https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWitsAgxd8U&ab_channel=CBC
Retrobites: Jimmy Hoffa (1960) | CBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eFPkqBLCdg&ab_channel=MyFootage.com
1957 John F. Kennedy Questions Jimmy Hoffa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQu9KeP06s&ab_channel=MOBFAX
Robert F Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa - McLellan Committee 1957
Union Power Political Action
CUPE 1992 General Strike [video]
![CUPE 1992 General Strike [video]](https://nbmediacoop.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CUPE-1992-General-Strike-Still-from-CUPE-video.jpg)
In 1992, the New Brunswick government had tried to break signed contracts with several CUPE locals. Then Liberal Premier Frank McKenna thought he could push around workers to impose his austerity agenda. An eight-day province-wide illegal strike by CUPE members forced the Government of New Brunswick to back down and honour signed collective agreements.
After much digging in our old VCR archives, the full CUPE 1992 general strike video is finally on Youtube. Watch it here. For more on the 1992 General Strike, read labour historian David Frank’s commentary here.
CUPE 1992 general strike video
Steve Drost, CUPE New Brunswick President gives his views after Premier Blaine Higgs left conference
1 Comment
The Teamsters Union represents 125,000 members in Canada. They are affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has 1.4 million members in North America.
For more information :
Stéphane Lacroix
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
Teamsters Canada
Cell: 514-609-5101
slacroix@teamsters.ca
https://www.facebook.com/Teamsters-Local-927-340945505997965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDBbtBS-LP0&ab_channel=Teamsters
James R Hoffa Remembered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7e1Bk21OcM&ab_channel=Teamsters
Full General President Candidates’ Debate Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Si8YyiKdo&ab_channel=Teamsters
Final Teamsters General President Candidates Debate 2021
Teamsters Say Goodbye to U.S. Oversight 30 Years After Takeover
In the summer of 1988, Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis as their presidential candidate, the Soviet Union competed in its last Olympic Games, and the U.S. government filed a lawsuit to take control of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Now, more than 30 years later, that oversight is about to end. Feb. 17 marks the close of an unprecedented effort to root out organized crime from U.S. labor unions.
Although immediate effects of the federal departure will be largely symbolic, it opens the door to potentially significant adjustments in how the Teamsters union investigates future corruption and how it conducts elections in 2026 and beyond. The union will no longer need written government approval to make disciplinary and election rule changes, although it still must notify the government of adjustments.
“February 17 will be a historic day for the Teamsters because we’re finally ending government interference in our union,” Teamsters President James P. Hoffa told Bloomberg Law. It’s the “capstone” of an era, he added.
The milestone is the result of a “Final Agreement” reached in 2015. It said that organized crime’s influence over the Teamsters “has long been expunged” and set a five-year timetable for the government to relinquish its role in union affairs.
At least 47 people were individually listed as defendants in the government’s case, ranging from union officials like Teamsters President Jackie Presser to mobsters such as Angelo “The Nutcracker” Lapietra and Carmine “The Snake” Persico.
The case was originally brought by U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York Rudolph Giuliani—now an attorney for President Donald Trump. Giuliani had investigated the Teamsters for over a year before filing the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The
union had made a “devil’s pact” with organized crime that had led to an
extensive pattern of racketeering activity ranging from embezzlement to
murder, the government’s lawsuit alleged. Hours before a trial was to
decide whether the government could place the union into federal
trusteeship, Teamsters officials and prosecutors reached a settlement
that remained intact until the Final Order in 2015.
Mixed Legacy
Three decades of federal oversight leaves a complicated legacy.
Despite initial widespread concern about the impact of a government takeover, there’s consensus that the union is now more open and democratic. But that could have been accomplished much faster without government involvement, Hoffa said.
“I don’t know about ‘positive,’” Hoffa said of how he would describe the oversight. “We should have done it ourselves. I was not here, and I would not have done it the way they did it because they left it so open-ended for such a long period of time. Whatever had to be done with regard to our union certainly didn’t need to take 30 years.”
But longevity aside, the union is more member-run than ever before, Hoffa said. One member, one vote became a facet of the Teamsters for the first time.
“It’s had an extremely wholesome effect,” said Ken Paff, a national organizer with the reform-minded Teamsters for a Democratic Union. TDU was founded in 1976 as a “grassroots organization” of union members advocating for more open elections and fewer contract concessions. It serves as a sort of opposition party within the union.
That’s a departure from criticism by organized labor leaders and politicians when the government’s racketeering suit was first filed. Even the TDU said at the time that government trusteeship wasn’t the answer to the union’s corruption.
“I have great difficulty in the trusteeship of an entire international union,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told the New York Times
in 1988. He was then the ranking Republican on the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee. “I don’t think the government or any court in
this nation is capable of being a trustee over a union.”
