Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Nee and Messinetti Win on Appeal

VACATE the district court’s October 23, 2012 order and REMAND the matter for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. 

 

On June 26, 2012 Review Officer, (RO) Dennis Walsh vetoed Local 157 President Patrick Nee as president and delegate; Peter Corrigan as financial secretary and delegate; Levy Messinetti as recording secretary and delegate; Gauntlett Holness as trustee.

Nee, Messinetti and Holmes filed pro se letters in July 2012 to Judge Berman seeking review of the Notice of Veto.

On October 23, 2012, Judge Berman issued his decision and order: "the court finds that the RO's determinations with respect to Nee, Messinetti and Holmes was supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly the application for review are denied."

Nee and Messinetti appealed Judge Berman's decision to the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, argueing that the RO’s veto authority is limited to “actions” under 5(b)(iii).

The Second Circuit said that the language in the Stipulation and Order was "ambiguous" as to whether the authority applied to the veto of an elected official and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine the intentions of the District Council and the government in this regard.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Appellants Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti, proceeding pro se, appeal from the October 23, 2012 order of the district court denying their petitions for review of a “Notice of Veto,” issued by court-appointed Review Officer Dennis Walsh (“RO”), which removed them from their positions as elected officers in one of the local unions that comprise the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “District Council”).

5 comments:

  1. Well. Well. Well. Nice work on behalf of yourselves and the rank file.This proves that Walsh and Berman are NOT gods and those that have been victims of Bermans and Walshs rulings and actions should have been in the 2nd circuit as well. This proves to the rank and file that you can fight back and you can win.
    There is NOTHING ambiguous about the wording in in 5b. Walsh does not now and never has had the ability to veto an elected officer after the fact and knew it. The appeals court ruled "[f]ew persons are in a better position to understand the meaning of a consent decree than the district judge who oversaw and approved it. Judge Haight made it clear he was concerned with and had no intention of giving one individual that much power.
    Judge Berman was clear on this as well. In one of the court appearances he asked Walsh what the hell was the sense of having a trial system to if he could veto when ever he felt like it and where was the paper trail for his BS.This and common sense confirms Nee and Mess. position regarding "Stipulation 5(f). This provision, Appellant argue, provides the mechanism by which the RO should have effected their removal.
    The appeals court has ruled that "We thus disagree with the district court’s conclusion that the Stipulation “unquestionably” affords the RO the power to veto the tenure of elected local union officials" AND "Consent decrees (and their attendant stipulations) are to be construed “basically as contracts" Show me any place in the contract that it was agreed that Walsh and Berman, who were ONLY supposed to be enforcing the terms of that contract, were allowed to play gods and build a Union in NYC per their own delusional Interpretation of Unionism. Hey Walsh . Nobody gives a shit if YOU think Locals have outlived their usefulness. This was not a situation of a Judge and his hired hand making sure the UBC and its NYC Council followed the terms of the "contract
    Let us hope Pat Nee et all will now file with Bermans court a motion to vacate any veto Walsh made of an elected officer after the fact and Bermans approval. Let us hope Pat Nee et all files a motion for clarification of Judge Haights intentions and a change of venue out of Bermans court BEFORE they move to change the stipulation wording. Let us hope Pat Nee et all personally sues Walsh and Berman for conspiring to defraud the members. Let us hope Pat Nee et all files complaints with the appropriate State and Federal agencies against Berman and and Walsh for their abuse in the oversight of this "contract" The same charges "in my opinion" Jones is holding over their heads to neuter them. Not just for themselves but for the sale of all members.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ���� Vetoed Members Time to retain a Law Firm and correct the wrong that Dennis Walsh created.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Judge berman and Walsh are here for the facism and the easy money. Nicejob to Pat Nee and Levi Messenetti. The SDNY under Berman is a coupon printer for Billionaires and Millionaires as well as CORRUPT UNION OFFICIALS. Welcome to the SDNY Chamber of Commerce were regular people can fuck off and well heeled contractors can buy all the justice that they can pay BRIBES (Legal or otherwise). now representing the MOB and Doug McCarron and Paschal McGuiness welcome to the Law Firm of Conboy and Walsh representing powerful gangsters. Through their tenure presiding over the 20 plus year old consent decree they culled many bribes and looked the other way while mobsters and corrupt company owners fleeced the membership. How long till Dennis Walsh starts working for Doug McCarron privatley if he isnt already? Kaiser Soze

    ReplyDelete
  4. The following is my humble opinion. I do not represent and group or organization. I am just a deranged loner and commie

    Judge Haight made it clear he was concerned with and had no intention of giving one individual that much power... 5-2-2010 page 30-32....Lets see if Judge Haights "Bedsheets in Tehran" analogy now finally comes back to bite you in the ass..Or maybe the "If somebody doesnt kiss Walshs ass they get vetoed part. ..How about Haights concern with vesting the RO with non appealable final and binding powers . The intention of Judge Haight was clear and NOT ambiguous.

    Or maybe when the BS story told Judge Haight regarding US-v Mason Tenders and Judge Sweet allowing as Decarlo put it "trampling on Democracy" they can explain it wasn't exactly a lie your honor we just left out all the rest of the parts such as "adjudicated pursuant to a "just cause" standard. See Consent Decree ¶ 7(c)(1). Just cause for discipline is established when the Investigations Officer proves his charges by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lanza, 1997 WL 97836, at *3." And Berman, who upheld Walsh vetos strictly on the BS and now "ambiguous" wording in the Stipulation can explain his obligations/failure in reviewing decisions of the RO by applying the same standard applicable to review of final federal agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; See Consent Decree ¶ 4(g)(2)... After all it was Torrance who decided to BS with 94 Civ. 648...

    Perhaps if the appeals court had reviewed both the 5-20-2010 Judge Haight filing and 94 Civ. 648...US-v-Mason Tenders it might not have been able to be as accommodating in its attempt to let Walsh Berman and the rest off the hook when Haight is clear and so are the courts obligations under 94 Civ. 648.

    "Just cause" Screw that .One day its screw the new bylaws McInnis is the man and "I didnt oppose it because he agreed to a weekly meeting and to kiss my ass". The next day McInnis is vetoed and no good because as Judge Haight worried he did not kiss the RO ass. "Ingratiate himself to the RO"
    Go lawsuit ..Go Lawsuit... Go Lawsuit

    So at the 2nd circuit in regards to all the letters in support of the Walsh vetos. The 2nd circuit appeals court said: Walsh your full of s.. Bridget your full of s..t. Berman your full of shit... To add to that the last letter sent to Berman by the US Attorney .On US Attorney letterhead with Judge Jones,a paid shil for the councils, name on it front and center was answered by Berman with your all full of shit. This is not true . The circumstances you claim require me to immediately act are all BS..Ill see you in Septemberrrr..My. My .MY its a tangled web we weave

    ReplyDelete
  5. : Berman is already moving against Nee and et all. He Filed an order on Friday for an August 25 visit..Now Im not an attorney but I dont think the 2nd circuit gives a rats ass if Berman thinks Nee et al issues are still ripe.I am also sure Berman wont be deciding, based on his past actions, if the wording in the stip and order is ambiguous or not. The 2nd circuit has told Berman that Judge Haights original intentions will decide and not Bermans "because Dennis Walsh says so" standard

    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.