McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

RichardDorrough
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ethics
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

STFU
STFU PUNK !!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
You are right, none of the questions I asked you are any of my business.

   I support your efforts at exposing fraud, theft, and corruption within the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and joiners union.

 Ethics
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Ethics
I can appreciate your respect for George Laufenberg and am not disparaging  on your " George is a serious man and we should pay heed when he talks" opinion but I could care less about Laufenberg. I will review all the documents myself. Ask any questions I have of a neutral actuary and decide for myself. We agree on one thing these mergers should not happen and I for one and pushing for a court injunction to stop them.

   . My reasons are not a New York vs New Jersey thing as yours seem to be. If McCarron and Spencer as Empire Trustees and the numbers for the Empire fund are legit I am not seeing funds that reflect a stronger Jersey Fund versus a weaker Empire fund. If George Laufenberg has knowledge of "creative actuaries" he has a duty on many different levels to expose it. But where he cant call in the EBSA due to Borzi being in bed with Union leaders and call in the feds. But if he has evidence he should be yelling it to the roof tops.
      I have not finished reviewing the documents that are available to me, which are much better now that it used to be with Free ERISA, so I cannot speak yet towards a financial  opinion but the first question I asked was why are they doing in the order they are. Why not take, as you say the weak Empire Fund, which has existed and run when the Empire Council has been dissolved since what 2010 or 2011, and the Albany Fund and put them in the as you say strong and legit New Jersey Fund. Why are they taking the Albany Fund and New Jersey fund and putting it in the Empire Fund. That is what all fund participants should be looking at besides any of our ERISA rights that have been ignored and violated.

   You say the Jersey fund is so much stronger yet it is in a rehab plan until 2023 . Yes The empire funds lost 160 to Madoff but who made the call on the investments. If you think for a minute, and this includes your Jersey Fund ,that the fund investments are not dictated from above that is plain naive. You have a wealth of proof that any investment demands made by Mccarron ,Durkin or other UBC International Level clowns refused those fund admins or Trustees who refuse are destroyed. Use ULLICO as your prime example. Despite a fiduciary duty to spend in the best interest of the fund participants billions have been diverted to ULLICO to finance scams and to keep a company hemorrhaging money afloat. Any UBC company's who tired to pull out of ULLICO got letters from Doug after ULLICO informed McCarron of the funds leaving or wanting out of ULLICO. Also what is fact is that 2 years before Madoff tanked Ivy Asset Management told the funds to get out and they did not.
 Now I can see with you, who I am so grateful is looking at the funds and the numbers and not just standing by doing nothing, are making this a NY vs NJ thing. I dont want to break your heart but would you like me to show you the money the Jersey Fund has in MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS,ULLICO Separate J 41.3 million,MEPT Newtower 39.1 Million ,LOngview Capital 36.4 million.Hamilton Lane, First Eagle Global 45.7 million. Now ask yourself how a California Pension fund and a New Jersey Pension fund each have the same MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE,Hamilton Lane. MEPT.ULLICO J and on and on we can go.


  The part that bothers me most about your entire post is"any person whose main focus is the health and stability of the New Jersey pension fund" Your main focus should NOT be the health and stability of the New Jersey but the health and stability of all three funds and their participants.

   Thank you for being knowledgeable of your pension fund and your future

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
I respectfully disagree
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
But I would really like to start a union with you.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
This post was updated on .
  an excerpt from the L.A. times:  January 19, 2000|JEFFREY L. RABIN | TIMES STAFF WRITER

 Blum's New York spokesman confirmed that the separate United Brotherhood of Carpenters pension fund did make what he called a "lawful and appropriate" investment in Perini.

Since the pension fund investment three years ago this month, the value of Perini stock has dropped sharply. Perini has experienced major financial problems related to the write-off of real estate losses, including a major San Francisco office, retail and residential complex known as Rincon Center that was built by Tutor.

Carpenters Union Defends Payments

The suit also contends that the Southern California fund's payments to Blum and his companies for investment advice, estimated at nearly $8 million in 1997 alone, were "grossly out of proportion to the value of such services."