One Member, One Vote
Before the government-mandated reforms, most rank-and-file union members didn’t get a chance to vote for leadership. Teamsters’ officers were elected by delegates every five years; the delegates were appointed—not elected—by locals.
Now, union members elect delegates to the convention who then nominate candidates for a general election. Any candidate receiving more than 5% of the delegate vote appears on the general election ballot where every Teamsters member has a vote. The lower threshold allows TDU-aligned reformist candidates to appear in elections, according to labor historian and Penn State Harrisburg professor David Witwer.
“I think it was a good thing that they sued them,” Witwer said of the government’s involvement. “And then when they filed the suit, among the things they could change was changing the electoral process so that it was a direct vote, not a vote by delegates from local unions.”
The oversight also helped clean up mob links
to the union. Before the government’s lawsuit, key members of the
executive board were members of organized crime. Most locals were run
honestly, but a handful were in cities where mobster corruption was
“endemic,” according to Witwer.
Impact on the Future
An international election of Teamsters officers is scheduled for next year. Per the Final Order, the union can’t change voting procedures in that race but delegates will now be able to put a proposal before the 2021 convention that can alter the nomination threshold in future elections.
The prospect concerns the TDU, according to Paff. Its most recent candidate for international union president only received 8% of the delegate vote at the 2016 union convention but 49% of the vote in the general election against incumbent President Hoffa. If the nomination threshold had been 10%, there wouldn’t have been an opposition choice for president of the Teamsters.
“Our candidates in the South would not have been nominated if it was 10%,” Paff said. “They barely made the five. They overwhelmingly won the rank-and-file vote by 57%. So now you see that these are concerns for the future.”
Hoffa said “he’s sure that proposal would come up” to change nomination thresholds but it would be up to the delegates. He said he’d have to see a proposal before supporting or opposing it.
The union also will have to continue paying for an independent election supervisor and maintain two independent officers to investigate wrongdoing in the union and issue punishment accordingly. But now those officers and election supervisor will be chosen solely by the Teamsters. The union must notify the government but doesn’t need its approval.
Corruption within his union will “never come back,” Hoffa said. “We have a very strong culture of fighting corruption. We have a culture of democracy. We have a culture of one-member, one-vote. And that is so important to our union.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Wallender in Washington at awallender@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Martha Mueller Neff at mmuellerneff@bloomberglaw.com; Terence Hyland at thyland@bloomberglaw.com
At Least The Married Lawyers Who Helped Bring Us The Impeachment Scandal Are Having Fun
You may not know them well, but you know their work: Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova have been at the center of major political news for 40 years. And we might not be in the middle of impeachment without them.
The impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump has
brought a parade of once-faceless bureaucrats before the nation. You
have your Davids and your Bills, your Maries and Jennifers. Appearing
before the House Intelligence Committee, most wore a somber uniform of
navy blue and gray, to the point that a bow tie briefly became the visual star of the day.
The night that the public impeachment hearings opened last month, two people more in line with the president, in thinking and in style, appeared on Fox News. Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, two lawyers who informally advise Trump and helped Rudy Giuliani as he sought dirt on the president’s political rivals, sat side by side, as they have countless times, to defend the president and attack his enemies.
They have a routine down when they appear on TV — she sits on the left, he on the right, and they are so in sync after doing this for so many years that they even take turns blinking. Turn the sound off, and it’s not unlike watching owls. DiGenova, 74, and Toensing, 78, look younger than their years. He wears a dark turtleneck under a tweed blazer. Toensing wears a gold-accented throw over a black shirt, all of it working to highlight her deep red hair, parted to the side and hovering over bangs. They both sit back like they’re very comfortable, like they just want to invite you over to listen to some smooth jazz.
That night on Fox, Lou Dobbs opened his show by noting that the public impeachment hearings had begun, or as he called it, “the Adam Schiff phony-baloney, rollicking, frolicking, sanctimony and pomposity medicine show.” Toensing and diGenova were there to praise the Republican members of the committee (“terrific,” said Toensing) and to repeat the day’s talking point — that the opening hearing was a boring bust (“an embarrassment for the Democrats,” said diGenova).
Toensing and diGenova have been a fixture on TV for decades, and on Fox for years, because they deliver on a promise of impassioned commentary and sharp insults. They like to push at the edges of the permissible. In the Trump era, that’s meant wading into the realm of conspiracy.
A few minutes into Dobbs’ conversation with the couple that night, the host mentioned George Soros — and diGenova quickly seized the bait. “Well, there’s no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities of FBI agents oversees who work for NGOs, work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine,” he said as Toensing nodded along. “He corrupted FBI officials, he corrupted foreign service officers, and the bottom line is this: George Soros wants to run Ukraine, and he’s doing everything he can — he used every lever of the United States government to make that happen.”
