Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Response to Judge Berman relating to Veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157

We write in response to the Court's Order dated July 25, 2014, issued following the Second Circuit's Summary Order dated July 23,2014 in this matter. The Circuit vacated the Court's decision of October 23, 2012 upholding the Review Officer's veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

We write specifically to address the issues identified by the Court in its July 25 Order, i.e., whether the issues raised by Messrs. Nee and Messinetti in their July 2012 applications"remain ripe for consideration"and whether the RO's June 26, 2012 Notice of Veto was within his authority under the June 2010 Stipulation and Order, with citation to "appropriate background, context, and authority which may help to resolve any 'ambiguity' perceived by the Second Circuit."





12 comments:

  1. Mint-Levin, part A - Mootness

    "Messrs' Nee & Messenetti made their application to the District Court; and the fact that they were vetoed did not prohibit them from running"...citing Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486 (1969) for the U.S. Constitution 'Cases & Controversies' requirement..."Simply stated, a case is moot when the issue presented is no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizeable interest in the outcome".

    Wrong on both counts counselor!

    Nee and Messenetti were both prevented from running for their former positions and as such, both have had & continue to have a 'legally cognizeable interest in the outcome". The issues presented remain ripe for several patently obvious reason which the U.S. DOJ/USAO, the R.O. and his counsel; here, Mintz-Levin conveninetly chose to ignore

    ReplyDelete
  2. B. 2. The Veto Authority under the Stipulation and Order

    "The Review Officer, of course, is not a party to the Stipulation and Order. However, as the court-appointed officer exercising the authority provided by the Stipulation and Order since its inception, he is fully familiar with its terms; believes he understands the parties intent with respect to those terms based on his interactions with them and their reaction (or lack thereof) to his exercise of the veto authority in particular; and strives to serve in faithful conformity to the letter and spirit of the Stipulation and Order.

    No shit - huh?

    Compare; a NYC Policeman sees you do a rolling stop but not fully engage the brakes or come to a complete stop while you're simultaneously hitting the gas & speeding to the next intersection. Said NYC Police Officer pulls you over; and you cop (pun intended) the same lame argument as used by Mintz-Levin above; stating:

    'But Officer, I understand your authority under the DMV & Local Traffic laws and am fully familiar with their terms and the intent of lawmakers in drafting & implementing the regulations mandated that all drivers come to a complete stop and fully believe ( as an attorney) that I strive to serve in faithful conformity to the spirit and letter of the traffic law(s); and thus have not violated same'....

    Well guess what Counselor - the NYC Policeman is going to tell you too damn bad, that he too comprehends what a full & complete stop means and that he is writing your this $250 dollar ticket as he believes it is infaithful conformity to his duties as a NYC Policeman and that he is complying with the spirit & intent of the Trafffic Regulations, Laws & Local NYC ordinances relating to same.....

    Case closed, you lose this one Bridgett

    ReplyDelete
  3. B.2. The Four Cprners of the Stipulation and Order

    @ pg. 5 - "As specified by par. 5.b, the Review Officer may review or veto "persons currently holding office or employment" when he determines there has been:

    1) an act of racketeering,
    2) association with a barred person,
    3) violation of law or Court order in the case,
    4) breach of fiduciary duty,
    5) , or conduct inconsistent with the Stipulation and Order"

    * numbers added for clarity

    The items listed and noted above by the Review Officers legal counsel Bridgette Rhode were not charged, briefed or ruled upon by the Federal District Court and Judge Berman and are merely conclusory statements couched as fact and are thus both arbitrary and capricious. It akin to me stating that Walsh has a great head of hair when he is in fact essentially bald.

    Rhodes statements of so called fact here were, are and remain conclusory and false allegations yet charged or properly tried before any tribunal within or outside the UBCJA thus denying Nee & Messnetti their Due Process rights as afforded and guaranteed by the UBC Constitution and the LMRA & LMRDA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. B.2. The Four Corners of the Stipulation and Order

    @ pg. 5

    "Apart from the plain language of par. 5.b, it is important to note that the Review and Oversight Authority set forth therein is structurally and conceptually distinct from the Disciplinary Authority set forth in par. 5.f"....

    @ pg. 6

    ..."the District Council was required to submit to the Review Officer for approval proposed procedures to discipline Officers, Employees, Agents, Representatives and Members of the District Council for misconduct including:

    1) Violations of Federal, State or Local law(s),
    2) Union Rules, By-Laws or Constitutional provisions;
    3) The Consent Decree or other Court Order;
    4) or any action furthering or threatening to further the influence of Organized Crime."

    * Numbers added for clarity

    Mintz-Levins's Bridgette Rhode failed to detail or brief any violation of the aforementioned items charged as noted by items 1-4 directly above by Patrick Nee or by Levi Messenetti nor were any violations brought before Mack or Zazalli before the Review Officer unilaterally vetoed their employment by the Council.

