Reply – Re: Out of Towners?
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Out of Towners?
— by Ted Ted
Rev Al - pg. 60-63 June 29, 2011 Response to Restructuring Plan filed with the Court, Judge Richard Berman, cc'd: USAO & RO

Al - note that from the heart, the mind speaks; or, in the case of the RICO Action filed by the UBCJA, the subconscious mind of our fearless leader, GP McCarron speaks and the truth finally comes out.

re: pg. 75.........."like chattel and indentured servants"

Websters New World Dictionary, The American Langauge (1951)

chat-el (chat'l), n [ME. chatel, catel; O.Fr. chatel, LL. captel, capitale; SEE CATTLE], 1. an article or personal or movable property as distinguished from real property; furniture, automobiles, livestock, farm equipment, etc. are chattels. 2. [Archaic], a slave

I need not explain slavery or indentured servitude, notwithstanding the current 8th Ed. version of Blacks Law Dictionary amongst many others which intentionally alter the orignal meaning of the words and in general try to dumb it down and to remove the proper context.

In the interest of this ongoing discussion of the Permit System, Property Rights, Exclusive & Non Exclusive Hiring Halls and Reversion of control of all Hiring to the Contractor Associations/Full Mobility & member rights - it is critical that members realize the context of how your existance is described in any Court Document as to how McCarron and the Contractors view you. You are his property and here for one purpose - generating dues, assessments, fines, per capita taxes and past that he has no real use for you. Cattle, like people were sold into slavery and indentured servitude, therefore, he has zero compulsion to view you as a human, rather - you're a commodity & a piece of property to be traded at will with the Contractor Associations in violation of the laws as noted below.
_____________________________________


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA) SECTION 14(b)
APPLICABILITY TO THE NERCC/UBCJA’S MOBILITY CLAUSE


14(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law. Currently, there are 28 - Non-Right to Work States & 22 - Right to Work States.

NLRA Section 14(b) operates in two ways: In all Non-RTW States (Union), Federal Pre-emption is applicable to the entire Act. In RTW States (Non-Union), Federal Pre-emption is waived under the Tenth Amendment, and the NLRB Board & General Counsel are free to apply the “Mobility” Provision to said Non-Union States, as State law(s) are controlling in the Right to Work (RTW) States.

 In Non-RTW States (Union States), the 12-31-09 slip Opinion issued in Lebovitz has no application. The reason is fairly obvious, once people understand the base NLRA 9(a) & (8f) Representation issues as applicable to the Construction Industry. Once a “bargaining representative” has been chosen and subsequently “certified” by the NLRB; and, after the Contractor, Firm, Organization complies with the proviso to Sec. 8(a)(3) regarding the collection of Dues & Initiation Fees and the requisite 30-Day hold for Sec. 9(a) and 7-Day hold for Sec. 8(f), and after Workers or Employees are properly advised of their Beck Rights, to refrain from any & all activities under NLRA Sec. 7 – application of the Lebovitz Ruling is out.

The CBA is a “contract”. Within said contracts for particular Locals, District & Regional Councils of the UBC are well Defined Geographical Jurisdictional areas, comprised of cities, towns, counties or combinations thereof as the case may be in a particular Non-RTW (Union) state. The “Defined Geographical Jurisdiction” of a UBCJA Contract (CBA) is “intangible property”.

In [Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 US 164 (1979), the United States Supreme Court noted….”one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property – the right to exclude others”.

In a RTW (Right to Work) State wherein Federal Pre-Emption operates as a waiver under the Tenth Amendment, Workers & Employees are free to be employed, or work anywhere they so choose, without exception, thus – the UBCJA signatory General Contractors or Subcontractors conducting their Union operations in any of the 22-Right to Work States, where a Union Security Clause is of no force or effect, in such States, the Mobility Clause would fall under the respective State Law.

In a Non-Right to Work State such as New York and the remaining 27-non RTW States, and as here applicable to NYCDCC Union Carpenters & all other Trade Unions operating Exclusive or Non-Exclusive Hiring Halls (re: Employer Chooses, Worker or Employee Solicits or Union Hiring Hall(s) select candidates for employment), the intangible property right of exclusion, to the defined geographical jurisdiction becomes effective, or operative.

After all other factors are properly weighed and compliance is had, the Locals are thus free to enforce the right of exclusion limiting this to the defined geographical jurisdiction, to the benefit of their properly indentured workers and employees; and, are free to employ their members first, all members to the exclusion of all others. 

The exclusion principle includes, Non-Union Workers, UBC Union Travelers – whether inter-state or intra-state, 1099 Independent Contractors, Cash Workers and Illegal Aliens/ Undocumented Workers & any others working off the books.

The NLRB Board, the UBCJA or their 36-subordinate Regional or District Councils cannot usurp the Congressional Authority to legislate. The UBC Constitution & Bylaws have been ruled “facially unlawful” as per slip opinion No. 354-122 Carpenters Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation) and Kevin Lebovitz dated 12-31-09. The union-security clause explicitly requires compliance with the Union’s constitution and bylaws, a requirement which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). See Stackhouse Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 559, 560 (6th Cir. 1964) (finding that employer did not violate the Act by refusing to sign a collective-bargaining agreement in which the union-security clause unlawfully required compliance with the union’s constitution and bylaws)

Even when illegal provisions within both documents are properly severed and they are then deemed to be in compliance with all mandates and requirements of law – the UBC Constitution & By-Laws do not supersede or usurp Congressional authority legislate.

UBC Attorneys for NERCC claim that the Mobility provision of the Contract (CBA) is an exception to the general rule, and this is where it runs afoul of the Law and where it must fail as a matter of law. This is also a clear example of the UBC International and its Regional/District Councils shopping NLRB Board Regions for favorable decisions gained in one Region and unilaterally applying the decision and order to all 50-States.

