TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
United States Supreme Court
UMWA HEALTH & RETIREMENT FUNDS v. ROBINSON, (1982)
No. 81-61
Argued: January 13, 1982    Decided: March 8, 1982

"Our interpretation of the purpose of the "sole and exclusive benefit" requirement is reinforced by the other requirements of 302(c)(5). Section 302(c)(5) is an exception in a criminal statute that broadly prohibits employers from making direct or indirect payments to unions or union officials. Each of the specific conditions that must be satisfied to exempt employer contributions to pension funds from the criminal sanction is consistent with the nondiversion purpose. The fund must be established "for the sole and exclusive benefit" of employees and their families and dependents; contributions must be held in trust for that purpose and must be used exclusively for health, retirement, death, disability, or unemployment benefits; the basis for paying benefits must be specified in a written agreement; and the fund must be jointly administered by representatives of management and labor. 11 All the conditions in the section fortify the basic requirement that employer contributions be administered for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees. None of the conditions places any restriction on the allocation of the funds among the persons protected by 302(c)(5)." [455 U.S. 562, 573]  


- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/562.html#sthash.HTJ4Yy6I.dpuf

_________________

Stephen Ross, Doug McCarron, Metz - where the hell are our Dividend and Interest Payments on the $100M Loan?

(Note: Bullshit claims of added Man-Hours to the workers and/or the Trust Funds under a back room/in chamber deal via a PLA which was never negotiated from day one let alone to impasse are not acceptable)

Where the hell is the executed Ownership Agreement for Plan Participants with specific payment details over the life of the building and leases arrangements?

What part of "sole & exclusive benefit" of "employees and their families" to you fail to comprehend."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

 Observer
All Talk ....
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

 Observer
1196 Postings and NOTHING more.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
RETIREE PENSIONS: "SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT" PRECEDENT

United States Supreme Court
UMWA HEALTH & RETIREMENT FUNDS v. ROBINSON, (1982)
No. 81-61
Argued: January 13, 1982    Decided: March 8, 1982


- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/562.html#sthash.HTJ4Yy6I.dpuf


"Our interpretation of the purpose of the "sole and exclusive benefit" requirement is reinforced by the other requirements of 302(c)(5). Section 302(c)(5) is an exception in a criminal statute that broadly prohibits employers from making direct or indirect payments to unions or union officials. Each of the specific conditions that must be satisfied to exempt employer contributions to pension funds from the criminal sanction is consistent with the nondiversion purpose. The fund must be established "for the sole and exclusive benefit" of employees and their families and dependents; contributions must be held in trust for that purpose and must be used exclusively for health, retirement, death, disability, or unemployment benefits; the basis for paying benefits must be specified in a written agreement; and the fund must be jointly administered by representatives of management and labor. 11 All the conditions in the section fortify the basic requirement that employer contributions be administered for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees. None of the conditions places any restriction on the allocation of the funds among the persons protected by 302(c)(5)." [455 U.S. 562, 573]  


- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/562.html#sthash.HTJ4Yy6I.dpuf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

 Observer
1197 Postings and NOTHING more.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
Hardly - you whiny, sniveling do-nothing clowns in NYC are just too damn stupid to do anything construcive w/ prima-facie material & known precedent(s) spoon fed to you free gratas so you may better yourselves & your fellow brothers & sisters; thus you come on here trolling around like a typical brain-washed UBC punk trying to discredit those who do.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

@ Ted
Ted, If you are so smart  why don't you take it one step further and actually do something  ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

 Observer
1199 Postings and NOTHING more.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
Stephen Ross, Doug McCarron, Metz - where the hell are our Dividend and Interest Payments on the $100M Loan?

(Note: Bullshit claims of added Man-Hours to the workers and/or the Trust Funds under a back room/in chamber deal via a PLA which was never negotiated from day one let alone to impasse are not acceptable)

Where the hell is the executed Ownership Agreement for Plan Participants with specific payment details over the life of the building and leases arrangements?

What part of "sole & exclusive benefit" of "employees and their families" do you fail to comprehend."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

@ Ted
Ted I understand ( comprehend) what you are saying. But what is the next more ? How and what can be done about it ?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
excerpt NLRB v. AMAX COAL 453 U.S. 322 (1981), Chief Justice Stewart at II


As explained by Senator Ball, one of the two sponsors of the provision, the "sole purpose" of 302 (c) (5) is to ensure that employee benefit trust funds "are legitimate trust funds, used actually for the specified benefits to the employees of the employers who contribute to them . . . ." 93 Cong. Rec. 4678 (1947).

