Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
— by Ted Ted
A. The All Writs Act

The Government submitted that this Court has the power to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act. That statute reads as follows:

The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
The broad language of the All Writs Act has been supplemented by case law which outlines the appropriate situations for issuing injunctions that bar parties from litigating suits before other tribunals.

In this Circuit, Courts interpreting the scope of this power under the All Writs Act look to that act, and also by analogy to circumstances involving the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which prevents Federal Courts from issuing injunctions barring proceedings in state tribunals except "when necessary in aid of jurisdiction." In re Baldwin-United Corporation,770 F.2d 328, 335 (2d Cir.1985).

Circumstances where inter-court injunctions under the All Writs Act are appropriate include

(1) enjoining state actions when necessary to prevent relitigation of an existing federal judgment; Id., see United States v. New York Telephone,434 U.S. 159, 172, 98 S.Ct. 364, 372, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977);

(2) preventing a state court from interfering with a federal court's consideration or disposition of a case so "as to seriously impair the federal court's flexibility and authority to decide that case" Baldwin-United, supra, 770 F.2d at 335, quoting Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,398 U.S. 281, 295, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 1747, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970);

(3) enjoining a state court seeking to entertain an action over the same res; and in an in rem action, when the parallel state action will defeat the already attached jurisdiction of the federal court. Baldwin-United, supra, 770 F.2d at 336; see Kline v. Burke Construction Co.,260 U.S. 226, 230, 43 S.Ct. 79, 81, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Cf. Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.,433 U.S. 623, 642, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 2893, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977);

(4) enjoining repeated, baseless, vexatious litigation by the same plaintiff in a federal court, Safir v. United States Lines, Inc,792 F.2d 19, 23-24 (2d Cir.1986); and

(5) in certain actions involving parallel actions in foreign courts, see Laker Airways v. Sabena, Belgian World Airways,731 F.2d 909, 926-34 (D.C.Cir.1984).

In addition to those general circumstances, under the All Writs Act courts may issue injunctions to enjoin other proceedings when the unique character of the litigation requires that relief be determined "flexibly." New York Telephone, supra, 434 U.S. at 173, 98 S.Ct. at 372. A federal court has the power "to issue commands under the All Writs Act as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained." Id. at 174, 98 S.Ct. at 373.

The All Writs Act also grants courts the authority to bind non-parties to an action "when needed to preserve the Court's ability to reach or enforce its decision in a case over which it has proper jurisdiction." Baldwin-United, supra, 770 F.2d at 338; see New York Telephone, supra, 434 U.S. at 172, 98 S.Ct. at 372, cf. Vuitton et Fils

[ 728 F.Supp. 1044 ]

S.A. v. Carousel Handbags,592 F.2d 126, 129 n. 6 (2d Cir.1979) (discussion in dicta).
The existing authority on injunctions under the All Writs Act indicates that a federal court, under special circumstances, has the power to enjoin a parallel proceeding. In addition, a federal court may invoke the All Writs Act to bring before it parties whom it otherwise does not have personal jurisdiction over. The special circumstances of this IBT litigation warrant this Court's exercising its powers under the All Writs Act and enjoining the subordinate entities from litigating matters pertinent to the Consent Decree in any other forum.

The All Writs Act can be utilized by the Federal Court upon proper application by the R.O. or the U.S.A.O. to prevent the NLRB, non parties, Bisceglie etc. from interfering with the mandates of the Consent Decree.

The NLRB is a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial inferior department of the Executive Branch of Government under the United States Constitution. It is not a Court of Law; and it does not hold that the NLRB controls the subject matter jurisdiction relative to the issue concerning Amalgamated and the Dockbuilders.

It is up to the current Executive squad and the DC Attorneys, Trust Fund attorneys to admit into the record all pertinent issues, exhibits, empirical data and facts to preserve any & all appeal rights now at issue in this proceeding.