    Mintz-Levin's Bridgette Rhode also failed to brief how the charges couched as fact by items 1-4 above were tried under the District Councils new Disciplinary Authority which the Review Officer alone exercised unilaterally after the discharge of Mack & Zazalli or did she detail or brief how in lieu of the R.O's failure to follow his own Disciplinary procedures which he demanded the District Council submit to him were in fact tried by the District Council's alleged Inspector General's Office under its alleged leader Scott Danielson; thus denying both Nee & Messnetti's Due Process rights under the UBCJA Constitution, the NLRA & LMRDA via autocratic fiat and unilateral incompetence across the board.

    Rhodes argument wherein she attempt to divert the Court's attention away from the unilateral incompetence of the R.O., the D.C. and its legal counsel and the Inspector Generals Office and their apparent joint conspiracy to remove Local Union Officers Nee & Messenetti; (both of whom were duly elected to Local Union positions) in violation of the UBCJA Constitution, the NLRA & LMRDA falls short because her comparison of The Review & Oversight function as being "structurally and conceptually distinct" from the Disciplinary Authority is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to divert the courts attention away from the fact that she has cited not one case at any level (Board, Appellate or U.S. Sp. Ct.) to support her theory or conclusory statements couched as fact.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mintz-Levin @ pg. 7 "It was also his understanding that the Government sought to provide expanded authority to the Court-appointed officer (the Review Officer), including the ability to veto District Council Officers and employees, in order to eliminate ongoing corruption."

    Neither Nee nor Messenetti were District Council Officers; rather, both were Local Union Officers, duly elected by the rank & file under the NLRA, LMRA & LMRDA. Expanded authority of the Review Officer's position comes with the concomitmant legal requirement to follow his oath & obligation as a member of the bar and as a Court Officer, notwithstanding following landmark and precedent setting United States of America labor law as enumerated via many United States Supreme Court decisions.

    The United States Department of Justice and its U.S. Attorneys Office as well as the Court appointed Review Officer in the instant matter of Nee & Messnetti have been making it up as they go and have done so in a joint conspiracy to silence dissident voices such as Nee & Messenetti's, whether verbal or written who have disagreed with the Review Officer's policies or implementation of policies to which they disagree.

    The R.O. here is not afforded carte blanche Unilateral Authority to trample rank & file members intra-union & ultra Union Constituional rights via a private agreement, a contract better known as the Consent Decree executed by & between the District Council and the Government but not by its constituent Local Unions or its members ("Members of" verses "Members affiliated with") on a whim or a lark under the 'because I said so doctrine' which parents use with small children; rather, the Review Officer must follow the law inclusive of not claiming that he & he alone is all powerful or that he has the unilateral right to ignore stare decisis and void ab initio years of precedent decisions & orders or the NLRB, the Appellate Courts or the United States Supreme Court - yet, that is exactly what has occurred here.

    Nee & Messnetti were well within their authority to utilize workers for an office move as they chose as elected Local Union officials and to pay them each a stipend for their labor as required by N.Y. state law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The controlling case here as relevant to Nee & Messnetti's Court of Appeals submission is 488 U.S. 347 (1989) Sheetmetal Workers v. Lynn.

    Given the clearly plain ruling therein as per the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court, it is quite apparent that the RO's legal counsel Bridgette Rhode of Mintz-Levin, the Review Officer Dennis Walsh and the United States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney Preet Bhararra and his legal team of Tara LaMorte & Benjamin Torrance need to go back to law school for Labor Law 101 and for a class in Ethics and legal responsibility to their sworn oath's.

    Ignoring a precedent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court standing since 1989, or for 25-years and yet over-turned via stare-decisis by the Supreme Court itself does not lessen the impact, ripeness or legally cognizeable case or controversey presented by Nee & Messnetti nor does it lessen the abuse of process by the aforementioned parties who are ignorant of relevant case law or who feign ignorance of known caselaw and landmark decisions & orders of the United States Supreme Court.

    Other than the fact that the real conspiracy consist of a long term pattern of criminal racketeering activity by & between the government and its actors, the UBCJA International and its actors, agents and legal counsel and those appointed by the court to monitor said affairs - the only crime herein as related to Nee & Messenetti is the arrogance of the court appointed R.O., his legal counsel and the U.S. DOJ and its attorney's.

    The only true criminal activity ongoing via a pattern consistent with intra-state and intra-state mail & wire fraud and illegal conversion of assets and tangible & intangible property and Hobbs Act extortion of same inclusive of members rights has occurred in said offices; albeit chiefly by the denial of standing by the corrupt actors noted herein.

    Anyone exposing the corrupt affairs is denied standing in Berman's alleged court room, again via joint conspiracy and illegal back-room or in chambers self dealing and everyone knows it; and the history of the case amply demonstrates same.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Correction to above post, 5th par.

    "intra-state and inter-state mail and wire fraud and illegal conversion of assets and tangible and intangible property and Hobbs Act extrotion of same...."

    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.