The NLRB Board and its General Counsel and Regional Director have failed to enforce the specific requirements of their original or amended Decision & Order (D & O) or to correct and strike the illegal languages from the NERCC 6-State Contracts (CBA’s). Their participation in this case, as a means to backdoor a legislative amendment to the NLRA, in collusion with the UBCJA warrants an investigation into the Inferior Agency of the Executive Branch…the NLRB & its Region 1 Office by the United States Department of Justice or Office of the Inspector General. The Board Agents and the General Counsel are sworn to uphold the law, not circumvent it for political reasons. Their actions are grossly negligent and warrant at a minimum fines and suspensions from the practice of law.

Douglas J. McCarron, Frank Spencer and John Ballantyne have suspended all NYCDCC Local’s autonomy as a fraudulent means to change the By-Laws, exercise a veto power, and to put forth a Restructuring Plan which incorporates 100% Full Mobility throughout the NYC District Council of Carpenters [turning NEW YORK into a RTW State, via executive fiat/willful violation and explicit threat to refuse to Bargain for a New Contract, unless & until the USAO & RO turn a blind eye to the Hobbs Act extortion threat and ignore the standing decision & order of Judge Haight for the 67%-33% Rule and there alone it is violates the Consent Decree. The UBCJA & NYCDCC waived any/all such rights they had as a trade off for the criminal indictments and are thus bound by Haight's Order - end of story. Meanwhile, every one plays Mickey the Dunce & points at BTEA & says, hey, get of Jail Card, it was Coletti's idea...wrong answer...it was McCarrons, the rest being part of the game ] and one which incorporates the entire State of New York; and which merges and consolidates Local Union rank & file workers/employees. {Restructuring Plan dated 5-26-11 at pg. 131 at 2. and at By-Laws Section 38, pg. 123 of 138, or pg. 28 of bylaws as a separate document}

 Under the law(s), this is fraudulent inducement, as the UBC International, with malice & fore-thought has intentionally deceived the US Attorney, the Independent Review Officer and the Court by with-holding these facts from them. Coupled together with the current 67% - 33% Rule, favoring Contractor Association workers and employees, wherein Contractors can increase the 67% ratio with other added rules under the Consent Decree, the Mobility provision fairly said – eats away an additional 30% in the Contractor Association and Contractor favor and effectively grants exclusive control and license to them of the Union Hiring Halls and the Out of Work List (OOWL). Not only does this disenfranchise workers and employees who rely upon the OOWL & Hiring Hall Rules under the Consent Decree, it is openly discriminatory and provides the  Contractor Associations a monopoly control over all hiring and violates the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree.


In NLRB Mountain Pacific, page 894, the portions not over-ruled, the Board noted:
"The Respondents do not, nor could they, argue that this contract does not make employment conditional upon union approval, for a more complete and outright surrender of the normal management hiring prerogative to a union could hardly be phrased in contract language. The fact that the Agreement limits the unions exclusive control to a 48-hour period after a request for employees is immaterial, for if unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to a Union is unlawful, the vice is not cured by a reversion back to the employer of the hiring privilege after the union is unable to enjoy the power conferred upon it."2
________________________________________

The Consent Decree does not trump the decision in the two Gene Clarke cases, one at the NLRB Board and the other at the Appeals Court which both declare the NYCDCC to be an "EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL"; and, neither case has been overturned (emphasis added).

Moreover, as the United States Supreme Court noted in Virginia Power & Electric Co. 319 U.S. 533 (1939) under a separate issue, but under the same legal theory – “it is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can be fairly said to effectuate policies of the act”.

McCarron, Conboy & the Contractor Associations are not the "Congress" and they cannot change, amend or alter Federal Laws (NLRA, LMRA, LMRDA, ERISA etc.) nor do any of them in their individual capacities or as a collective whole have any rights whatsoever to over-turn precedent decisions of the NLRB, Appellate Courts or the United States Supreme Court, nor can they do so under the Federal Civil RICO Consent Decree, as this remains a private contract between a private non-profit corporation (UBCJA) & the Federal Government.

pg 83 of response:

In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) “But would it be seriously contended that Congress could delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups so as to empower them to enact the laws they deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trade or industries? Could trade or industrial associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that purpose because such associations or groups are familiar with the problems of their enterprises? And could an effort of that sort be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to permissible aims as we find in section 1 of title 1? The answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to our law, and is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress…”

pg 96 of response:

In Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., 475 US 211 (1986), Justice White in delivering the opinion of the Court stated “Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject [475 US 211, 224] matter which lies within the control of Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them.” Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co, 294 US, 240, 307-308  (1935).
_____________________________________________

Because McCarron, former Judge Conboy & their co-conspirators at the Contractor Associations have engaged in a scheme to deprive workers of the inherent rights to property and have done so via the mail & wire in the Federal Court; each and all of their actions are predicates for Hobbs Act extortion & racketeering charges. None of them can usurp the powers of the Congress or the Courts, nor can these parties remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them, or, do so through the hammer known as the Federal Civil RICO Consent Decree  executed March 3, 1994 as noted above in 294 US 240 (1935).

Yet this is exactly what they tried to achieve by their cutely worded/phrased Full Mobility language using the word "hinged" to disguise their true intentions as to the above while the United States Attorneys  Office (party with direct standing to defend your interest) sat by and silently ignored the patently obvious extortion scheme; and, whether from indifference, ignorance of the laws, gross negligence or a combination of each, their inattention to detail is not excusable. The current USAO has yet to once take a definitive stand upon his own accord and should be summarily fired and removed from this case - period. No if's, and's or's or but's about it, it's time for him to go and be replaced by an aggressive/sharp USAO who has the gumption to take a stand and defend your rights.