Sunday, December 15, 2013

Judge Berman sets status conference for new EST election

We write in accordance with your endorsement of December 11, 2013 on our December 10, 2013 response to the most recent letter of Patrick Nee regarding the Special Election for Executive Secretary-Treasurer ("EST") of the District Council. We set forth below the timeline of the Special Election, pertinent intervening litigation and re-set Special Election,as well as facts and circumstances regarding Mr.Nee not being approved to run for EST,in an effort to fully satisfy the Court's endorsement.

6 comments:

  1. DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Nee, Patrick Nee, please report to the principals office.

    Interesting, particulary given the United Brotherhood of Carpenters longstanding practice (its past practice in use to this day in every District Council & Local Union) of allowing self dealing via stipend (payment) to Local Union Officers and District Council employees for minor issues relating directly to their official duties. Examples of such past/current practices would encompass Organizational matters, Political Campaigns/Election, Volunteer Organizing Committees, sign building for those running in elections (endorsed candidates), attending meetings at the Local Union or D.C. level including meetings of duly appointed sub-committees and said policies would also include moving a Local Union's office furniture.

    Members of Local Unions elect their rep's to take care of the day to day business, including the petty things such as office moves and no one gives it a second thought. If more help was needed, typical UBCJA, D.C. & Local Union past/current practice would allow the officers to, get this, use a telephone (even their own cell phone, w/o a court conference or order) to request additional help. Typically, via their discretion as officers, said request could be for volunteers, or if the need so arose, it could be for paid volunteers (typically calls would go out to those out of work who regularly engage/attend union meetings & other matters on its behalf). Were the request for paid volunteers, said matter is governed/addressed and voted upon per the so called UBCJA Constitution at the next regularly scheduled Local Union Meeting or D.C. meeting.

    Mr Nee violated nothing via the handling of the office move, less the RO & Courts perception of the the way the UBCJA has always been ran and operated since 1881.

    There was no perceived or pendng direct or indirect threat to the power or authority of the court, the review officer or the consent decree with respect to anything involving racketeering or restoring democracy.

    Amazing because while the USAO, RO & Court are worked to a frenzy over a half day of work for a handful of men under a completely legal procedure utilized for 132 years in the UBCJA, the S.S. 395 Hudson (the D.C. & Benefit Funds) are blowing millions of dollars to vendors, their subconsultants and other alleged experts on one failed contract or P.O. or another with zero accountability.

    The racketeering has occurred here as has the choke-hold on restoring member democracy by the pervasive and continual denial to members of 'standing' before the court. Who is kidding who here?

    ReplyDelete
  3. CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC, U.S. Supreme Court, decided 1-21-10 at:

    2. Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b's restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203's extension of §441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20-51.

    (a) Although the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," §441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy--it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people--political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464.

    This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20-25.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Citizens United v. FEC excerpt:

    "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy--it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people--political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464."

    The Consent Decree disfavors members in good standing by both design, inadvertance and fails the strict scrutiny test by denying members their free speech political rights by disfavoring certain speakers, by subsuming the very democracy it presumes to restore and to give back to the members by the denial of standing and by the abuse of the veto power within the decree & stipulation & order which purport to restore it, yet at every turn deny it forthright.

    The irony in the Decree is that the Government admittedly recognizes the fact that democracy was unduly with-held or stole from the members, yet, in its inherent wisdom, both the Government, the Court, the Court appointed Review Officer and the United States Attorney after having got in bed with the corrupt actors at the UBC International and a corrupt former federal judge as its chief legal counsel refuse to give democracy back to the very people they claim, allege & feign they are protecting and as history has shown over the near 20-years, they jointly conspire to never return it and always control it to their benefit and end.

    When a disfavored speaker such as Nee arises and dare run and win elected office and dare speak against their view of democracy - well, then Nee became a clear and present danger to the continued pilfering of D.C. monies; then Nee had to go. The firing/removal of Nee was pre-textual and pre-planned as he being a disfavored speaker threatened all those feeding at the trough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They didn't let pat née run because he is a incompetent CLOWN...

    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.