Wednesday, October 1, 2014

September 30, 2014 Status Hearing Transcript and Court Order

A Status Hearing for the District Council of Carpenters was held on September 30, 2014 at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York, 10007. Please see the below document for the transcript of the proceedings and court order.


7 comments:

  1. The R.O. non-reviewable Veto Power vs. the IM's role as scribe forcing the Court to run the Union's (the District Councils) affairs.

    THE COURT:
    All I'm suggesting, that we call it a veto
    18 because it has a process, a function, and hopefully is never
    19 used, instead of trying -- which is what we're trying to do --
    20 to sort of twist around, come up with other mechanisms. I read
    21 it pretty carefully. The action is taken by a court, it is not
    22 take by the union. It strikes me that it should be taken by
    23 the union, whether it is the IM
    or the RO or the executive
    24 committee. The Court, in my opinion, should be in the business
    25 of reviewing something that the union has done, not directing

    SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300
    27 E9U4USAC

    1 what the union should do. Either way of those alternatives,
    2 any of these alternatives don't accomplish that. That's where
    3 I am. I am saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is
    4 a process. Don't use it. I would only be too happy if the IM
    5 never uses it, if he doesn't have any occasion to use it.
    6 Then, it's not hanging over anybody's head, but all these other
    7 measures are trying to make a duck, if you know what I mean,
    8 and that's the way it is coming out. To me, anyway. I don't
    9 need to beat the dead horse.
    10 There is one other concern that I have, which I don't
    11 understand. It is, again, in the category of, if it ain't
    12 broke, don't fix it. So now you -- as nobody knows better than
    13 you -- you have the authority to not qualify someone who is
    14 running for office. Right? They have to go to you. You
    15 screen them and you determine. And there's broad authority and
    16 broad language that gives you the ability, non-reviewable duty
    17 to do that. In the proposal, there's a list of three or four
    18 things now that are I guess sort of automatic. I don't
    19 understand, honestly, why we need those things, either, added.
    20 Again, because, the way it was happening before, it didn't seem
    21 to pose any problem to me. I don't know why we would pick out
    22 those four versus four other things. The more you add language
    23 to the statute, the more interpretation and complexity, and I
    24 just don't understand that change. Those are the two concerns
    25 that I have, the veto process and the disqualification -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The more you add language
    23 to the statute, the more interpretation and complexity, and I
    24 just don't understand that change"

    Direct quote of Judge Berman's comprehension of the Consent Decree & 2010 Stipulation and Order relative to the Veto Power of the Review Officer.

    The salient point here Ms. Jones is that we have a sitting Federal District Court Judge who equates the Consent Decree; a private contract with the UBCJA International and the NYC District Council and the Government with a statute (law) passed by the united States Congress and signed into law by the President, as per our Federal Constitutional requirements.

    Are you paying attention Ms. Jones?

    The Consent Decree is not a 'statute' nor does have it have the same legal effect but for the wholly inept performance of the U.S. Dept. of Justice United States Attorneys Office and its inept attorney; here Torrance who admittedly has no experience in labor law.

    What you have here is a confused Judge who does not comprehend his role or how to apply a private contracts terms to the District Council vs. application of statute; and, a U.S. Attorney without a clue as to the very basics of labor law 101.

    The only way out of this 24+ year abortion of a Consent Decree wherein member assets and collective rights have been continually raped by the UBCJA International via their ongoing racketeering scheme is a petition to the Court to first end the Consent Decree and then a secondary petition to the U.S. D.O.J. to bring in competent personnel at the SDNY branch and to prefer criminal racketeering charges against the UBCJA International General President and its Officers - all of them.

    No time like the present Ms. Jones. The time to act is now; unless of course you intend to preside over another quarter century of a failed Consent Decree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. my heart a little funny, I thought if ever barbour international sale so nice barbour jacket sale together with cheap ah. But do not know this guy liked myself, why are only barbour jacket barbour jacket sale like a barbour sale womens gentleman, but just not his satyr-like manifested. Quiet for a while, cheap shy finally receded, see cheap sat still, sale interested in their chest, you do that I'm not beautiful. barbour sale outlet Is it really let himself turn to chase him not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your blog has always been a good source for me to get quality tips on blogging. Thanks once again.

    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.