US v. NYCDCC, 1:90-cv-05722-CSH-THK, 10/15/2008, 954, ORDER; that at the hearing on October 24, 2008, the Court will hear oral argument on the issue of remedy, now fully briefed by all parties. The hearing will begin at 10:30 a.m. in Room 6A, 500 Pearl Street. The Court will hear counsel in the order set forth in this Order. The time limits specified will be enforced. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 10/15/08) (pl) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
At the hearing on October 24, 2008, the Court will hear oral argument on the issue of remedy, now fully briefed by all parties.
The hearing will begin at 10:30 a.m. in Room 6A, 500 Pearl Street. The Court will hear counsel in the order set forth in this Order. The time limits specified will be enforced.
10:30 a.m.
Government, 30 minutes
District Council, 30 minutes
11:30 a.m.
Building Contrs. Ass’n, 15 minutes
Ass’n of the Wall-Ceiling, 15 minutes
Carpentry Indus. of N.Y., 15 minutes
Cement League, 15 minutes
General Contrs. Ass’n, 15 minutes
12:30 a.m.
Lunch Break, One hour
1:30 p.m.
Gen. Contrs. Ass’n of N.Y., 15 minutes
Eugene Clark, 15 minutes
Replies
2:00 p.m.
Government, 30 minutes
District Council, 30 minutes
3:00 p.m.
All other parties, 10 minutes each, in same order as above
4:00 p.m.
Government – Final Submission, 15 minutes
It is SO ORDERED, 0ctober, 15, 2008.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge.
[50/50 Rule, "Request" System, Thomassen's Contempt]
Source: 1:90-cv-05722, 10/15/2008, Entry # 954
See also:
1:90-cv-05722, 10/20/2008, Entry # 955
1:90-cv-05722-CSH, US v. NYCDCC
4 comments:
On 2008 October 19, 11:31 am EDT, the following question was posted at Jaw’in (jawin.freehostia.com/_disc1/0000017c.htm) in reply to my 2008 October 18, 4:34 EDT, posting at Jaw’in ( jawin.freehostia.com/_disc1/00000175.htm) to which “long bow” asks, “Dan, What is this case regarding?”
The civil case 1:90-cv-05722 (CSH) (THK) is the case in which the United States government brought suit in 1990 against the NYCDCC due to organized crime.
Initially the suit was the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
- against -
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY
AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
PASCHAL McGUINNESS, President,
IRVING ZEIDMAN, First Vice President,
FWDERICK W. DEVINE, Second Vice President,
FRANCIS J. P. McHALE, Secretary-Treasurer,
ANTHONY SALERNO, a/k/a “Fat Tony,”
VlNCENT DiNAPOLI,
LQUIS DiNAPOLI,
PETER DeFEO,
ALEXANDER MORELLI , a/k/a “Black Alex,”
LPBORIO BELLOMO, a/k/a “Barney,”
Defendants.
The Preliminary Statement of the original 59-page complaint filed 1990 September 6 states, “This action concerns the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “District Council”). For at least twenty years, the District Council has been infiltrated by corrupt individuals and organized crime figures who have exploited their control over the District Council for personal gain. During this time, union members’ rights have been systematically traded for secret payoffs. Those who opposed this corrupt state of affairs -- whether employers or union members -- have been intimidated into silence by violence, threats, economic coercion, and the known ties between corrupt union officers and organized crime. The United States brings this suit for injunctive relief pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) in order to put an end to this corrupt control of a labor organization.”
On 1994 March 4, a Consent Decree was entered into between the NYCDCC and the US government. The Consent Decree is docket entry number 410 of currently 954 entries of the civil case 1:90-cv-05722. The docket entry 410 summary states,
“CONSENT JUDGMENT for United States Of against N.Y.C. District Council Of, Frederick W. Devine, Robert J. Cavanaugh. Said defts, without admitting or denying any of the allegations of the complaint, have agreed w/ the Gov't to settle this litigation as against them on the terms set forth in this Consent Decree. The complaint and supplemental complaint against these defts are dismissed w/ prejudice. ( signed by Judge Charles S. Haight ) (emil) (Entered: 03/07/1994)”
Until I can format correctly the very lengthy docket and link properly the entries and exhibits, you can find a non-PDF version of the Consent Decree at www.thelaborers.net/carpenters/exhibits-htm/ex-1_consent_decree-4_Dir/ex-1_consent_decree-4_Page1.htm.
