After considering all of the relevant evidence and the arguments advanced by Nee, Messinetti,and the RO,the Court concluded that RO Walsh's decision to remove Nee and Messinetti from their positions as delegates and officers of the Local 157 was not "arbitrary or capricious," did not exceed the authority granted to him under the 2010 Stipulation and Order, and was supported by substantial evidence.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Judge Berman OPINION & ORDER
14 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Footnote 4, pg. 5
ReplyDeleteParagraph 11 of the 2010 Stipulation and Order provides that, in reviewing a decision of RO, the Court will apply the same standard of review applicable to review of final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, (2010 Stipulation and Order ¶ 1.) Under this standard, the RO's conclusions of law will be upheld unless they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, 941 F. Supp. 349, 362 S.D.N.Y. 1996). The RO's findings of fact are entitled to affirmance on review if they are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and may be set aside only if they are 'unsupported by substantial evidence.' Id. 5
Ahh, that pesky little standard known as the 'substantial evidence test'.
First, the standards of review is not whether the "R.O.'s conclusions of law" were arbitrary or capricious under the A.P.A. for final agency action because the Court appointed Review Officer is not an agency of the Federal Government, nor was it authorized authorized by the United States Congress or law as such; rather, it was a private contract executed as a civil contract so former Officers of the D.C. could avoid criminal prosecution for their acts of racketeering.
Second, the R.O. is not a sitting judge at any level; thus, his conclusions of law in this and other matters via a private contract annointing him as judge, jury and executioner is far beyond that allowed by our tripartite system of government in the first instance.
Third, neither Nee, Messentti or Holness were charged with any act of racketeering which is the essence and core of both the 1994 Consent Decree (a private civil contract) and the 2010 Stipulation and Order.
Fourth, even considering; arguendo that the A.P.A. was the correct standard of review; under the "otherwise not in accordance with law" standard, said standard includes quite obviously settled law and precedent.
Both the Court and Review Officer as well as the D.C.'s legal counsel and the U.S. Department of Justice, S.D.N.Y. and its assistant United States Attorney ignored the only standard of review relevant to this matter - whether Nee as President of the largest Local Union within the NYCDCC had the requisite authority to appoint individuals and pay them what amounts to a minor stipend for labor performed in a simple office move demanded be made by Trustees of a separate legal entity.
Local 157 had a year to year lease agreement; not a 'month to month' arrangement, thus the funds violated the basic tenets of contract law 101 via an illegal eviction. Moreover, the funds were not party to the Consent Decree or the Stipulation and Order.
The controlling case relevant to Nee's actions is Sheet Metal Workers v. Lynn by the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the sudden urgency and demands of the funds to break Local 157's yearly lease arrangement and force a move over the weekend, Nee as President of Local 157 was well within his authority to appoint and name fellow union members loyal to him to move sensitive documents and papers of Local 157 to accomplish the task demanded by the fund trustees without having or holding any emergency session and/or conducting a vote to approve a minor stipend in advance of said move.
None of the actions undertaken by any of the officers named herein remotely qualify as continued actions of racketeering by any stretch of the imagination, any legal standard & most importantly by precedent case law at any level no matter how much the R.O. and/or U.S.A.O. have tried to spin such actions undertaken to the court. The disjointed logic presented in this case belies the law(s) rather than being supported by them.
Under Article III of the United States Constitution; cases & controversies - Judge Berman's disjointed logic and rationale is clear for all to see unless you are mentally challenged.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale applied was that Nee & Messnetti were not prevented from running for office by the R.O. because they later ran as delegates from Local Union 157.
Apples and oranges! Nee was removed as the Local Union 157 President first and foremost; and, it was an elected position not one made via appointment as was the case in Finnegan v. Leu decided by the U.S. Sup. Ct.
Nee & Meesnetti were deprived of the positions they should have held and continued to hold until the expiration of their elected terms of office but for the R.O.'s illegal application of law(s) purporting to support his false claims of continued acts of racketeering; albeit, ones never formally charged or proven by either the R.O. or the U.S.A.O. or the District Council or their legal counsel and accordingly the actions of the R.O. & U.S.A.O. must fail as a matter of law and by the prongs and precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sheet Metal Workers v. Lynn.
Past their individual rights, those members who voted for and elected Nee & Messenetti were also thus deprived of their vote to elect representatives for their choosing as required by NLRA Section 7 and as further articulated by the U.S. Sup. Court as noted above - thus the case remains live and open for further action and continued appeals by the defendants.