The response was swift. Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Anti-Defamation League called on Fox to ban diGenova from appearing again, the former calling it “beyond ludicrous” and “McCarthyite,” the latter saying it was “trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes.” The network refused to publicly comment, and a spokesperson pointed to the fact that diGenova was a guest, not a paid contributor, directing further questions to him.
That was far from the first time that Toensing and diGenova had dived headfirst into a Soros-accented conspiracy puddle. Over the past year, they have used their connections to help feed a number of Ukraine conspiracy theories — and bring them directly to the American people and Donald Trump.
You might not know them well, but without Toensing and diGenova, the most outlandish theories might not have found their way into the ether. Toensing’s client and longtime friend John Solomon is the one who spread the rumor that Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, hated Trump; so-called “documentary evidence” of Joe Biden firing a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son had emerged in a case that both Toensing and diGenova are working on; and the couple have also alluded to the conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine — and not Russia — that meddled in the 2016 election by seeking to help Hillary Clinton. Often lording over the whole spectacle, in their telling, was Soros — the billionaire who has become a bogeyman for the right. (The line that he is seeking to run Ukraine, for one, could have come straight out of the mouth of Vladimir Putin.)
Just trying to make sense of the story of Trump and Ukraine can make your head spin. Identifying Toensing and diGenova’s roles in that story can make your head explode, especially without their input. They declined to be interviewed for this piece. So did Rudy Giuliani, who has known diGenova for decades. Nobody seems to know exactly when Toensing and diGenova first met Trump, and they declined, via a spokesperson, to say when they did.
What is clear, however, is that this summer, Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash hired Toensing and diGenova to fight his extradition on bribery charges to the US. Subsequently, in that case, an affidavit from Viktor Shokin appeared, in which the disgraced prosecutor alleged that his fate was the result of a personal vendetta carried out by former vice president Joe Biden. (The US government, the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund all supported Shokin’s removal.) The affidavit has become central to Trump world’s argument that Biden had acted improperly in Ukraine while his son was on Burisma’s board. Toensing and diGenova have also helped question the motives of Crowdstrike, the US company that first detected the Russian government’s hack of the DNC. In the midst of all this misinformation gumbo, the president and certain members of Congress now believe Crowdstrike was owned by a Ukrainian. (It isn’t.)
For four decades, if there’s been an outlandish story in Washington, there’s a good chance that Toensing and diGenova have played a part — prosecuting a crime, commenting on TV, or something in between. And as the more stable political balance of the 1980s and 1990s has given way to the chaos of now, the couple has drawn on the weirdest experiences of their past — the dabbling in conspiracy, the endless PR, connecting people from various parts of their lives. Only this time their work hasn’t landed them gushing profiles in the DC media — it’s helped contribute to the impending impeachment of a US president.
“They have not slowed down,” said Mark Corallo, who was the spokesperson for Trump’s legal team during the Mueller investigation and is now the spokesperson for the two as they work on Firtash’s legal case. “It's like, whoa — I have trouble keeping up with them, and everybody says I have a lot of energy. What I like about them now even more is that they have more fun. They still manage to find the fun and the joy in the work. There's no bitterness, there's no phoning it in, but they laugh more, they smile more. It's like, hey, this is really fun.”
Who are these people?
DiGenova and Toensig in 1998.
Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova met in 1980 at a rally in
support of the Equal Rights Amendment held outside that year’s
Republican National Convention in Detroit. Toensing was selling elephant
pins and diGenova bought them all (30 in all for $3 a pop). “I thought
it was an interesting way to get to meet someone whom I considered an
extremely attractive woman,” he later said.
On their second date, he proposed. They married the following year and
held their reception inside the Senate Caucus Room. Toensing was chief
counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and diGenova was chief
legislative aide to Charles Mathias, a Republican senator from Maryland.
Wrote the Washington Post, “Now they’re on their way to becoming the
most powerful household in the U.S. Senate, on a staff level at least.”
For a pair who have come to exemplify the sort of renegade and very un–Deep State types to whom the president is drawn, Toensing and diGenova have a traditional, even impressive, background — and they’ve been at the center or periphery of many Washington events for almost 40 years.
In 1983, at 38, diGenova was nominated by Ronald Reagan to be the US attorney for Washington, DC, and “with the very gracious assistance of Joe Biden,” then senator from his home state of Delaware, he was confirmed in just nine days. “Biden decided he was going to take me under his wing and got me through along with the help of [then-Judiciary chair senator Strom Thurmond],” diGenova said in a series of interviews in 2003. Many heralded his appointment, with the Washington Post calling him “quick-witted and aggressive,” “nearly hyperactive,” “continually punching the buttons on his telephone to call his extensive network of Hill and administration contacts.” Mathias, who died in 2010, called him “extremely bright” and an “excellent, articulate speaker” and said he had a real ability to find “consensus among people with extremely different views.”
