Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Rohde letter to Judge Berman

Dear Judge Berman: We write on behalf of the Review Officer with respect to the Court’s endorsement dated March 21, 2013, requesting that Mr. Murphy and the Review Officer provide authorities for the proposition that the Court can approve a CBA where only an “MOU” has been approved by the delegates.


  1. If a MOU is VALID then why doesnt it say so in the bylaws or collective bargaining agreements or in any written documents between the union and contractors?

  2. Like Miss Rhodes wrote in the letter. The delegates approved a financial alottment that was a criminal act with approval from the corrupt RO. They all should be thrown out of the union and criminally charged. thanks Miss rhodes for burying your client a little deeper.

  3. If a MOU is VALID and Berman can approve it why doesn’t it say so in ANY of the so called legal references you or Murphy provided. Why are the legal references you provided irrelevant and have nothing to do with what Judge Berman asked for and NOT A SINGLE one confirms your absurd and self serving argument. In fact a few refute your claims. Despite all your claims an MOU is not found to be binding as a complete CBA and you do not have a single case that says it does. It is nothing more than a letter of understanding. In the far fetched case Murphy cited, which I am sure was the only one he could find that even mentioned an MOU An MOU is always used as an addendum to a CBA and certainly is NEVER accepted as a replacement for an entire Collective Bargaining agreement. It seems everyone but you and Murphy are clear that an MOU MOU is the first step of mutual understanding between two parties and will include general points. It IS NOT a completed CBA and no delusional hack gets to fill in the blanks at a later date.

    First you post some BS case of type one and type two preliminary agreements which has no bearing on this case or issues since they are in reference to contracts for commercial goods and not labor collective bargaining agreements. Not by any stretch of the imagination is this relevant to what Berman asked for. Either you think Berman cant read or think he is a moron. While you quoted Hilton v Prudential your farce is better revealed in. 145 F.3d 543
    ADJUSTRITE SYSTEMS, INC., Stuart J. Orr, and Lu Elliott,v. GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. and Intermodal Technical Systems, Inc., No. 334, Docket No. 96-9715.United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Of course you would want to ignore the 4 criteria listed that prove your MOU is indeed BS as is your type 1 preliminary agreement argument.
    Then you decide to quote the BS cases provided by Murphy which have nothing to do with what Berman asked for and despite your attempts to mislead the court DO NOT provide legal reference that allows Judge Berman to approve a contract when only some 4 page BS MOU was allegedly ratified by an EBoard and delegate body that the abundance of evidence is showing to be as corrupt or worse as the last one.

  4. When you and Murphy COULD NOT produce legal reference to prove your absurd arguments you decided to give the Judge a third grade primer on when Oral Contracts are binding and when a contract is binding if it has not been written. I am sure Judge Berman needed you to provide that walk down memory lane of Second Year Community College Business Law.. You cited cases that have no relevance at all and then used Am. Fed'n of Television & Radio Artists, v. Inner City Broad. Corp., 748 F.2d 884, 886-87 (2d Cir. 1984 which not only has no relevance being a primer on Oral Agreements but In it the Judge comments that though oral agreements "may" be binding they are only binding if the COMPLETE AGREEMENT was orally agreed to. Not a 4 page MOU " Need I go on.
    Am. Fed'n of Television & Radio Artists, v. Inner City Broad. Corp., 748 F.2d 884, 886-87 (2d Cir. 1984
    And Aeronautical Indus. Dist. Lodge 91 of Int'I Ass'n of Machinists v. United Technologies Corp.,
    Are more worthless BS

    I also enjoyed you quoting Walsh saying "Any Material Provisions of the CBA not considered by the delegate body would have to be submitted for approval. Well No shit. That includes 50 pages of CBA not presented with the 4 page MOU. In your subtle attempt to let the court know that the illegal seizures of the raises by an illegal act in violation of the Bylaws and federal law was voted on retroactively you made the case against your own argument.

    It amazes me that both your office and Mr. Murphy are so arrogant that you think you can BS and mislead the court and have the audacity to lecture the court and its rights and powers. Despite all you propaganda BS Bermans powers are not limited to the manning ratio and are not curtailed as your obvious cohort Mr Murphy claims. Judge Bermans courts powers have been expanded by his relationship to the NYCDCC under the consent decree. Bermans court is not a federal District Court convened to hear evidence and arguments from a plaintiff and a defendant and then issue a ruling. Judge Bermans court has jurisdiction and oversight powers over the entire NYCDCC operations and has a duty and power to see the Council is free of corruption and run as democratic organization. His court will maintain jurisdiction and oversight to make sure the terms of the agreement are executed and will maintain that jurisdiction and oversight until such time as the NYCDCC is deemed free of corruption and is a democratic Union. As such neither you or Mr Murphy will decide what the courts powers and rights are. What is truly absurd is that Mr. Walsh thinks his office has extended powers while claiming Judge Bermasn are restricted. He has lost sight of the FACT that his office is a bitch to Bermans court and NOT the other way around.



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.