judge kennth conboy

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

judge kennth conboy

william davenport
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

william davenport
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

william davenport
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

Daniel J. Franco
In reply to this post by william davenport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Conboy (The address uses an underscore rather than a dash.)


On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 08:16, william davenport [via A Mobilized Membership Is An Irresistible Force] <[hidden email]> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kenneth-conboy


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://a-mobilized-membership-is-an-irresistible-force.984137.n3.nabble.com/judge-kennth-conboy-tp2952237p2952237.html
To start a new topic under A Mobilized Membership Is An Irresistible Force, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from A Mobilized Membership Is An Irresistible Force, click here.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

Tom McGuire
In reply to this post by william davenport
Has proven once again he is an ass. Not only does he wish to stifle our GOD given right to free speech but doesn't even know how the US Congress works. He has some idea that Congress caps the number of congressmembers, but that is nonsense. As population increases and decreases in a , sometimes , predetermined geographic area the number of congressional seats in a given state changes, thus as the pop continues to increase in the US the number of congressmembers will increase. He had the balls to complain to the judge about people speaking ill of he and McCarron. This is the man representing the UBC? This organization is being run by maniacs if he is the best lawyer they could find. One mans Opinion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

Tom McGuire
And again, isn't his working for the UBC seen by any member of law enforcement as a huge conflict of interest? Where are the DOL and the AG? They have left us to sink, thats where. They're MIA it seems.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

tester
..."Another method very successfully used by the lawyers to keep their secret under the cover of
darkness is the age-old strategy of sending their minions to infiltrate, divide and conquer any organization
of people banding together to resist the present tyranny of the injustice system"...

http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/MaritimeLaw.pdf
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judge kennth conboy

Ted
In reply to this post by william davenport
Excellent work Bill - bringing this to light....How about filing a Motion with Judge Berman to preclude Judge Conboy from serving as the UBC's bought off counsel, for conflict of interest etc

__________________________________________________________________________
excerpt @ bottom of Carberry as related to upcoming UBC "RESTRUCTURING" which the UBC is passing off as a simple "BYLAWS" rule change. The Civil Consent Decree in NYCDCC requires McCarron to submit a formal restructuring plan to the Court - to Judge Berman

ALSO: WHICH MEMBERS OF THE NYCDCC & FROM WHAT LOCALS HAS MCCARRON ALREADY MADE SUCH ILLEGAL JOB OFFERS VIA HIS DISSOLUTION PLAN - COMING SOON TO A LOCAL NEAR YOU!

WHO ARE THE SELLOUTS, THE TRAITORS? WHO HAS ACCEPTED "APPO0INTMENT" POSITIONS IN ADVANCE OF LOCAL AND COUNCIL ELECTIONS.....THIS HAS TO BE CHALLENGED, THE TRAITOS NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED & EXPOSED.....SO, QUESTION - WHO IS ON THE SHORT LIST RIGHT NOW?
__________________________________________________________________________
FROM THE HAND OF JUDGE CONBOY:

In sum, the Consent Decree, Article I of the Rules, and a reasonable reading of Article XI all provide ample authority to find that the Hoffa Campaign violated the Rules by making the job offers described in the Election Supervisor’s January 2011 Decision.  The manipulation of union resources for electoral advantage harms the “overriding objective” of the LMRDA to “ensure that unions would be democratically governed, and responsive to the will of the union membership as expressed in open, periodic elections.”  Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 441 (1982) (emphasis added).  That objective is memorialized in the Consent Decree, and has driven the nearly twenty-two years of effort and vast resources expended in carrying out its terms.  See Consent Decree § F at ¶ 12(D) (establishing election procedures); United States v. I.B.T. (“Slemko”), 72 F. Supp. 2d 257, 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (noting the “Consent Decree's goal of ensuring a fair, free, democratic, and informed election”); United States v. I.B.T. (“Funding Order”), 902 F. Supp. 40, 45 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (adopting election officer’s declaration that “a fair, free, honest and fully democratic IBT election is the linchpin in the Consent Decree's unique efforts to rid the IBT of corruption”), modified by 908 F. Supp. 143, 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), remanded on other grounds by 86 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 1996).  The job offers uncovered in the Election Supervisor’s investigation represent exactly the type of misconduct that the Election Supervisor was charged with remedying.[4]  

The IBT argues that I should be mindful of, and give deference to, elected officials’ discretion to “appoint agents of [their] choice to carry out [their] policies.”  Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 441-42 (1982).  In Finnegan, the Supreme Court approved the discharge of a business agent by the incoming union president in the wake of an election.  See id., 456 U.S. at 432-33.  The Court found that the discharge did not violate the LMRDA, which “does not restrict the freedom of an elected union leader to choose a staff whose views are compatible with his own.”  Id. at 441.  Unlike Finnegan, however, the present case does not involve a legitimate use of hiring power to build a management team capable of implementing leadership objectives.  Rather, it involves pre-election job offers to elected officials in exchange for their resignations and promises not to run for re-election.  The Election Supervisor found that the offers were not made for a legitimate purpose to benefit the IBT, but rather for an illicit purpose to benefit the Hoffa Campaign.  Finnegan does not shelter such conduct.  Conversely, the instant ruling does not endanger the union president’s appointment power, so long as it is not used to damage the election process.  