On 2002 December 18, a Stipulation and Order was filed, docket entry 683, that stated,
“WHEREAS, on or about July 24,2001, Eugene Clarke, a member of Local Union No. 608 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ("Clarke"), filed a complaint (the "Clarke Complaint") with the Executive Committee of the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the "District Council");
WHEREAS, on or about December 27, 2001, Clarke filed a motion with this Court styled as a "Motion to Enforce Consent Decree" (hereinafter, the "Clarke Motion");
WHEREAS, the Clarke Complaint and Clarke Motion allege, among other things,
that there have been persistent violations of the District Council's job referral rules, incorporated in their original form into the Consent Decree entered in this case on March 4, 1994 (the "Consent Decree"), involving the referral of shop stewards;
WHEREAS, in January 2002 the District Council Executive Committee approved a report of its investigation committee which concluded the referrals cited in the Clarke Complaint were technically correct, but recommended changes in the approved job referral rules;
WHEREAS, the United States (hereafter, the "Government") does not endorse the accuracy or completeness of the District Council's report of investigation regarding, or the District Council's underlying investigation of, the Clarke complaint;
WHEREAS, on or about January 29, 2002, the District Council submitted papers in opposition to the Clarke Motion;
WHEREAS, on or about September 25, 2002, Clarke submitted reply papers in further support of the Clarke Motion;
WHEREAS, the District Council, without admitting the allegations raised by the Clarke Motion, has entered into negotiations with the United States (hereafter, the "Government") intended to improve the District Council's job referral rules and to curb opportunities for abuse and corruption of those rules;
WHEREAS, as a result of these negotiations, the District Council and the Government have reached agreement on terms for the modification of the District Council's job referral rules and the Consent Decree that they believe will improve the fair and equitable operation of those rules and reduce the opportunity for their abuse and corruption;”
Of course, there is a lot more to this case, but these are a few of the more significant pieces. Though it will take time and thousands of dollars to purchase, due to its significance, I will eventually make all the entries and exhibits of this case, US v. NYCDCC, 1:90-cv-05722, available online for all to access freely, as well as all associated IRO/II reports and exhibits.
I know it is a huge amount of information that no one is likely to bear alone. However, if most of the 25,515 NYC members (1) of the 523,815 UBC members (2), if not all, at least knew about this case and read just a few of the more significant documents, I know it would benefit all members.
(1) LM-2 2008, Item 20, franco1.info/LM-2/LM-2_NYCDCC_2008.htm
(2) LM-2 2007, Item 20, franco1.info/LM-2/LM-2_UBCJA_2007.htm
Note: Technically, these answers are not correct because Item 20 asks, “How many members did the labor organization have at the end of the reporting period?” Technically, the answer should be zero because the question uses “have” rather than some other term such as “cover”. There are no members in these organizations. Though our locals unions are affiliated with our councils, which are affiliated with our international, the only carpenter organizations to “have” members are the local unions.
[Reposted with clickable addresses. Originally posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:47:00 PM EDT without clickable addresses.]
Judge Haight’s Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Szalay, has secured a larger courtroom for tomorrow's argument (Friday, October 24). It will be held in Judge Duffy's courtroom 26A (500 Pearl St.).
supreme clothing
air max 2018
off white hoodie
yeezy boost
hermes online
yeezy boost 350 v2
supreme clothing
buy christian louboutin
golden goose sneakers
ferragamo belts
click here now Dolabuy Dior read the article replica louis vuitton check out the post right here replica gucci bags
Post a Comment