The simple fact of the matter is this - Dennis Walsh as the Court appointed Review Officer over-stepped his authority in this matter. The fact that prior defendants and/or the government or the D.C. failed to appeal his prior vetoes in other legal matters has absolutely no bearing on the rights of Nee, Messenetti or Holness or those voters denied their rights as noted above.
R.O. Walsh borrowed the Doug McCarron & his former mentor; ex Federal Judge Kenneth Conboy's play book for conducting witch hunts & Kangaroo Courts for dissidents with whom they may dislike or disagree with. Walsh and the government and the District Council offered not one scintilla of hard factual evidence of any act of racketeering by any of the parties vetoed by the R.O. Were that the case, then the standard shifts to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the criminal standard. Given the R.O. could not pass the substantial evidence test, quite obviously he could not surmount the criminal standard and all parties including Judge Berman damn know it.
The barroom lawyers not withstanding - What did you expect?
ReplyDeleteA fair trial???????????????
DeleteJudge Haight clearly did not want to give somebody who may later turn out to be a slime ball the power to veto a potential candidate and have that veto non reviewable. Why did Haight ask Torrance, Walsh and Decarlo if this Iran. The issue of Walsh vetoing a seated Officer was NEVER discussed with Judge Haight. Why..Because he specifically asked what would happen to a Local Union Officer who filed a grievance or was negatively effected by the Stipulation and Order and he was told they would be handled under 5F.The Intent of Haight is clear and proves Walsh and Torrance are liars and continue to lie. Walsh demands to be able to get rid of anybody who tells him no. On May 20 2010 Judge Haight asked (Page 25 6-14) . Court: “But how about nonparties, individuals whose interests are directly affected but are not parties of litigation represented by counsel this afternoon -- members of employment firms, contractor firms, individual union members ,local union officers, shop stewards? There is a considerable universe of people out there who are going to be affected one way or another, or potentially so, by actions which might be taken by the RO or the parties themselves under this stipulation.”
ReplyDeleteBerman had two choices in the Nee case. He could continue the “you lie and I will swear to it” game played by Walsh, Rhodes and Torrance or he could have honored his court and Nee and Messenti by finally putting an end to Walshs egotistical BS .As anticipated Berman continued this Perversion of Justice. Berman has turned the NY Southern District Court into joke. It is a slap in the face for any person seeking Justice. The arrogance and elitist attitude of Berman and Walsh are revealed in the lie Berman repeats over and over. “Nobody protested or challenged the vetoes”. That is a blatant lie unless your Berman who as an elitist prick insists that nobody counts or matters unless it is the US Attorney or the District Council. EVERYBODY protested the vetoes. Berman stated. “The Government or Council did not challenge the vetoes” because it appears in his elitist prick cranium they are all there is to consider. Berman invites members to write in advance and come be heard yet it is clear he could care less what they, who are the aggrieved parties, have to say. Some how in his delusional mind they are less in standing than a Torrance or a Walsh because they are after all just Carpenters
ReplyDelete"Berman invites members to write in advance and come be heard yet it is clear he could care less what they, who are the aggrieved parties, have to say. Some how in his delusional mind they are less in standing than a Torrance or a Walsh because they are after all just Carpenters."
DeleteBerman and Walsh have granted 'standing' to only one person, former EST Mike Bilello. All others have been summarily denied standing in the alleged Federal District Court of law.
The false claim relative to standing is that you are non-parties to the UBCJA International/District Council ,the Federal Government & the Courts private contract known as the Consent Decree & that you thus have no interest or say in the matter.
They are after all gods & demi-gods; just ask them and how the hell else would they get their hands on or control the $5 Billion dollars held by the Benefit Trust Funds.
Follow the money trail & see who is and has been feeding at the piggy trough. They're all getting a cut somewhere, through investment firms, the hiring of their buddy's law firms & on & on.
The Benefit Trust Funds and the Trustees & Fiduciaries in yet another side deal in the back room court chambers (with the thieves & the judge) exclude themselves from the Consent Decree or the Stipulation & Order; and yet those are the very people who are at the very center of every scam going with shady lawyers, contractors, D.C. Officers & the UBCJA International. This is where all the theft, fraud, graft, kick-backs & illegal conversion of assets occur (wink-wink).