“It’s very difficult to intimidate Joe but a lot of people try,” said Charles Leeper, an assistant US attorney under diGenova who worked the high-profile case of Jonathan Pollard, the US intelligence analyst convicted of spying for Israel. “There was a lot of pushback for what we were trying to do. There was a lot of pressure brought to bear in that matter, not to be perhaps as aggressive as we would be in a case involving a non-ally — and Joe resisted that pressure, and I resisted, and Joe backed me up.”
Leeper added: “Joe is assertive and aggressive and he’s direct — above all, he is direct. And that doesn’t always square with the interests of, say, the diplomatic arena, political arena.”
With Toensing sworn in as deputy assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s criminal division in 1984, the first woman to hold the post, the two became known as a power duo committed to carrying out Reagan’s focus on “law and order.”
“Spies! Terrorists! Crooks! There’s hardly a crime, it seems, that doesn’t fall within the jurisdictions of Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova,” the Washington Post announced in yet another profile the following year. In 1984, Esquire named diGenova to its “register of baby boomers,” alongside people like Glenn Close and the Clintons. “Sometimes I carry my beeper and sometimes Joe carries his,” Toensing told the Post. “But for the most part, I’d say we were a two-beeper family.”
From the very beginning, Toensing and diGenova have excelled at a bipartisan Washington pursuit: delivering the sharp quote, being on the record in the good story, and understanding the optics and machinations that shape government decision-making. “Politics is not a dirty word or a dirty subject,” diGenova said in 1985. “I’m not ashamed of it. This is a town where politics is a craft, it’s a commodity, it’s part of the practice of law.”
He was part of a wave of young US attorneys like Giuliani and Bill Weld, who waged the drug war and went after municipal corruption, insider trading, and financial crimes. But diGenova’s relentless campaign against the late Marion Barry — a civil rights activist turned complicated Washington institution as mayor of DC — became nasty and fraught. “A lot of people have a bad taste in their mouths from it,” said Fred Cooke, his former lawyer. “People have a negative feeling — not just folks in the black community — of what went on.”
During his tenure, diGenova’s office convicted 12 officials in Barry’s administration — but never Barry himself, who would later be convicted on one count of drug possession after the infamous undercover FBI sting ordered by diGenova’s successor. Barry contended that diGenova’s campaign against him — and the contracting system in Washington, a city that was then about 70% black but had only recently brought black business owners into the fold — was racist. The media accused diGenova of waging “a political war with the city administration.”
The DC attorney’s office is the only one in the country that tries both federal and local cases, because of the unique nature of the jurisdiction. Decades later, Cooke still feels that diGenova could have done it differently. “Be part of the community — say ‘I’m here to be your prosecutor. I’m here for you. I know the president put me here, but I’m here for you,’” Cooke said. “Joe didn’t try to do that.”
Cooke was loath to get into the details.
“I am so done with Joe,” he said, exasperated. “It doesn’t seem unusual to me that Joe is doing this. I’m done with Joe and Vicky.”
Toensing, meanwhile, was working her way up through the Reagan Justice Department — with a committed feminist streak at odds with even the latter-day conservative repositioning of those principles. Toensing was an old-school feminist; in the 1970s, she’d told women that the expectation they bring perfect cookies to school events was a standard meant to keep women down. (“You know why they taught us that?” she was quoted as saying in 1976, well before “smash the patriarchy” became a meme. “Because they knew if women spent all that energy out there participating in the system, we’d be dangerous. We might even be victorious.”)
She led groups that worked with the National Organization for Women, and has been staunchly pro–abortion rights. In the early ’80s, she brought an official complaint against a bankruptcy court judge who had approached her as she was having a drink with friends; the judge, she said, told her that women should be kept “barefoot, pregnant or in the kitchen” and issued what appeared to be a threat: “You appear in my court sometime and see what you get.” That helped start a federal investigation into the court, and the judge was eventually forced out. “My first thought was self-protection, the survival instinct,” Toensing told the Washington Post in 1985. “I thought if I ever have to appear before this person, I’m not going to be treated very well...And I wanted it on the record because he could have done it to other women, too.” She once refused to attend a dinner hosted by the American Bar Association until the organization had sent her an invite in her own name, rather than her husband’s. A former (male) coworker once remarked on how she refused to make coffee for the office. She gave “kind of knee-jerk responses to things,” he said. “Like, ‘My job is not to make the coffee. I did that for 15 years and I’ll never do it again.’”
Their careers changed in the late ’80s. DiGenova joined a private law firm in 1988, and Toensing followed soon after. At the end of 1995, Toensing and diGenova announced they would be founding their own eponymous law firm, and that Brady Toensing, one of three children from her first marriage, would join when he finished law school. Then they turned to becoming stars.
