– Re: Harrington v. Chao
In Reply To
Despite Torrances lie the UBC itself on multiple filings with the IRS called LM2s have declared"The Council has no members" . The UBC and Doug Mccarron have declared, in Federal Court, that the Council has “no legal binding authority outside its own entity”. Despite Torrances telling the lie again to the appeals court and going as far now to declare the Locals are servants to the Council he is full of shit. The Sec of Labor in Harringiton v Chao has declared,which by the way Torrance cannot and will not ignore no matter how many time rubber stamp Berman approves his BS, : The locals that are subordinate to the Council, however, are NOT"merely administrative arms" of the union but play such a significant role in dealing with their members..."As shown above, the locals are independently chartered, have identifiable memberships, elect their own officers, and have their own bylaws. Although initially appointed by a Council representative, stewards are local members, and resolve most grievances without the participation of or input from the Council representative. The locals also administer all job referrals on a local, rather than a regional,basis. (The referral process, which is determined by the Council representative, may vary from local to local.) The locals determine and collect monthly dues. A person joins the UBC by becoming a member of a local union, and a member's journeyman level is determined by the local upon admission. A member can withdraw from the union only "by submitting a clear and unequivocal resignation in writing to the Local Union." Although collective bargaining agreements may be negotiated by the Council on a multi-local basis, locals are parties to the agreement and conduct ratification votes among local members. In addition to these functions, the locals also hire their own clerical employees, maintain offices, maintain bank accounts, hold meetings, engage in voluntary organizing drives, lobby, and administer scholarship and disability funds." As we can all see Chao in her second SSR blatantly lied as does Torrance but her lie is binding and is applicable to the NYCDCC as it will be used to tell Torrance to go f.. himself.
The judge has ruled that HvC is NOT applicable to the NYCDCC case.. Nobody gives a crap what the rubber stamp Judge(babysitter) has ruled . That is why they have appeals courts.
"that HvC is NOT applicable to the NYCDCC case" Really then why did Torrance use one lie to tell another. Chaos second SSR is a blatant lie yet is is a legally binding lie unlike the opinion of Torrance. HVC is most certainly applicable to the NTCDCC case since it is the case that provides the DOL official ruling on the structure of the UBC and its entity's. It is the case that proves Torrances is a liar in regards to the relationship between the Locals and Council. From the beginning the US Attorneys office have declared all members of Locals to be members of the Council That is flat out lie and BS. He has repeatedly told that lie to avoid the limits of Rubber Stamp Berman and Walshs power over the locals which Nee correctly argues in his case.