tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post2947768835266662451..comments2024-03-28T03:17:03.641-04:00Comments on Local 157 blogspot: Free Speech Under AttackJohn Musumecihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04779087011271278329noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-57383248782269891442013-01-21T03:09:45.718-05:002013-01-21T03:09:45.718-05:00This is an email sent by Greg,cc to the Review Off...This is an email sent by Greg,cc to the Review Officer.<br /><br />John: If the DC spent as much effort preparing for your case as they did preparing for the MWA arbitration we wouldn't be in the position we are in and possibly on the hook for 56 million plus. <br /><br />They claim you divulged their strategy? Hiring attorneys to mitigate the damages is a strategy? Any organization not being led by total morons would do the same, that's not a strategy, that is common sense.<br /><br />The question is , why wasn't it done sooner? These morons almost let the clock run out before they took action. The strategy would be, how do these attorneys plan to represent the DC to pay the least possible award to the plaintiff? That is a strategy which we know nothing about. <br /><br />Now if you had divulged that information (which you did not ) then you may have divulged the DC's strategy, which you did not.<br /><br />They can't admit when they are wrong. They just don't get it. They would rather spend valuable resources fighting you than doing the job they are being paid to do. Who is paying for these lawyers? If the DC is, was it approved by the delegate body? Were there 5 RFP's sent out? Was there a 5bi sent to DW's office? <br /><br />This is the effort we need from them in negotiating these contracts not fighting our own delegates. You are right, Lebo was attacking you from the dais, right from the beginning of his tenure with his constant interruptions and attempts to discredit you every time you got up to speak. <br /><br />God help us all, <br />Greg Kelty<br />Delegate to District CouncilJohn Musumecihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04779087011271278329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-44888685247736001602013-01-20T09:44:29.126-05:002013-01-20T09:44:29.126-05:00 The last paragraph in the relief seccion is wrong... The last paragraph in the relief seccion is wrong. There are payed District Council employees on the trail committee, this creates a GREAT conflict of intrest in this readers eyes Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-59925351801255423632013-01-20T06:04:59.048-05:002013-01-20T06:04:59.048-05:00None a more fitting or telling a description as to...None a more fitting or telling a description as to the failure of Torrance & Walsh, NONE! Especailly this part>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br /><br /><br />The only thing going on here is the DC's manifest incompetence in addressing an ongoing racketeering activity which crossed state lines via the wire, mail etc. and the Fed's failure to indict the appropriate actors, agents & principals who orchestrated this shakedown scheme.<br /><br />The fact that it happened under the UBC International Trusteeship, directly under the nose of the prior IRO, U.S.A.O. & the Court should cause great concern as to why McCarron & crew have yet to be indicted & charged in the extortion scam given their direct control over every aspect of D.C. affairs at that time, which by direct implication include review & approval of all contract langauge by it and its legal counsel. The only question here, relevant to the MWA deal is who is greasing who & for how much<br /><br />ReplyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-36161269185481332252013-01-20T00:11:12.525-05:002013-01-20T00:11:12.525-05:00Per the above base precepts, given that the NYCDCC...Per the above base precepts, given that the NYCDCC's pattern of racketeering have gone on, generally unabated in the overall scheme of the Consent Decree, but generally tamed somewhat under Walsh's tenure; and, that it continues to remain in the public eye or public arena, the NYCDCC cannot hide behind the UBC Constitution or it's phony obligation given its having been declared unconstitutional by the the NLRB.<br /><br />The pattern of racketeering continues to this day and the Fed's could easily convene a grand jury against Sheil, Thomassen, Spencer & McCarron for executing a contract in direct contravention to the Consent Decree, thereby continuing the pattern of racketeering, fraud & extortion and the de-frauding of the Benefit Trust Funds which saw Forde, Greaney, Oliveri & others early morning wake up call, perp walk, arrest, arraignment, trial, convictions & sentencing and that all of this information is continually in the public domain, w/o cessation for 23+ years, there is no privacy claim or any cause of action whatsoever.<br /><br />The only thing going on here is the DC's manifest incompetence in addressing an ongoing racketeering activity which crossed state lines via the wire, mail etc. and the Fed's failure to indict the appropriate actors, agents & principals who orchestrated this shakedown scheme.<br /><br />The fact that it happened under the UBC International Trusteeship, directly under the nose of the prior IRO, U.S.A.O. & the Court should cause great concern as to why McCarron & crew have yet to be indicted & charged in the extortion scam given their direct control over every aspect of D.C. affairs at that time, which by direct implication include review & approval of all contract langauge by it and its legal counsel. The only question here, relevant to the MWA deal is who is greasing who & for how muchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-14309930024172192422013-01-19T23:32:31.559-05:002013-01-19T23:32:31.559-05:00In Bartnicki v. Vopper, aka Williams, the U.S. Sup...In Bartnicki v. Vopper, aka Williams, the U.S. Sup. Ct. stated:<br /><br />In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance. As Warren and Brandeis stated in their classic law review article: "The right of privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest." The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193, 214 (1890). One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy.<br /> <br /><br />"Exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and of press. `Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.' " Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S., at 388 (quoting Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 102 (1940)).21 <br /> <br /><br /><br /> Our opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), reviewed many of the decisions that settled the "general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment." Id., at 269; see Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 484 (1957); Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 270 (1941); Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931). Those cases all relied on our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open," New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270; see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365 (1937); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375-376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Roth, 354 U. S., at 484; Stromberg, 283 U. S., at 369; Bridges, 314 U. S., at 270. It was the overriding importance of that commitment that supported our holding that neither factual error nor defamatory content, nor a combination of the two, sufficed to remove the First Amendment shield from criticism of official conduct. Id., at 273; see also NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 445 (1963); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375 (1962); Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 342, 343, n. 5, 345 (1946); Bridges, 314 U. S., at 270.