– Re: NCCMP & McCarron & all UBCJA Trust Funds Criminal Racketeering &...
In Reply To
United States Supreme Court
CONNOLLY v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP., (1986)
Argued: December 2, 1985 Decided: February 26, 1986
"Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject [475 U.S. 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 U.S. 240, 307 -308 (1935).
If the regulatory statute is otherwise within the powers of Congress, therefore, its application may not be defeated by private contractual provisions. For the same reason, the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking.
The exception being illegal confiscatory schemes & outright theft of pension monies which are designed to line the pockets of wealthy contractors & developers and put forth by the International unions sock puppet G.P. wherein the benefit of the bargain does not inure to the direct benefit of the retirees in the form of interest, dividends and direct ownership of the projects funded.
Under the Tutor-McCarron-Ross Hudson Yards scam replete with the immediate kickback of 20% in wages w/o bargaining to impasse, the alleged wage concessions via a PLA amount to nothing more than a direct kick-back and are illegal under the RICO statutes as well as the 1994 Consent Decree.
Under the LMRA & LMRDA and MPPAA etc., the illegal back room/ in chambers deals do not cover the withdrawal liability for the time the funds are not working directly on behalf of retiree interests and concerns as opposed to those orchestrating & participating is these illegal deals directly for their own benefit. ERISA & the MPPAA do not care what their interests are financially or otherwise and the statute/law surrounding this issue makes this point emphatically clear.
The fact that the government, the United States Attorney's Office (U.S.A.O.) in NYC & the Court stand idly by and watch while failing to act while allegedly monitoring a corrupt District Council under a criminal RICO case which has turned into a near 25-year abortive Civil RICO Consent Decree wherein the government actors are worse than the mobsters they claim to abhor - said facts put the government squarely on the hook for an 'illegal taking' under the 5th Amendment.
Moreover, were the Federal District Court in the S.D.N.Y. and/or the USAO to pull a Tutor-McCarron claim of special dispensation and find themselves not guilty as everyone knows they will do via denying standing to plan participants and retirees, a change of venue would solve that; and, private parties whether individually or collectively as a class action can sue under the takings clause; and can recover the true principal, interest, damages, court costs and attorney fees they would be entitled to receive were the Court & the USAO's office & the Review Officer (R.O.) actually doing their jobs as opposed to being in bed with the corrupt UBCJA, its General President Douglas J. McCarron and his cohorts/partners in crime. Turning a blind eye to the illegal racketeering schemes and theft of funds disqualifies all of them from having bar cards or from serving as Federal District Court judges (Judge Berman, the alleged specialist/expert in bank, insurance & trust fund fraud/racketeering).
Instead of ending the fraud, corruption and racketeering, said parties noted above have only encouraged and perpetuated more of it; so much so that they make Forde, Greaney, Oliveri and the stewards and contractors from the 8-5-09 perp walk & subsequent indictment's/convictions look like saints convicted of simple misdemeanors.
excerpt: last paragraph
"We are far from persuaded that fairness and justice require the public, rather than the withdrawing employers and other parties to pension plan agreements, to shoulder the responsibility for rescuing plans that are in financial trouble. The employers in the present litigation voluntarily negotiated and maintained a pension plan which was determined to be within the strictures of ERISA. We do not know, as a fact, whether this plan was underfunded, but Congress determined that unregulated withdrawals from multiemployer plans could endanger their financial vitality and deprive workers of the vested rights they were entitled to anticipate would be theirs upon retirement. For this reason, Congress [475 U.S. 211, 228] imposed withdrawal liability as one part of an overall statutory scheme to safeguard the solvency of private pension plans."
The unregulated $100M Withdrawal is being used to enrich & line the pockets of private individuals not covered by the retirement plan, thus it is directly contrary to the statutory requirements imposed by the U.S. Congress when ERISA & the MPPAA were enacted and codified into law; and, it is a prima-facie example and case of criminal racketeering, extortion & theft of funds mandating a grand jury investigation and the subsequent indictment of every actor involved.
All parties named & tbd above are guilty until proven innocent; ahh crap, I mean innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law, or are they?