On the heels of the O.J. Simpson trial, Toensing and diGenova became part of the first generation of celebrity lawyers called on to feed the 24-hour cycle on cable news. “I never did this to get clients,” Toensing said at the time, a line she has stuck to over the years. “It’s something that gets the body juices going.” DiGenova has been more sanguine. “You do get business from it,” he has said. “In addition, your existing clients like it. They like seeing their lawyers commenting intelligently on TV. We get calls: ‘Saw you on This Week, Face the Nation, thought you did a great job.’”
He added: “Dozens of Washington lawyers are trying to get on these shows. I think it’s very healthy. We can destroy myths and shoot down misunderstandings.”
If before, Toensing and diGenova were inside the prosecutions of spies and terrorists, now they were intersecting with major political news in less traditional ways. In the weeks following revelations that Bill Clinton had had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, they flooded the airwaves — by one count they had appeared in print or on television more than 300 times by late February 1998, less than six weeks after the story broke.
They were quickly catapulted to the heart of the drama.
On Feb. 18, 1998, none other than John Solomon, then at the Associated Press, revealed that Linda Tripp had via an intermediary approached Toensing to represent her, fearing that secret recordings Tripp had made of Lewinsky discussing her affair with the president were illegal. Toensing didn’t take the case — at the time, she and diGenova were advising a Republican-led investigation into totally unrelated matter and thought it would be a conflict of interest. But their role in the story was just beginning.
Four days later, diGenova went on Meet the Press to say that he and his wife “were being investigated by a private investigator with links to the White House and the attorneys representing the president” because of their comments on the impeachment inquiry. “If the White House is condoning the investigation of private citizens, looking into their lives … that is truly a frightening, frightening development,” he said. He brought no evidence (something he later admitted), but his comments dominated the news cycle for an entire day. This was a big deal, back in that halcyon pre-2010s period when each day had a single comprehensible narrative. Hours later, the White House press secretary called his accusations “blatant lies.” It turns out there was a small, even minuscule, kernel of truth in what diGenova was saying — but he had spun it to a degree of conspiracy that didn’t conform with reality. Two members of Clinton’s outside legal team said the following day that they had hired investigators “to perform legal and appropriate tasks” and look at “public information.”
“We have not investigated, and are not investigating, the personal lives of Ms. Toensing, Mr. diGenova, prosecutors, investigators, or members of the press,” they said.
Toensing and diGenova fortified their conservative bonafides throughout the Bush and Obama years, with Toensing particularly active. She penned op-eds in favor of the Patriot Act and in defense of the reporter who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. She lobbied for the MEK, a violent fringe Iranian group, just as Giuliani has, as it sought to get off the US list of terrorist groups. She represented “whistleblowers” in the Benghazi hearings who accused Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, of refusing to let them testify, as well as an informant who claimed to have information that Clinton had orchestrated the sale of part of Uranium One to a Russian company in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation (she didn’t). She picked up Erik Prince as a client and took part in numerous Judicial Watch panels devoted to the subject of Clinton’s missing emails. As the Trump era approached, both Toensing and diGenova found themselves more and more on Fox News, regulars on Sean Hannity (another Toensing and diGenova client) and Lou Dobbs.
They built a reputation for playing tough. Corallo, previously the public affairs director at the Justice Department, described being called for deposition and deciding to hire Toensing to represent him, after finding department lawyers too meek: “I told the department I’m gonna get my own lawyer this time, so I call Victoria, send her the letter, give her the background, and she literally picks up the phone and calls the Justice Department — has it out with them over the phone — and they say, ‘OK, OK. Mr. Corallo will not be needed.’”
“They wanted no part of her,” he said. “She just picked up the phone and was like, ‘Are you people serious?’ I think the next day we got a letter from the department saying I was excused. And I just laughed.”
Two months after he was inaugurated, Trump was set to hire the duo as part of his legal team as the Mueller investigation got underway. Just days later, Jay Sekulow, a lawyer working for the president, announced he wouldn’t be going forward with the move, citing Toensing and diGenova’s old bugbear, conflicts of interest. “However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the president in other legal matters,” Sekulow told the New York Times. “The president looks forward to working with them."
Toensing and Joe diGenova listen to former CIA agent Valerie Plame testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill on March 16, 2007.
In TV appearances, Giuliani and diGenova reference each other
repeatedly, like old buddies. Nearly 40 years ago, the pair led an
insider trading investigation into a Reagan administration official.
Back in 2001, before the attacks that would catapult him to national
icon status, Giuliani was on The News With Brian Williams urging the host to “say hello to Joe diGenova,” who was up next. “An old friend.”
You can see why the three would get along, flamboyant avid cigar smokers who enjoy their eccentricities. Stories abound of diGenova breaking into song — during nights out at the Palm, at the annual Gridiron dinner (where he once dressed as an ear of corn and belted out “The Impossible Dream”), at his own birthday party (where, Corallo said, he got the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to join in). He played lead baritone, at least once, in an amateur production of Stephen Sondheim’s A Little Night Music. “Music is as much a part of my life as the law is,” he has said, pointing to his father, a professional opera singer, as inspiration.