Blicksilver would not discuss what Blum has been paid as financial advisor to the pension fund. But Monte Byers, spokesman for the Carpenters Union, defended the payments. "Mr. Blum is the most successful financial advisor the [Southern California] fund has ever had," he said....  http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/19/local/me-55520




  Seems like ever since he got away with fraud thanks to Ron Tutor and Richard Blum, he has wielded a "stay out of jail Scott free" card and has had carte blanche of any fund  or pension $$ initially earned from rank and file since 1996.


[P.S.: There has been an asshole posting as me for almost eight months now, and if you haven't already guessed, the previous two posts are not mine, but its.]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

RichardDorrough
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ethics
No. Excuse me. I was wrong and should have answered you in a better and more polite manner..I am just tired of the attacks and was unsure if you were drawing me into another. I was wrong. I am now trying to learn to be as they call it the better man and stay focused on the issues a hand instead of indulging in the behavior with Robert.

Please excuse me..

(1)Did he ask you? OR: did you do it on your own, to right yet another wrong, infiltrated by the tyrannical general president against a fellow brother?

When I heard the allegations knowing Doug McCarron to be a liar and a fraud I did as I always do. Go check to see if it was true. Draper said Mike McCarron overcharged the Training Fund (which we now know was all a lie) to cover money he lost that belong to the SWRCC. A simple and 15 minute review of the SWRCC showed no money was missing or lost . A simple review of the Training fund 990 which showed the escalator clause wording and proved to me this was all BS so I did what I always do. Prove and expose the UBC corruption and that Doug McCarron is yet again a liar. It was at MY desire to see the truth.

(2)plagiarize statements from his "STAND WITH MIKE" website.  If I used anything from the stand with Mike web site and since I received no cease and desist order or complaint from McCarron or any others who may or may not created the site it must be just fine AND WAS NEVER AN ISSUE.

3)"a personal matter between brothers Mike McCarron and Doug McCarron (general president)", which started in December of 2011, and escalated after the death of their mother in May 2013.It was not a personal matter but a Legal one although the actions of one brother at the time of Eileen McCarrons death just cannot be forgotten by the other Brother. This was indeed PART of the final straw to an ongoing battle over refusal of Investment demands such as removing the SWRCC out of ULLICO J in 2012 ( a huge amount of money and at the time was going form SWRCC to Separate J . investors were lined up 3 billion deep wanting their moeny form ULLICO Separate J in 2012,refusing mergers into the SWRCC, refusing to put all funds into the Vegas Mega Center and many more. Remember Mike McCarron was not the only one fired at the SWRCC but I believe the count now is at 33 including the fund manger and fund trustees. The Straw that broke the camels back was the announcement by the DOL of a routine audit of the training fund. This was presented as a targeted Investigation by Draper at the 14 D Trial which was a lie. Draper tried to say the Training fund was being investigated and it was going on at the time of the 14 D trial. He was told this was false and it was a routine audit that had no even started. The straw was "the leases and the escalator clauses" the people that were liable for the leases being signed and who allowed the taring fund to sign leases with escalator clauses that forced the to keep paying higher rent regardless of the market condition. Those who were liable were crapping their diaper. Now think.Who reviews and advises the fund trustees before they sign anything??

(4) And most important. You said "put to rest once and for all, the question of the nature of your relationship with Mike McCarron." Remember one thing. The UBC Lawyers submitted 300 pages to Judge Selna and 254 pages to the State Judge of pictures of
157 blogspot. users
Brothermikemccarron blogspot users
 which anybody who has followed my stuff over the years knows it is all me.The dog with his head up the great danes ass is all me
 
2000 facebook pages of any person who clicked on the like option of Mike McCarrons facebook.

The purpose was to intimidate the second was to try to convince the Judge Brothermikemccarrronblogspot was owned and operated by Mike Mccaron and he has nothing to do with it. T.This was after they filed court papers telling Judge Selna I (the blog owner)was anti Semitic, anti asain,homophobic,racist and insulting to women. This to convince the Judge that Mike McCarron not me the blog owner was all these things.Relationship. BS. If Mike McCarron himself tried to call my house tomorrow or any day I would never answer and COULD NOT ever answer. Get why??

