Reply – Re: JUDGE BERMAN, the PYSCHOLOGIST on ARROGANCE, FEDERAL ELECTION GUIDELLINE...
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: JUDGE BERMAN, the PYSCHOLOGIST on ARROGANCE, FEDERAL ELECTION GUIDELLINES & ENGLISH LESSONS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
— by Ted Ted
DEFLATEGATE - pg. 18-20 excerpt from Judge Bermans ruling to vacate the arbitral award.

III. Legal Standard

"Although judicial scrutiny of arbitration awards necessarily is limited,such review is
sufficient to ensure that arbitrators comply with the requirements of the statute at issue." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Com., IllS. Ct. 1647, 1655 (1991) (quoting Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 2340 (1987)). "The deference due an arbitrator does not extend so far as to require a district court to countenance, much less confirm, an award obtained without the requisites of fairness or due process." Kaplan v. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 259 (JFK), 1996 WL 640901, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 1996).
18

Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA''), "the validity of an award is subject to attack
only on those grounds listed in [9 U.S.C.] § 10, and the policy of the FAA requires that an award be enforced unless one of those grounds is affirmatively shown to exist." Wall Street Assocs. L.P. v. Becker Pari bas Inc., 27 F .3d 845, 849 (2d Cir. 1994). For example, FAA § I 0 provides that the Court may vacate an arbitral award "where the arbitrators were guilty of ... refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy." 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(3). The Court may also vacate an arbitral award "where there was evident partiality ... " 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(2).

A "principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement, since the arbitrator is not free to merely dispense his own brand of industrial justice." 187 Concourse Assocs. v. Fishman, 399 F.3d 524, 527 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Saint Marv Home, Inc. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116 F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 1997)). "[A]s the proctor of the bar gain, the arbitrator's task is to effectuate the intent of the parties. His source of authority is the collective-bargaining agreement, and he must interpret and apply that agreement in accordance with the 'industrial common law of the shop' and the various needs and desires of the parties." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 954 F.2d 801, 809 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 94 S. Ct. 1011, 1022 (1974)) (emphasis omitted).

It is the "law of the shop" to provide professional football players with advance notice of
prohibited conduct and potential discipline. In In the Matter of Reggie Langhorne
("Langhorne"), Arbitrator Richard R. Kasher vacated the discipline of a player who had refused to take part in practice, holding that the player "was entitled at some time to be placed on notice as to what consequences would flow from his refusal to participate in ... practice. Any disciplinary program requires that individuals subject to that program understand, with

19
reasonable certainty, what results will occur if they breach established rules." Slip op. at 25 (Apr. 9, 1994). In NFLMC v. NFLPA (Ricky Brown) ("Ricky Brown"), Arbitrator Michael H.
Beck vacated a fine imposed upon a player for missing a mandatory weigh-in, and observed that "adequate notice is the fundamental concept in discipline cases." Slip op. at 10 (July 16, 2010). In the Bounty-Gate case, former NFL Commissioner Paul J. Tagliabue, appointed as arbitrator by Commissioner Goodell after Goodell had recused himself, vacated the suspension of a player who had allegedly obstructed the League's investigation into the New Orleans Saints' bounty program (involving alleged monetary incentives to injure opposing players). Slip op. at I (Dec. II, 2012). Tagliabue stated: "There is no evidence of a record of past suspensions based purely on obstructing a League investigation. In my forty years of association with the NFL, I am aware of many instances of denials in disciplinary proceedings that proved to be false, but I cannot recall any suspension for such fabrication. There is no evidence of a record of past suspensions based purely on obstructing a League investigation." !d. at 13.

_________________

H'mm, very interesting in the choice of which precedent to cite herein.

"Although judicial scrutiny of arbitration awards necessarily is limited,such review is
sufficient to ensure that arbitrators comply with the requirements of the statute at issue." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Com., IllS. Ct. 1647, 1655 (1991) (quoting Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 2340 (1987)).

Not only do arbitrators have to comply with "the requirements of statute at issue"; but so do sitting Federal District Court judges in private CIVIL RICO litigation contracts; re: the 1994 Consent Decree did not & does not vacate federal statutes relative to labor law, contracts etc. and the associated Appellate Court and United States Supreme Court precedent(s); nor does it shred, negate or eviscerate the U.S. Constitution or the Congressional mandate to change, alter or amend Federal law(s) - yet in the history of the 1994 Consent Decree, this abortion of justice and the actual practice of the Federal District Court under two judges has been to do exactly that - ignore both statutue and precedent ad nauseum and in direct violation of the attorney sworn oaths to uphold the statute/law(s) and not make it up as they go.

AND;


A "principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement, since the arbitrator is not free to merely dispense his own brand of industrial justice." 187 Concourse Assocs. v. Fishman, 399 F.3d 524, 527 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Saint Marv Home, Inc. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116 F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 1997)). "[A]s the proctor of the bar gain, the arbitrator's task is to effectuate the intent of the parties. His source of authority is the collective-bargaining agreement, and he must interpret and apply that agreement in accordance with the 'industrial common law of the shop' and the various needs and desires of the parties." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 954 F.2d 801, 809 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 94 S. Ct. 1011, 1022 (1974)) (emphasis omitted).


Wow; this citation brings up the phony MWA Arbitration award and all of its false claims and the illegal settment monies (extortion) paid out by the inept & grossly incompetent District Councils alleged legal beagles.

Moreover, it brings to light the simple fact that Douglas J. McCarron has been dispensing his own brand of industrial justice via fraud, artifice, corruption & pay-offs for two decades via forum & judge shopping and the attendant bribes associated therewith to obtain favorable; albeit, unconstitutional and illegal rulings.

* All corrupt UBCJA & D.C. officers, agents, employees, inside & outside legal counsel and associates including those within the U.S. government and Federal District Courts are guilty until proven innocent; ahh crap - I mean innocent until proven guilty in a competent and corruption free court of law, or are they?
 NFL, you make the call!