Reply – Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...
— by Ted Ted
bullshit - The SSR's were the back Door run around the base question, the Right To VOTE.

Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao who was part of the Bush-McCarron, Tutor-Blum-Feinstein team of destruction/corruption - di the proverbial legal dance around the base issue which was, is & remains the right to vote - period.

Her SSR's in the final analysis, last appeal were predicated upon the SOL's (Chao's) right to preserve & protect her Agencies Right to exhaust any & all avenues of Appeal....not on the issues in the case mind you, rather, upon her right to appeal the decision on DOL's alleged Constitutional Rights.

This is where everyone gets lost on this subject, because it was a false proposition,dogma & basis for her defense.

Moreover, it failed to address the "core issues", the "central themes" embodied within the preamble to the NLRA....the right of the Worker, the Employee, the everyman or working stiff should you prefer to organize for the purpposes of collectivve bargaining for wages, benefits and other working conditions.

Nowhere within the NLRA or the Legislative History did Congress distinguish a right of the "Ruling Class" to vote in place of the worker, the employee. Nowhere did they state that there such a thing as "Representative Democracy".

The fact of the matter is, in 1935, before TV, the Internet etc people, inclusive of the working class were better educated, read more, knew more and the language used then was understood by all in the plain & clear reading as written - to inure the working stiff with the right to Vote - Zero explanation required.

In this day & age, where kids are encoruaged to spell shit wrong & all the books, dictionaries etc have been "dumbed down" for the crowd that can't break a dollar change in their head - no wonder there is mass confusion amongst the illiterate. Still though, it does not change or alter what was written or what it means. That never changed.

"to bargain with individuals of their own choosing" is exactly how the Act reads i both the preamble & Sec. 7 Rights.

Representative is defined by the act as the "INDIVIDUAL" -period, and the preamble "QUALIFIES" the read there as "BY WORKERS" whereas Section 7 "QUALIFIES" the reading to "EMPLOYEES".

One bought & paid for Ruling by the UBC International in one Appellate Court (the first Circuit) does not a Supreme Court Landmark decision make...................

NYC is in the SECOND CIRCUIT, accordingly, under R.O. Walsh & your Consent Decree, he needs to prepare the Legal Challenge to Harrington v. Chao and have it overturned there, on your home court..........

When R.O. Walsh & his legal beagles do this, then it will be a ripe issue for the U.S. Supreme Court and he can move to fastrack it there for binding precedent.