“If you have performed in front of an audience as I did starting in high school,” he has said, “audiences of 12 and 1500 people and for singing in theaters where you are responsible for moving from A to Z in a production and selling something musically and dramatically and theatrically — that that is a great training certainly for people who do advocacy work of any kind, whether it’s in the courtroom, up in Congress, on a stage, whatever it would be, or in politics.”
Nearly everyone who speaks positively of Toensing and diGenova uses the same words to describe them: loyal, good, fun.
“They’re good friends, good people,” Andrii Telizhenko, a former employee of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, who became a major source for the flawed story that the president’s defenders now rely on as proof of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. Last week, he was alongside Giuliani as they continued their search for dirt on Ukraine and Biden.
Telizhenko met Toensing in March 2016 at an event in DC (he says he doesn’t remember exactly which) and kept in touch with her here and there. In May 2019, he asked her to connect him to Giuliani once he saw that the former mayor “was researching the issue on Ukraine. She replied, and he replied back, and that's it,” Telizhenko said. “I reached out to him with evidence — we’re talking about the evidence that nobody has.” Telizhenko would not provide the alleged evidence, saying, “It is for the investigation and authorities.”
“People are trying to get to the truth, and people do care a lot about Ukraine — Mr. Giuliani, and so does Victoria and Mr. diGenova,” Telizhenko said. “They’re good people. They’re patriots of the United States, and they’re good friends of Ukraine.”
Because Toensing and diGenova have their fingers in so many pies, it can be hard to keep track of what exactly they’ve done. Toensing was one of the first in the president’s close cohort to publicly talk about the Ukraine meddling conspiracy, writing in a February 2019 tweet that mentioned George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state who would go on to testify in the House impeachment hearings, by name: “The @Ukraine connection will gradually be revealed.”
The columns in the Hill that spread the theory further — relying on a duo of disgraced prosecutors and a campaign against Yovanovitch, then the ambassador to Ukraine — were written by Toensing’s client John Solomon. The impeachment report released by the House Intelligence Committee last week revealed that Toensing and diGenova signed retainer agreements with both those men, Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin, as well as another prosecutor, Kostiantyn Kulyk. For Lutsenko and Kulyk, the agreement said the couple would represent them “in meetings with U.S. officials regarding alleged ‘evidence’ of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.” For Shokin, their representation would center on “collecting evidence regarding his March 2016 firing as Prosecutor General of Ukraine and the role of Vice President Biden in such firing, and presenting such evidence to U.S. and foreign authorities.” As journalist Casey Michel has noted, the two never filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for their work in Ukraine. Corallo said the agreements with the three Ukrainians were never executed.
The real centerpiece for the duo is their work for Dmytro Firtash, the oligarch who has privately boasted of his ties to the Russian mob, something he now denies. Firtash told the New York Times he hired Toensing and diGenova on Lev Parnas’s urging, for $300,000 a month on a four-month contract, and had recently extended it through the end of the year. Giuliani, via Parnas and Igor Fruman, had urged the oligarch to hire the pair. In late August, Toensing and diGenova met with Attorney General Bill Barr, but the meeting came to nothing.
After Firtash hired them, they took Parnas on as a translator and fixer, reportedly paying him $200,000.
“It wasn’t just language — [Parnas] knows the terrain; he knows Ukraine and all of that,” said Corallo, who serves as spokesperson for Toensing and diGenova on the Firtash case. “One of the things that, particularly in this environment right now, what they didn’t want was to have was some third party, former State Department translator who would have to travel and sit in on privileged meetings with the client and all that. You want to make sure you have somebody that you feel you can trust, right?”
And that’s what it comes down to, for Trump especially, but also for the other characters in the central drama of his presidency: somebody you can trust. Impeachment has revved up Trump’s rhetorical hatred for the “Deep State,” which he has deployed so often throughout his presidency, laying the blame for all ills on these mysterious bureaucrats.
Trump, instead, turns toward the Giulianis, Toensings, diGenovas, the Roger Stones. He’s been known to ask “Where is my Roy Cohn?” — referring to the ruthless lawyer and McCarthy aide who was also his friend. All are flashy and brash, loud and public. They stand out in a crowd, and never met a television studio they did not like. They like to act rich in an ’80s kind of way, showing off fancy cigar accessories before they’d ever talk about wellness or put on a power vest. All are of a certain generation.
Trump likes to present his defenders as outsiders, executing a vast cleanup act on a system that calcified without them, but they are actually anything but. Nearly all have served in the government in one way or another and have been scraping at the barriers to entry since. Now they are here, not as purifiers or fumigants but as emblems of an era of winner-take-all at any cost.
