Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Petition to the RO

Dear Review Officer Walsh:

We the undersigned demand immediate investigation and potential termination for cause of New York City District Council of Carpenters (“NYCDCC”) employment to the law firm Spivak Lipton LLC.

We request your Office with authority granted by the Consent Decree (90-civ. 5722/Stipulation and Order) exercise powers and responsibilities of review and oversight to investigate Spivak Lipton for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and possible legal malpractice in activities representing the District Council as General Legal Counsel and Lead Counsel.

Federal District Court Judge Richard M. Berman, who as you know retains exclusive jurisdiction and oversight of the NYCDCC under the current consent decree, indicated in His Court and for the record on April 3, 2013, that Spivak Lipton-- in particular District Council Lead Counsel James M. Murphy-- are legally liable (and in our opinion morally and ethically responsible) for any and all actions and events that take place at Executive Committee and Delegate Body meetings.1 This liability is determined by Judge Berman for the actions of Counsel Murphy, his representatives, and NYCDCC Officers and Delegates.

4-9-13 Petition for the RO veto of Counsel Murphy by rally524

7 comments:

  1. DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Veto James "pro nunct" Murphy!

      Delete
  2. If this petition is real and will be presented to Judge Berman , where do I sign ????? We all know that Walsh and Murphy have been sabataging the workings of our union all along so that McCarron can push through his restructioning ,and turn New York into his corporation !!!! So , again , where do I sign ??>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1456 Dockie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At 395 Hudson before the Delegate Meeting today

      Delete
  3. Deranged Loners & Commies: Hey, OLMS, the Statement of reasons is b,s,, a bald face lie, re: The U.S. Supreme Court has the last word, not the OLMS, or NLRB......EXCERPT PG 65-66 Member response to UBCJA Restructuring Plan dated 6-29-11 (word version) & dated 7-1-11 PDF Version which is in Judge Bermans hands:
    In NLRB v. Marine Workers, 391 US 418 (1968), Justice Douglas noted - ”There cannot be any justification to make the public processes wait until the union member exhausts internal procedures plainly inadequate to deal with all phases of the complex problem concerning employer, union, and employee member. If the member becomes exhausted, instead of the remedies, the issues of public policy are never reached and an airing of the grievance never had. The Court of Appeals recognized that this might be the consequence and said that resort to an intra-union remedy if it imposed unreasonable delay or hardship upon the complainant.” 379 F2d. at 707.
    Congressman Griffin at 13 “[T]he proviso was not intended to limit in any way the right of a union member under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, to file unfair labor practice charges against a union, or the right of the NLRB to entertain such charges, even though a 4-month period may not have elapsed”.
    Notwithstanding this fact lies the mandate of the Consent Decree that under 17 – “Retention of Jurisdiction and Application to the Court. This Court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction to supervise implementation of this Consent Decree and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide any and all issues arising under the Consent Decree, and any and all disputes growing out of the issuance, interpretation or application of this Consent Decree.” “At 18, Future Actions. Except as specified in paragraph 15, nothing herein shall preclude the Government, or any of its department or agencies, from taking any appropriate action in regard to any of the defendant signatories hereto in reliance on any federal laws.” 
    Thus, per 17 & 18 and per the Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. Marine Workers, 391 U.S. 418 (1968), there is a bar to member remedies which precludes action through the NLRB. Given said preclusion and the fact that the NLRB is a quasi-judicial Federal Agency, with limited quasi-legislative rule-making authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with final rule-making per Federal Register procedures; and, the fact that the specific issues of fact & law are predicated upon the Federal Constitution, the Board and its General Counsel are barred from ruling upon the issues presented, thus, the Constitutional issues are properly before this Court as jurisdiction & venue are proper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Have you been accused of breaching a non-compete agreement? Visit our website to access articles
    and free books from an experienced New York business litigation

    ReplyDelete

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.