Bilello was only given standing because he was doing what walsh told him to and because he was paying his dues to the walsh/berman/torrance club (he was paying a lawyer)
DeleteWhat have you received for the return on your investment (ROI) for 24-years in the criminal RICO Consent Decree other the the Federal Government's alleged Dept. of Justice & alleged Federal District Court colluding with the very gangsters they claim to be protecting you from while denying you standing in a court of law - nada; not a fucking thing other than a $200M + in additional costs/billings-A/P.
ReplyDeleteWhat has the $200M + got for you you from the Fed's & Court noted above?
Answer: A second Grade level coloring book w/ a bull sh-it name called Operation Watch Dog (better known as Operation Woofy-Woof) replete w/ 2nd Grade level phamplets & stickers wherein Dennis Walsh & that phony department called the Inspector Generals Office at the D.C. treat you like retarded children or wards of the state.
This is all Walsh & Murphy could come up with after they rammed through 100% Full Mobility with the other crooks (McCarron & Conboy); a knock-off of McGruff the Crime Dog.
But WTF, you idiots got sh-it to color when you appear in Court & Judge Berman pretends to give a fck. Besides, those stickers look real cool on your hardhat & the dopes love them.
Stickers & Pins, oh boy. Me likes stickers & pins.
Meanwhile, the money is being tricked out the back door (illegally converted via cheap accounting tricks and moved to offshore accounts). A Forensic Audit - no fcking way, not in Berman's alleged Court of Law.
As has been stated many times before; this scam they all have going is far better and far easier than running the numbers, whores & prostitutes out on the streets or pushing drugs in the school yards. It's easy fcking Money Ladies and these pricks have been stealing it for nearly a Quarter of a Century.
And Conboy, Quinn, Newman, Spencer, Bhararra, McCarron, Walsh & Berman say the mob are the bad guys? Talk about pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. Pull this sh-it with Mob money & you'll be doing the triple pike w/ 2-1/2 twists off the G.W. Bridge - so why are these a-ssholes allowed to get away with this scam for so long w/o any opposition?
Follow this with $15-Billion in illegal PLA contract kick-backs to the Contractor Associations and you have a made for TV Mini-Series
I wanna see the biographical movie of your life and all that pent up anxiety you posses.
ReplyDeleteInstead of talking FIN!!!!!!!!
its time for the guns ladies
DeleteSo if the Court appointed Review Officer Dennis Walsh:
ReplyDeleteA) Likes you, or see's an advantage in/through you as a patsy for the McCarron, Conboy, Quinn, Walsh & Shanley criminal racketeering enterprises they run parallel to the UBCJA - STANDING APPROVED!
B) Does not like you - STANDING DENIED
C) Conspires to violate your Section 7 rights & void the outcome of otherwise legal Election to a Local or D.C. Office via his illegal veto power - STANDING APPROVED
D) Finds that as a regular everyday working rank & file Carpenter you best him on any legal issue in a pro-se capacity or are not otherwise in agreement with the master plan for racketeering being run by the International - STANDING DENIED
_____________________________________
* All such issues as to 'standing' shall be rubber--stamped the Federal District Court by the hand of an appointed Judge, one Richard J. Berman.
All appointed Federal Judges & Court appointed Review Officers are guilty until proven innocent - ahh, shit - did it again (damn that McCarron brain-washing), I mean - Innocent until proven Guilty in a real court of law; or are they?
Your blog has always been a good source for me to get quality tips on blogging. Thanks once again.
ReplyDeleteHaloo pak^^
ReplyDeleteKami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawarkan pak^^
Untuk saat ini kami menerima Deposit Melalui Pulsa ya pak.
*untuk minimal deposit 10ribu
*untuk minimal Withdraw 25ribu
*untuk deposit pulsa kami menerima provider
-XL
-Telkomsel
untuk bonus yang kami miliki kami memiliki
*bonus cashback 0,5%
*bunus refferal 20%
*bonus gebiar bulanan (N-max,samsung Note 10+,Iphone xr 64G,camera go pro 7hero,Apple airpods 2 ,dan freechips)
Daftar Langsung Di:
SENTANAPOKER
Kontak Kami;
WA : +855 9647 76509
Line : SentanaPoker
Wechat : SentanaPokerLivechat Sentanapoker
Proses deposit dan withdraw tercepat bisa anda rasakan jika bermain di Sentanapoker. So… ? tunggu apa lagi ? Mari bergabung dengan kami. Pelayanan CS yang ramah dan Proffesional dan pastinya sangat aman juga bisa anda dapatkan di Sentanapoker.