The question invariably arises: What happened? How do you go from being America’s Mayor to a “chronic butt-dialer” accused of running a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine at the heart of the fourth-ever impeachment inquiry brought against a president of the United States? How do you go from being hailed as a man whose “prosecutorial decisions were based on evidence, not politics” and a woman hailed, back in 1991, as leading the “most important counterterrorist offensive in American history” to slouching side by side, on Fox News, to spread the message that George Soros runs the world?
Two camps offer theories about why these figures, once top officials in the government, have muddled fact and fiction into a swamp that ends with Donald Trump asking the Ukrainian president for a favor. One theory argues that they’ve lost a step and ceded to the Facebook conspiracies. The other is that it’s all just another big legal project. Do they really believe what they are saying, or is it just a useful strategy to win their ultimate case — defending the president, and their proximity to power, at all costs? But the real question is: Does it even matter? ●
-
Miriam Elder is a political reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York. Her secure PGP fingerprint is 5B5F EC17 C20B C11F 226D 3EBE 6205 F92F AC14 DCB1
Contact Miriam Elder at miriam.elder@buzzfeed.com.
Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.
Teamsters Cut Ties With Joseph diGenova, Lawyer on Trump’s Team
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has parted ways with Joseph diGenova, a former federal prosecutor who waded into political controversy as a member of President Donald Trump‘s legal team seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
In a letter Wednesday, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said he wouldn’t reappoint diGenova to another five-year term as the union’s independent ethics officer, ending his nearly 20-year involvement with the union’s oversight efforts, which began with a probe of Hoffa’s political foe.
Instead, Hoffa selected white-collar attorney Robert Luskin of Paul Hastings LLP to replace diGenova in February, according to a letter to Luskin that the union submitted to a federal judge in New York.
Hoffa’s decision came a day after diGenova was sued by Chris Krebs—the former government cybersecurity chief who was fired by Trump last month—for saying on television that Krebs should be “taken out at dawn and shot.” diGenova was responding to a “60 Minutes” interview in which Krebs disputed Trump’s claims of election fraud.
diGenova served on a three-member oversight board of the Teamsters beginning in 2001, a role that stemmed from a mammoth racketeering case the government brought against the union in the late 1980s. The lawsuit was led by then-U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York Rudolf Giuliani, who is now Trump’s personal lawyer. The suit alleged that the Teamsters had made a “devil’s pact” with organized crime, engaging in everything from embezzlement to murder.
Hours before a trial was to decide whether the government could place the union in federal trusteeship, Teamsters officials and prosecutors reached a settlement agreement, which remained in effect until this year.
Lucrative Oversight Work
The agreement subjected the union to intense government oversight for more than 30 years, convening the independent investigative panel that diGenova served on. After the Teamsters and the government reached a deal to phase out oversight in 2015, diGenova was appointed to a five-year term as a separate independent watchdog.
diGenova received at least $1.8 million for his work with the Teamsters since 2009, while his firm separately hauled in more than $3.3 million, according to Labor Department disclosures.
In a phone interview Thursday, diGenova said he doesn’t believe his involvement with Trump’s legal team influenced Hoffa’s decision, and that discussions about his replacement began months ago.
“It’s their decision, and they have complete control over it,” he said. “They’ve certainly never said anything about that to me.”
Teamsters spokesman Bret Caldwell declined to discuss the decision, saying in a written statement that diGenova will by replaced by Luskin on Feb. 17.
diGenova said he first met Hoffa decades ago through Republican social circles. The two didn’t formally work together until the late 1990s, when diGenova served as a special counsel for a congressional committee investigating Ron Carey, the reform-minded former Teamsters president who became mired in a campaign-finance scandal in a 1996 re-election bid against Hoffa.
The following year, diGenova recalled, Hoffa was one of his principal witnesses in the investigation, testifying before the panel now known as the House Committee on Education and Labor.
diGenova and his wife were paid $25,000 a month by the committee to investigate the Teamsters, according to a Washington Post report at the time. The amount so bothered Democrats that they asked to see documentation of the attorneys’ hourly billings.
A federal watchdog ultimately nullified Carey’s win over Hoffa; Hoffa won election in 1998 and has been president of the Teamsters ever since.
diGenova was named to the Teamsters oversight board in 2001 as a personal request from Hoffa, diGenova said, though the Justice Department had previously expressed interest in him joining the effort.