But respectfully asked ..Does anything or anybody have the right to worry or ask questions about who I do or do not not know.Put to rest?? Put to rest for whom??  


 
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ted
In reply to this post by Ethics
DIRECT ETHIC's QUOTE BELOW

"The economy of New York State is not as strong as New Jersey and never has been and future contributions to the fund would be at a lower level than ours, therefore making it much harder to sustain healthy funding levels."  

_______________________

Not to split Hairs or Burst your Bubble ETHIC's but your comment below; which you stated as 'fact' is emphatically false as clearly shown by relevant data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Try & keep up; pay attention.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2015/pdf/spi0915.pdf


Cutting & Pasting ETHIC's will only carry you so far. Ever actually read any of your own crap you post online (as fact)? Do you honestly believe that anyone on this blog thinks you are intelligent or capable?

Get a grip, go see someone down at CAPS, get on the med's you so desperatley need (daily) and when you work it all out - then, by all means, get back to us.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Ethics
Yes everything was legal and legit.Thats why they stalked Horacio Grana and his wife.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
In reply to this post by Ted
TED, Ted, Ted, Ted ted ted ted ted............................................

I did cut and paste the aforementioned fodder you are using to disparage me once again.  

"I CUT IT- AND THEN PASTED IT"..............................................................

  I did net ever say or imply that it was sworn on the bible truth, as you vehemently claim I do. I added the link, and it was INFORMATION to be read by someone intelligent enough to read it and come to their OWN conclusions, something you should try sometime soon.

Also, try to be better informed about what you claim are my intentions, for posting the material I share.

And  making suggestions as to what medical treatment you believe I need to seek just backfires on you, and your anger towards me makes it much worse for you, as you come off as quite the rage monger.

Bubble bursting and the splitting of hair, really??
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Back to answer you post from Earlier, Richard Dorrough:

"" If Mike McCarron himself tried to call my house tomorrow or any day I would never answer and COULD NOT ever answer. Get why??

But respectfully asked ..Does anything or anybody have the right to worry or asks questions about who I do or do not not know.Put to rest?? Put to rest for whom??""  


  I am very happy you have place separation (legally) by publicly announcing here (for your own good) that you would not and could not answer a call from Mike.

The 'put to rest' thesis is in and will be a per definitionem . Again, non of my business there, too, but you have been attacked constantly here for your "BROTHERMIKE" site, and it is nauseating to me.

It is now put to rest, completely voluntary on your part.

  In my way, I am trying to help you.

Not implying that you need it, or ever asked for it, just that I saw something that didn't sit quite right about the whole thing, and I wanted to help out somehow.

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
Hahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: McCarrron and Spencer are seizing NJ Pension Fund