In short, an elected official may offer a job in exchange for an agreement to carry out the official’s policies.  Under the Rules and the Consent Decree, elected officials may not offer a job in exchange for partisan political activity, or any action designed to create an electoral advantage for the incumbent appointing officer and his campaign slate of candidates for union office.  

C.     Remedy

The Election Supervisor must now fashion a remedy to alleviate the harm caused by the conduct detailed in the January 2011 Decision.  Two principles should guide him in that task:

First, the remedy must be tailored to cure the harm caused by the misconduct.  The harm consists of any damage to the election franchise and the union members’ faith in it.  The remedy must therefore be designed to address that damage.  I note that the harm here is different than that in United States v. I.B.T. (“Carey”), 156 F.3d 354, (2d Cir. 1998).  In that case, Ron Carey, the IBT president elected in 1996, knew of a scheme to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars of union funds for the benefit of his campaign.  See Carey, 156 F.3d at 357-59.  The only way to “ensure a fair rerun election and to protect the integrity of the [IBT] electoral process” was to disqualify Carey from the 1998 rerun.  Id. at 358-59.  Here, the damage is not on the same scale because the misconduct was limited to the offer of three jobs that were not accepted.  The Carey case should therefore not be read as requiring any specific remedy here – the Election Supervisor must craft a remedy commensurate to the harm.

Second, the Election Supervisor’s mandate does not include discipline or punishment.  The Second Circuit has clearly differentiated between the roles of the Election Supervisor and the IRB under the Consent Decree:

The Election Officer is not assigned disciplinary responsibilities.  His mandate is to supervise the reformation of the IBT’s electoral processes, and, where necessary, expeditiously to investigate and rule upon protests arising out of these processes—all with a view to ensuring “fair, honest, open and informed elections.”  1996 Election Rules art. I (implementing Consent Decree § F at ¶ 12(D)(ix)).  Where the EO uncovers electoral abuses, he is empowered to “take whatever remedial action is appropriate,” id art. XIV § 4 (emphasis supplied), in order to preserve and promote the integrity of the IBT’s democratic processes.  

The EO’s mandate stands in contrast to that of the [IRB], which is explicitly cloaked with the union’s “disciplinary authority.”  Consent Decree § F at ¶ 12(A) . . .  In this capacity, the IRB is involved in meting out punishment in relation to the culpability of the offender for past infractions of union rules, including acts of corruption and criminal activity that bring “reproach” on the IBT.  

Carey, 156 F.3d at 361-62 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).  Accordingly, the Election Supervisor’s remedies must be prospective and designed to ensure a level playing field for both insurgents and incumbents.  Indeed, any measures serving punitive ends would violate due process because the Election Supervisor’s investigations are not governed by the procedural protections built into IRB proceedings.  See id. at 361-62 (finding that procedural safeguards under the LMRDA did not apply to proceedings before an election officer, but that “[d]isciplinary proceedings before the IRB follow procedures that fully comply with, and even surpass, the procedural protections [of the LMRDA]”).  

Thus, the claims of breaches of fiduciary duty and conduct that “brings reproach” on the IBT by Gegare and Halstead are beyond the Election Supervisor’s jurisdiction to the extent they seek penalties for such conduct.  To be clear, Carey does not mean that an IBT official’s conduct could not, in theory, violate both the Rules and fiduciary duties.  Carey and the Consent Decree only require that the Election Supervisor’s response to Rules violations must be remedial and not punitive.  My analysis here, however, neither explicitly nor implicitly relies on fiduciary duty concepts, components, or standards.  

IV.             Conclusion

For the reasons fully explained above, the January 2011 decision is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.  This case is remanded to the Election Supervisor so that he may fashion a remedy for the violations detailed in the January 2011 decision and this opinion.  

SO ORDERED:

_/s/_______________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master



Dated: February 16, 2011

CC:      Distribution List

Andrew Shilling, Assistant United States Attorney


Brian Feldman, Assistant United States Attorney