Sunday, July 27, 2014

Judge Berman seeks submmision in Nee Messinetti matter

In light of the July 23, 2014 Summary Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacating this Court's October 23, 2012 Order (while expressing "no opinion regarding the propriety of the RO's action"), the Court hereby requests (simultaneous) briefing from the parties (including Mssrs. Nee and Messinetti, the Review Officer, and the Government) on the following issues:

(I) Whether, as a matter ofjurisdiction, the issues raised by the applications ofMssrs. Nee and Messinetti, dated July 23, 2012 and July 24, 2012, respectively, remain ripe for consideration, given the events and passage of time between the Court's October 23,2012 Order and the Court of Appeals' July 23,2014 Summary Order; and

(2) Whether the Review Officer's June 26,2012 "Notice of Veto" was within the Review Officer's authority under the June 2010 Stipulation and Order, and citing to appropriate background, context, and authority which may help to resolve any "ambiguity" perceived by the Second Circuit.

The parties' respective submissions should be no longer than twenty pages, double- spaced and should be served and filed on or before August 25, 2014.

2 comments:

  1. As was mentioned they will be acting quickly to change the wording and justify their actions. One would hope Mr. Nee et all will have a submission ready for Berman on Monday morning insisting on an extension until at least September 25,2014 . Since the other parties listed have a complete legal team and Nee et all do not then the 30 day August 25th date is unfair to Mr Nee et all who must be afforded the same considerations as all parties One would hope Mr Nee has a submission for Bermans court and the 2nd circuit court advising Berman that the 2nd circuit has ORDERED his court to reconsider this case and to vacate his decision. Therefore Bermans court has no right to ask anybody to respond to whether Mr Nee et al issues are "ripe for consideration" and that number 1 of Bermans order be struck. Mr Nee et al cannot be made a victim of the time it takes for the 2nd Circuit to process and decide a case. The 2nd circuit should be advised of this attempt to not comply with its direction.
    In regards to part 2 of Bermans order one would think that Judge Berman needs to be reminded that the 2nd circuit did not perceive an ambiguity it RULED the wording ambiguous and declared Walsh and Berman have NOT proven the Stipulation and order allows Walsh to veto anybody. One would think Nee et al would object to Berman asking for submissions from ONLY Walsh and the Government.It is clear by Waksh and the Governments many their letters affirming Walshs right to veto under 5b which the 2nd circuit has now ruled null and void that their submission would be biased, partial and a waste of time. How many more submissions does Berman need repeating the same "ambiguous" story..The 2nd circuit has ordered Berman to determine the original intention of the stipulation and order and those that created it. Where is the request for submissions from any other parties. Where is the attempt by Berman of a fair and unbiased review of any extrinsic evidence to be considered

    “to ascertain the parties’ intent, including the circumstances
    surrounding the formation of the decree. Where is the attempt at determining differences between “disciplinary actions”. Originally it was reported “The facts and circumstances under review by the RO DOES NOT involve organized crime associations, violations of the District Council’s Job Referral Rules, giving false answer to questions posed by the RO or lavish and/or improper spending of union members money.”
    The suspected violation under review involves violations of procedure to Paragraph 5.b of the stipulation and order to wit: President Nee "knowingly and willfully failed to provide notice" to the RO.
    Now they are claiming Nee et all were removed for “racketeering and corruption” which is the ONLY way Walsh can now justify his veto of ANY seated officer past present and in the future and by the new forthcoming council shil. Now not informing the RO of $486 is racketeering and corruption. So by this order is Berman saying the Government and Walsh will decide?? Under Macey v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 674 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2010)(as listed by the 2nd circuit)
    “For these reasons(ambiguous), we remand this case to the district court to undertake any additional fact finding and to interpret the Policy provisions in light of the facts to be found.”

    “The district court to undertake any additional fact finding and to interpret the provisions in light of the facts to be found”.
    How exactly does Berman intend to comply with this by asking for submissions from Walsh and the Government when it appears to be clear by their previous actions they could care less what is submitted by Nee et all or anybody else.


    ReplyDelete
  2. One more observation.At a court appearance Berman wanted to know what Murphy and his legal team did at meetings. After all the Blah Blah Blah Berman rather clearly implied Lawyer Murphy and his legal team were legally liable "on the Hook" for any acts by the District Council Officers. He discussed their legal liability to speak out against and stop any illegal actions by the council officers. So on that Premise I have to wonder. Is not Berman legally liable for the actions of Walsh as the "arm" or "officer" of his court. What is the liability of a Judge such as Berman or his court have for the actions of his monitor/babysitter in a consent decree..Just curious..

    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.