Ethics
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Page 1
American Bar Association Forum on the Construction Industry/TIPS Fidelity & Surety Law Committee CONSTRUCTION DILEMMAS: CAUGHT BETWEEN “THE ROCK” AND A HARD PLACE False Claims, Liability & Ethical Issues for Construction Attorneys Pamela Phillips, Esq. Aaron P. Silberman, Esq. David J. Tomlinson, Esq. Rogers Joseph O’Donnell & Phillips San Francisco, CA January 29, 2004 Westin St. Francis Hotel, San Francisco, CA © 2004 American Bar Association 204753.5 GBO 610176v1
Page 2
Introduction False claims laws subject contractors on public projects for the federal government to potential liability, and a growing number of states following suit. As a result, attorneys representing those contractors need to be aware of what those laws require. Failing to properly advise one's client about false claims issues may subject an attorney to malpractice claims and, in some instances, lawyers may even face direct liability under the applicable false claims law. Ethical issues arise when attorneys threaten to use these laws to gain leverage in settlement negotiations, and when government attorneys threaten to use them to get contractors to reduce or withdraw construction claims. Other ethical issues are implicated when attorneys themselves bring false claims actions as whistleblowers. The laws governing false claims continue to evolve, expand and multiply in complexity. This article offers a survey of the laws with a focus on construction projects and the lawyers who represent clients in construction matters. We start with an introduction to the basic laws and then address the malpractice, liability and ethical issues in turn. Federal and State False Claims Statutes The Federal False Claims Acts The United States has both a civil False Claims Act1 and a criminal False Claims Act.2 Both have potential applications when construction projects are funded in whole or in part with federal funds. The Civil False Claims Act The liability provisions of the civil False Claims Act ("FCA") are found in 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)-(7). The most commonly invoked provisions impose liability for knowingly submitting or causing another person to submit a false claim for payment (“direct false claims”) (§ 3729(a)(1)); making false records or statements to support a false claim (§ 3729(a)(2)); 204753.5 GBO 610176v1 1
Page 3
engaging in a conspiracy to get the government to pay a false claim (§ 3729(a)(3)); and making false records or statements to reduce or avoid an obligation to the government (“reverse false claims”) (§ 3729(a)(7)). A person will be liable under the civil FCA if he (1) submits a "claim," (2) that is false, and (3) does so "knowingly." The civil FCA defines "claims" broadly to include any request for payment of money or property, whether the government actually pays or not.3 The civil FCA does not limit claims to signed certifications. Bid documents may also constitute claims.4 Liability stems from submitting a claim to the government that is false. What is “false” has been fought over in many lawsuits. In some circumstances, falsity is obvious, most notably where a contractor seeks payment for a product it never delivered or work it never performed. But a request for payment is also deemed false if the work for which the contractor seeks payment does not comply with contract specifications, even if the noncompliance results in a product "with the 'same basic performance characteristics' as those" specified in the contract.5 Somewhat surprisingly, a contractor or supplier can be liable under the civil FCA for requesting payment for a product the government both inspected and accepted.6 In many cases, falsity is not so clear. For example, questions of scientific or engineering judgment are neither true nor false.7 Nor are questions of interpretation of specifications, drawings, or other technical contract requirements.8 One not so obvious source of liability stems from a variety of laws and regulations that can apply to a contractor’s contract performance, e.g., environmental laws, wage and hour regulations, and OSHA regulations. That is, a contractor could be liable for submitting a false claim if the contractor violated such applicable laws or regulations, but only if the government’s payment of the claim was conditioned upon the contractor’s compliance with the law or regulation at issue.9 204753.5 GBO 610176v1 2
Page 4
Most courts have found that an alleged false claim must be material for a defendant to be liable under the civil FCA. That is, the claim’s falsity must have been likely to have impacted the government’s decision to pay.10 Again, the issue of materiality can be a hard-fought issue in cases based on the false claims laws. Although the civil FCA is an anti-fraud statute, liability under the Act is very different from that required for common law fraud. Most notably, there is no requirement that one have an intent to deceive or defraud to be liable under the civil FCA. Instead, the civil FCA imposes liability for “knowing” submissions of false claims to the government.11 This “scienter” requirement has traps for the unwary – a contractor can be liable if it submits claims knowing they are false, in deliberate ignorance of whether they are true or false, or in reckless disregard of whether they are true or false.12 A corporation may be liable under the civil FCA for its employees’ acts so long as they are within the scope of their authority, even if no management personnel know about the false claims.13 Finally, a person may be liable under the civil FCA, even if the government has suffered no damage.14 Lawsuits to enforce the civil FCA may be brought in either of two ways: (1) the United States Attorney General may bring a civil action under section 3730(a) or (2) a whistleblower, also known as a "qui tam relator," may sue under section 3730(b). Relators have a tremendous incentive to sue, as they are entitled to 15-25% of any recovery if the government intervenes in the lawsuit and 25-30% if it does not.15 In general, anyone can sue as a relator under the civil FCA, including employees, ex-employees, government employees, competitors, subcontractors, suppliers, public interest groups, public entities, and lawyers. Both individuals and corporations may sue under the civil FCA.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AOGCV1JI2SUJ:www.rjo.com/PDF/FalseClaimsLiabilityAndEthicalIssues.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
12