Officer of the
District Council during the Review's Officer's tenure must first be
approved by the Review Officer, who will determine whether in light of
the terms and objectives of the Consent Decree the candidate is
qualified to run for office and represent the union membership. Any such
decision by the Review Officer will be final and non-reviewable."
Below is the Memorandum of Law in Support of an Order to Show Cause and links to exhibits and affidavits of the canadidates.
Exhibits and Affidavits of:
Joseph Firth, John Gaffney, Michael Ciechorski, Kevin Corrigan, John DeFalco, Shawn Eichorn, George LaMontagne, Charles Lucas, Tommy McGonnigle and Bill Walsh.
Memorandum of Law in Support of Order to Show Cause
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Cary Kane Law Firm Files Order To Show Cause
12 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)
DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !
ReplyDeleteLucas, LaMontague & DeFalco gotta go - the rest, congrats - you're in.
ReplyDeleteGood Opener C/K, but the true test will be your oral arguments in Court befiore Judge Berman.
Make sure you bring a few more smoking guns with you to court.
Post the letters too..we need to see both sides of the story to evaluate properly
Love the Commie line - Irony Doug, I think not, given you're in bed with the RO to delay the Elections.
Now for those who put their tail between their legs and ran away....who are they & should we care? We need a story on that...no?
joe filth should be brought up on charges for lieing while under oath.daly clean? omg how low will they go.608 crime machine 2.0 will cover for each other no matter what.
ReplyDeleteBilello, We got your number and the membership is done with you. You have never won an election in the past and you are not going to win this one.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to take control is telling and we now see the depth of your desperation...very pathetic.
WHO is paying for these guys' appeals with Cary Kane??? I hope it's not us. Anybody know???
ReplyDeleteThen he has the audacity to compare the government's intervention into a massive crime machine to Stalinist era totalitarianism. Michael Ciechorski is pathetic and just another embarrassment for Carpenters to bear, and championing his cause is trivialization of the Union's political process.
ReplyDeleteBoo-Hoo!
Sounds like he is making a point about McCarron's Dictatorship & why the hell not...
His reference is to the power of Executive Veto which the Government granted our Review Officer. Ciechorski's repeated demonstration of an overall ignorance and concern for rank-and-file Carpenter issues precludes any assumption that he was somehow actually making a point about McCarron's Dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteBoo-hoo! to him, and the other ex-candidates, who have further sullied their reputations (or lack of) by so cavalierly insinuating themselves into the process. Perhaps if Michael really was dedicated to a just community of Carpenters he would have been reasonable and involved himself in some form rank-and-file collective action. Instead he ultimately comes off resembling a petty aspiring dictator of the old country so melodramatically deplored by him in Kane's Memo.
He is involved in a rank and file class action suit. Walsh vetoed 16 candidates to stack the deck for Bilello.
ReplyDeleteWhat time is the Court Session with Judge Berman?
ReplyDeleteJohn Dennis Walsh answered this on Friday where's his answer, the reasons for the members who were not allowed to run is in the answers Mr. reporter why aren't you posting it?
ReplyDeleteDon't be so sarcastic...If you know so much why don't you post it and provide a link so we can all read it.
ReplyDeleteOh I am sorry you only hide behind a keyboard and are to stupid to learn how to access information.
I will answer your question...The REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of Arbitrator Robert Herzog's Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena. (Entered: 10/21/2011)is the only entry listed on the docket and not available yet.
When it is available you will the first to read it here.
Thank You
Excerpt: 883 F 2d. 117 Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), AT 14:
ReplyDelete14
It is well established that an agency may not " 'casually ignore its own past decisions' " and that " '[d]ivergence from agency precedent demands an explanation.' " Cross-Sound Ferry Servs., Inc. v. ICC, 873 F.2d 395, 398 (D.C.Cir.1989) (citations omitted). While " '[a]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed,' " Hall v. McLaughlin, 864 F.2d 868, 872 (D.C.Cir.1989) (quoting Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2229, 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971)), "where a particular agency action does not appear to be inconsistent with prior decisions, the agency explanation need not be elaborate," id. at 873 (citing United Mun. Distribs. Group v. FERC, 732 F.2d 202, 211 (D.C.Cir.1984) (sufficiently different circumstances from prior decisions justified deviation from precedent via "laconic" explanation); West Coast Media, Inc. v. FCC, 695 F.2d 617, 621 (D.C.Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816, 104 S.Ct. 74, 78 L.Ed.2d 87 (1983) (recitation of factual differences sufficient to deviate from prior case)).
Nice job on the response Dennis!
Laru Cary (Cary-Kane), your up - what say you?