Senator Ball stated that "all we seek to do by [ 302 (c) (5)] is to make sure that the employees whose labor builds this fund and are really entitled to benefits under it shall receive the benefits; that it is a trust fund, and that, if necessary, they can go into court and obtain the benefits to which they are entitled." Id., at 4753; see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 66-67 (1947), 1 NLRB, Legislative History of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, p. 570 (1948) (Leg. Hist. LMRA). The debates on 302 (c) (5) further reveal Congress' intent to cast employee benefit plans in traditional trust form precisely because fiduciary standards long established in equity would best protect employee beneficiaries.

_______________

@Ted

Tell it to Judge Berman, file suit, hire an attorney if need be but go after the money, the interets, dividends & a very substantial cut of the long term ownership & lease interests.

It's your money - all you have to do is go get it
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
for @ Ted

ORIGINAL POST 2011 LM-2 REPORT

_______________________________

Mar 31, 2012; 4:20pm


excerpt NLRB v. AMAX COAL 453 U.S. 322 (1981), Chief Justice Stewart at II

As explained by Senator Ball, one of the two sponsors of the provision, the "sole purpose" of 302 (c) (5) is to ensure that employee benefit trust funds "are legitimate trust funds, used actually for the specified benefits to the employees of the employers who contribute to them . . . ." 93 Cong. Rec. 4678 (1947).

Senator Ball stated that "all we seek to do by [ 302 (c) (5)] is to make sure that the employees whose labor builds this fund and are really entitled to benefits under it shall receive the benefits; that it is a trust fund, and that, if necessary, they can go into court and obtain the benefits to which they are entitled." Id., at 4753; see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 66-67 (1947), 1 NLRB, Legislative History of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, p. 570 (1948) (Leg. Hist. LMRA). The debates on 302 (c) (5) further reveal Congress' intent to cast employee benefit plans in traditional trust form precisely because fiduciary standards long established in equity would best protect employee beneficiaries.

For example, one opponent of the bill suggested that 305 (c) (5) was unnecessary because even without that provision, the "officials who administer [the fund] thereby become trustees, subject to all of the common law and State safeguards against misuse of funds by trustees." 93 Cong. Rec. 4751 (1947) (Sen. Morse). Senator Taft. the primary author of the entire Act, answered that many existing funds were not created expressly as trusts, and that 302 (c) (5)'s requirement that each fund be an express and enforceable trust would ensure that the future operations of all such funds would be subject to supervision by a court of chancery. 93 Cong. Rec. 4753 (1947). See also id., at 4678 (Sen. Ball); id., at 3564-3565 (Rep. Case, author of House bill on which 302 (c) (5) was patterned). In sum, the duty of the management-appointed trustee of an employee benefit fund under [453 U.S. 322, 332]   302 (c) (5) is directly antithetical to that of an agent of the appointing party. 14  
 
Whatever may have remained implicit in Congress' view of the employee benefit fund trustee under the Act became explicit when Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829. ERISA essentially codified the strict fiduciary standards that a 302 (c) (5) trustee must meet. See 29 U.S.C. 1002 (1) and (2); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, pp. 296, 307 (1974). Section 404 (a) (1) of ERISA requires a trustee to "discharge his duties . . . solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries . . . ." 29 U.S.C. 1104 (a) (1). 15 Section [453 U.S. 322, 333]   406 (b)
(2) declares that a trustee may not "act in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or represent a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries." 29 U.S.C. 1106 (b) (2).

Section 405 (a) imposes on each trustee an affirmative duty to prevent every other trustee of the same fund from breaching fiduciary duties, including the duty to act solely on behalf of the beneficiaries. 29 U.S.C. 1105 (a).

Moreover, the fiduciary requirements of ERISA specifically insulate the trust from the employer's interest. Except in circumstances involving excess contributions or termination of the trust, "the assets of a plan shall never inure to the benefit of any employer and shall be held for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to participants in the plan and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan." 403 (c) (1), 29 U.S.C. 1103 (c) (1). Finally, 406 (a) (1) (E) prohibits any transaction between the trust and a "party in interest," including an employer, and 407 carefully limits the amount and types of employer-owned property and securities that the trustees may obtain for the trust. 29 U.S.C. 1106 (a) (1) (E), 1107. 16 In sum, ERISA vests the "exclusive authority and discretion to manage and control the assets of the plan" in the trustees alone, and not the employer or the union. 29 U.S.C. 1103 (a).
 
The legislative history of ERISA confirms that Congress intended in particular to prevent trustees "from engaging in actions where there would be a conflict of interest with the [453 U.S. 322, 334]   fund, such as representing any party dealing with the fund." S. Rep. No. 93-383, pp. 31, 32 (1973). In short, the fiduciary provisions of ERISA were designed to prevent a trustee "from being put into a position where he has dual loyalties, and, therefore, he cannot act exclusively for the benefit of a plan's participants and beneficiaries." H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, supra, at 309. 17   
_______________________________________

(2) declares that a trustee may not "act in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or represent a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries." 29 U.S.C. 1106 (b) (2).