<br /> <br /><br /><br /> We think it clear that parallel reasoning requires the conclusion that a stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.22 The months of negotiations over the proper level of compensation for teachers at the Wyoming Valley West High School were unquestionably a matter of public concern, and respondents were clearly engaged in debate about that concern. That debate may be more mundane than the Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandeis' classic opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S., at 372, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection.<br /> <br /><br /><br /> The judgment is affirmed. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-48083559283173293252013-01-19T19:30:41.473-05:002013-01-19T19:30:41.473-05:00Fuckin' John Musumeci-- one of the delegates w...Fuckin' John Musumeci-- one of the delegates who actually takes democracy seriously, and cares enough to get the word out to the membership-- no good deed goes unpunished. If anything, they're retaliating against you for doing the job they fail to do. Time to step up and support the source of info for rank-and-file Carpenter. We know the Council website isn't. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-78847898566276573202013-01-19T18:22:11.855-05:002013-01-19T18:22:11.855-05:00John; Didn't the electronic "emergency&q...John; Didn't the electronic "emergency" Delegate vote controversy, outright refusal to include any considerstion of debate, play a factor in the subsequent need to inform the membership about anything re: MWA. Then there was that apparant authority question you posed to the dais, man they hated that. Wasn't it the "secrecy" @ 395 which begun that journey. Perhaps the Bilello admin further waved their imperial arms when they saw you @ the delegate meeting & said - OUT! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-90754820132552410702013-01-19T16:08:19.525-05:002013-01-19T16:08:19.525-05:00Does anybody know whats going on with the mwa arbi...Does anybody know whats going on with the mwa arbitration. Was it today nobody knows anything. Nobody has any answers who ever you ask.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-55003034189845932442013-01-19T12:21:24.444-05:002013-01-19T12:21:24.444-05:00Bilello, akin to what he did with Franco on the 16...Bilello, akin to what he did with Franco on the 16th at the R.O. forum now wants John to come & kiss the ring because he cannot adapt or accept a world where the pace of technology exceeds his mental capacity to embrace it; and, make good use of it. It is a tool no different than a hammer or skil-saw. In a world of technology, Bilello is an admitted dinosaur.<br /><br />John has embraced this tool called the internet and used it to educate & inform those that would otherwise be intentionally left in the dark. <br />Left to EST Bilello, his preference would be the world of tree killing and letter writing so he & others could round file member concerns and label those that don't drink the proverbial Kool-Aid deranged commie's, loners & dissidents. (McCarrons favortie line).<br /><br />NEWS-FLASH:<br />The internet, blackberry's, i-phones, twitter etc are instantaneous. John waited two days prior to publication of his story. In this day & age it was ancient news! <br /><br />Moreover, the D.C. did not pursue charges against any other delegate. Quite assuredly, their phone & internet records would show others who would be similarly charged were an adequate investigation performed. Instead, the D.C. and Lebo & Bilello had an axe to grind with John and in a retaliatory move on their part singled him out for destruction. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-26494586802553056302013-01-19T06:26:47.409-05:002013-01-19T06:26:47.409-05:00The Bilello administration is the most totalitaria...The Bilello administration is the most totalitarian and secretive administration in the history of the UBC. They have targeted me since day one of being sworn in and they will be coming after you next. <br /><br />Consider the following regarding Murphy's response:<br /><br />The District Council cannot show they suffered any harm as a result of the article posted. <br /><br />The District Council cannot show that I disclosed "its litigation and grievance strategies."<br /><br />The District Council cannot show that they provided the information that, “[t]he attorneys will ‘dispute the arbitrators [sic] decision’ and present questions which will involve the calculation of the ‘damages’ . . . .”<br /><br />The District Council's reasoning that "the email was sent to this select group for action (as opposed to distributed in a public forum) indicates that the information contained therein was private," is absolutely ridiculous and flawed. <br /><br />This was not private information, Between May 13, and July 18, I had several different sources contact me, and I made several calls to different sources seeking information on the MWA Arbitration. All my sources among other things, discussed the retention of the three attorneys in question, and all had and knew all the details of the July 16, email sent by Yariela Carvaljal. <br /><br />Also, What is remotely confidential about the simple selection of a law firm for an arbitration matter, given most likely that every other delegate informed members of exactly the same information and, given that Union Delegates, duly elected are required to keep the District Council's disenfranchised Local Union members (or rank & file) informed.<br /><br />Is that not the essential purpose of Delegates, to inform members of the goings on at the District Council, given they refuse to do so via letter, postcard, mailing, pony express or updating of their website (an admitted failure of Bilello as recently as the 1-16-13 RO Town Hall).<br /><br />Nothing and absolutely nothing about the article in question (which is predicated on media sources & intel) involves confidentiality.<br /><br />Nothing in the article is proprietary, a trade secret, a patent, a process etc. warranting the blanket confidentiality the District Council seeks.<br /><br />To date I have posted 28 articles involving the MWA (not including the numerous comments from members in the forum) and the District Council has not written one word or has informed the membership of the MWA Arbitration Crisis, which I have as a "Hot Topic" on this blog.<br /><br />The District Council is a total disgrace!John Musumecihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04779087011271278329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3359799014847114554.post-64942256064487170342013-01-19T05:26:46.883-05:002013-01-19T05:26:46.883-05:00DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com