McCarrons interests, given they are adverse to the interests of NYCDCC members, need not be considered by the Trustees. He has no right to appoint any Trustee for the NYCDCC benefit Funds; and, those so appointed need be removed - if necessary, by suit and an apppropriate order from the District Court.

Restoration of Democracy under Prong 2 of the Consent Decree requires that McCarrons last minute appointment of Trustees to oversee your funds, your monies are vetoed, given they expired with the expiration of the illegal extension of the LMRDA Trusteeship.

Repreresentatives of your choosing inures to the Trustees moreso than the Officers, as it is they who have unfettered fiduciary control to manage the benefit Trust funds for:

 
"the assets of a plan shall never inure to the benefit of any employer and shall be held for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to participants in the plan and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan."

___________

@Ted

Stop whining like a little girl, get off your dead ass and do somethig productive for once.


Please note - Amax remains 'good law' and has never been over-turned by the U.S. Supreme Court nor challenged by the UBCJA's most notorious crimnal, one Douglas J. McCarron.

** all criminal suspects and their co-conspirators and partners in crime whether they be in the RO or USAO's office, the Federal District Court and/or sitting on the bench feignining stupidity are guilty until proven innocent - ahh; shit, I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

@ Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
You say - It's your money all you have to do is go and get it. Ted isn't your money also ?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
see above post; or.......go join the "BIG WORD" poster so you two boobs can entertain one another!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

All Talk
In reply to this post by @ Ted
If Ted knows so much maybe he should file a suit.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by @ Ted
Hardly - quite obviously you do not comprehend a damn thing and are obviously too stupid to file anything pro-se. Too bad Walmart is cutting back and closing 269 stores as it is right up your alley.

______________

For the rest of you:

So when McCarron-Tutor-Blum-Feinstein & Ross steal $100M from your TRUST FUNDS to fund Hudson Yards & the tit for tat quid pro quo exchange is an Immediate 20% Kick-back in Wages which were not negotitated to impasse or with Good Faith and wherein the NYCDCC Carpenters have no stake in the Long Term Ownership and/or Leasing Rights for HUDSON YARDS; wherein said co-conspirators could not obtain market rate financing of their own accord - the criminal racketeering & multi-state Hobbs Act Racketeering is clear & plain for all to see! **

_______________


** All criminal suspects and their co-conspirators and partners in crime whether they be in the RO or USAO's office, the Federal District Court and/or sitting on the bench feignining stupidity are guilty until proven innocent - ahh; shit, I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?

Sue me, I double dog dare you!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted the talking head
Ted (ALL TALK  AND NOTHING ELSE) Obviously you're too stupid to file anything.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Judge Berman
 "Ted the talking head"is just plain scared
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
original post Feb. 2013;

EXACT SAME APPLICATION TO THE $100 MILLION DOLLAR KISS TO ROSS & TUTOR, COURTESY OF DOUGLAS J. MCCARRON; NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADDITIONAL 20% WAGE KICK-BACK FOR THE LIFE OF THE $20+ BILLION DOLLAR PROJECT - (BEFORE CHANGE ORDERS OF COURSE)

NOTE: THE GRAFT & EMBEZZLEMENT OF THE $100 MILLION of FUNDS FROM THE NYCDCC BENEFIT TRUST FUNDS OCCURRED PRIOR TO the aforementioned  FAILED ATTEMPT TO COVER THEIR PROVERBIAL ASSES BY RUNNING TO OBAMA & A CORRUPT CONGRESS TO HAVE THEM APPROVE THE NCCMP IN LATE DEC 2014!

TOO LITTLE TO LATE ASSHOLES; YOU ARE ALL GUILTY AS CHARGED; NOW WHERE THE FUCK IS THAT LITTLE SHIT PREET BHARARRA - HE'S OVER-DUE FOR SOME MORE BRIBE DOUGH TO KEEP THIS ONE OUT OF A REAL COURT OF LAW.

ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE $100M dollar laon inure to ROSS & TUTOR & MCCARRON, NOT TO THE MEMBERS AS THE LAW PRESCRIBES. COUNSELOR MURPHY - PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF THE INTEREST & DIVIDENED PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE FUNDS FOR USE ON BEHALF OF MEMBER INTERESTS AS WELL AS ALL LSHORT OR LONG TERM LEASE OR SALE ARRANGEMENT FOR EVERY UNIT IN HUDSON YARDS, FOR EVERY EXECUTED CONTRACT TO DATE & SHOW THE COURT (BERMAN) WHERE THE MEMBERS & THEIR BENEFIT TRUST FUNDS BENEFIT (THE OPERATIVE WORD) LONG TERM FROM THE ILLEGAL USE OF THEIR CAPITAL?
----------------------------


2414  29 U.S.C. 501(c)—Embezzlement and Theft From Labor Unions in the Private Sector; 18 U.S.C. 664—Embezzlement and Theft From Employee Benefit Plans in the Private Sector

Section 501(c) prohibits the embezzlement and theft of property from a labor organization covered by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) (29 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.). Statutory principals are officers of and persons employed directly or indirectly by such labor organizations. Labor organizations which represent only employees of the United States or of state and local governments are not regulated by the LMRDA. However, United States Postal Service employees are subject to the LMRDA.

Section 664 prohibits the embezzlement and theft of property by any person from an employee pension or welfare benefit plan subject to title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. The statute also prohibits embezzlement and theft from a "fund connected" with such an employee benefit plan. Employee benefit plans which are excluded from regulation by ERISA include church plans and benefit plans which are established or maintained by the United States or state or local governments on behalf of their employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 1003.
_____________________

The Vacation Fund, prior to incorporation with the Welfare Fund, was thus a "fund connected", thus covering the violations from the programs inception/start by McCarron & Forde & approved by former Judge/IRO Conboy (why does he still have a bar card?).

From the merger date foward, the Vacation Fund monies extorted from members wages specifically qualify for embezzlement under Sec. 664, notwithstanding the false claims/statements of the D.C.'s legal counsel as stated in their September 28, 2012 filing of the LM-2 with the Federal Government, item no. 69, noted as follows:


The District Council has been advised by counsel for the District Council Welfare Fund and its Vacation Fund program (the "Funds") that the Employer Trustees of the Funds may assert a third-party claim for damages against the District Council in Enright, et al. v. NYC District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, et al. SDNY, 12-CV-04181 (JPO)(JLC). The Enright action was filed on May 25, 2012 in federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of District Council retired members who were required to pay increased premiums for continuing medical coverage as a result of an arbitrator’s award deciding a deadlock between the Union and Employer Trustees over cutbacks in benefits to save the Welfare Fund from potentially ruinous deficit spending. Among the confusing allegations in the complaint is one related to Union dues’ check-off assignments by District Council members from their quarterly Vacation Fund distributions. The District Council’s counsel is reviewing the facts and controlling case, statutory, and regulatory law concerning possible third-party claims against the District Council related to the voluntary (MY ASS) assignment by Union members of part of their quarterly Vacation Fund distributions. Preliminarily, counsel does not see a prohibited transaction directly related to the actual sums deducted and remitted from quarterly Vacation Fund distributions under check-off assignments by Union members.

Too funny - the Review Officer Dennis Walsh did. Moreover, he recommended settling with Brian Brennan, albeit via a confidential settlement made in the hopes that the remainder of the claims would go away and never be tried.

The fact is, the known & long settled law & precedent have been posted here for quite some time. Judge Conboy was in on the scam & yet he still retains his bar card. The dirty hands & players in this Hobbs Act extortion scheme are there for all to see, yet, to date - zero action on the part of the United States Attorneys Office who via their default and failure to take any corrective action and/or file suit against the District Council or UBCJA International and its officers, agents, principals trustees/ alleged fiduciairies (both sides) is also involved in the cover-up and the corresponding fraud upon the so called honorable Court.

And people wonder why this 23-1/2 year criminal RICO action & the 19-year old Consent Decree has yet to take a bite out of crime. The easy answer is simple - because in NYC it obviously pays to be dirty. Akin to Forde's attitude, the D.C.'s new in house counsel & it's outside vendors believe that by telling a lie long enough, it will then retain the air of truth or credibility. The facts say otherwise. Maybe its time for the DOJ to go after a few bar cards, unless of course they pull the get out of jail card along with some favors and buy their way out with an insurance settlement.

All attorneys are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

** All criminal suspects and their co-conspirators and partners in crime whether they be in the RO or USAO's office, the Federal District Court and/or sitting on the bench feignining stupidity are guilty until proven innocent - ahh; shit, I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE

Ted
JULY 18, 2001 - VACATION FUND - SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION, excerpt:

If it should happen that Vacation Plan fiduciaries misuse the Plan’s money, {seriously, they wrote this...had to have been Forde...Guilty Conscience, advance admissions...you can't make this stuff up} or if you are discriminated against for asserting your rights,you may seek assistance from the U.S. Department of Labor, or you may file suit in a federal court. The court will decide who should pay court costs and legal fees.
1234