As for his departure from the Teamsters, diGenova said: “We’ve been discussing it for some time. They had my full support.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Ian Kullgren in Washington at ikullgren@bloombergindustry.com; Andrew Wallender in Washington at awallender@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Lauinger at jlauinger@bloomberglaw.com; Meghashyam Mali at mmali@bloombergindustry.com
https://www.paulhastings.com/professionals/robertluskin
Washington, D.C. 20036
United States
Fax: 1(202) 551-0466
Robert Luskin is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice at Paul Hastings and is based in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. He is one of the best known and most highly-regarded litigators in Washington, D.C., concentrating in complex criminal litigation at both the trial court and appellate level. Beginning his career in government service, and having later transitioned into private practice, Mr. Luskin has represented clients in virtually every high-profile matter in Washington, D.C. over the last three decades. Mr. Luskin has special experience in cases involving allegations of official corruption. While at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), he helped supervise the ABSCAM investigation, which resulted in the conviction of several members of Congress, and thereafter represented the DOJ in hearings before Congress concerning the investigation. Since entering private practice, he has represented a Cabinet Officer and senior White House officials of both parties in criminal investigations by Independent Counsels and the DOJ, the senior staff of a U.S. Senator in the Keating Five Senate Ethics Investigation, and Members of Congress from both parties in criminal investigations. Mr. Luskin successfully represented a sitting U.S. District Judge in a criminal trial and appeal, securing the reversal of his client's conviction before the U.S. Supreme Court and the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. More recently, he successfully represented Karl Rove in the Special Counsel investigation of a leak of the identity of a CIA officer and a member of Congress in the investigations arising out of the prosecution of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Luskin also represented the U.S. Ambassador to the EU in recent impeachment proceedings before Congress.
Mr. Luskin has devoted his attention recently to the particular challenges posed by the representation of foreign corporations and financial institutions in multi-jurisdictional, cross-border criminal investigations and has reached path-breaking agreements in these areas with the DOJ. He has special expertise in civil and criminal investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and has represented foreign corporations in three of the five largest FCPA investigations ever resolved with the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the Global Investigations Review, since 2008, Mr. Luskin has served as lead counsel in the second most substantial FCPA resolutions. Most recently, his role as lead counsel includes the three-country resolution for Airbus, the largest global anti-corruption resolution ever, as well as TechnipFMC, Braskem, SBM, and Alstom.
From 1980 to 1982, he was Special Counsel to the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he was responsible for legal and policy issues concerning the Organized Crime Strike Forces, as well as supervision and review of complex undercover operations. Mr. Luskin is a past Chairman of the Committee on RICO, Forfeitures and Alternative Remedies of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, a former President of the Harvard Law School Association of the District of Columbia, and has been a member of the D.C. Circuit Judicial Conference. For two decades, he was a Lecturer at the University of Virginia School of Law, where he taught courses in advanced criminal law and labor racketeering, and is currently a member of the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches a course in Global Anti-Corruption. He has lectured at Harvard Law School, the Sorbonne, and other universities.
https://www.digenovatoensing.com/
Joseph diGenova
Joseph E. diGenova, founding partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm of diGenova & Toensing, LLP represents individuals, corporations and other entities before the Federal courts, Congress, and U.S. cabinet departments and agencies on criminal, civil, administrative and investigative matters. In December 1992, he was appointed Independent Counsel in the Clinton Passport File Search matter. He was appointed Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the D.C. District Court in 1995 by the judges of that court. In 1997, he was named Special Counsel by the U.S. House of Representatives to probe the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. As a result of that assignment, he was appointed by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, to sit on the Independent Review Board, which oversees the Teamsters pursuant to a 1989 Consent Decree. He is on that Board with former FBI and CIA Director William Webster and former U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti. In 2007, Mr. diGenova was retained by the New York State Senate to investigate then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer in the Troopergate matter.
His practice emphasizes representation to resolve disputes with various branches of the Federal government through negotiation, litigation, and/or legislation. He does white collar criminal defense work for individuals (such as the former CEO of BCCI) and corporations, conducting internal investigations as well. He represents individuals and organizations in Congressional investigations.
For four years, diGenova was United States Attorney, District of Columbia, which is the largest such office, having more than 400 attorneys. He supervised complex Federal criminal and civil matters including international drug smuggling, public corruption, espionage, insider trading, tax fraud, extradition, fraud, RICO, export control and international terrorism. Many of these prosecutions involved negotiations with foreign governments. He conducted a wide-ranging probe of corruption in the D.C. government, which led to the conviction of two deputy mayors. He led the prosecution of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. He was the Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney during the prosecution of attempted Presidential assassin, John W. Hinckley.
DiGenova has extensive experience on Capitol Hill. He was Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Senate Rules Committee and Counsel to the Senate Judiciary, Governmental Affairs and Select Intelligence Committees. He has conducted confirmation, investigative, legislative and oversight hearings, drafted legislation and testified before both Houses of Congress. He also served as Administrative Assistant and Legislative Director to U.S. Senator Charles Mathias.
Mr. diGenova has published articles on criminal law, terrorism, and Congressional oversight and has spoken on those and other issues to various organizations throughout the United States. As part of his advocacy approach, he has appeared on Court TV, Lehrer News Hour, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, Nightline, 60 Minutes, Crossfire, This Week With David Brinkley, John McLaughlin’s One On One, Today Show, Good Morning America, and other national television programs. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati and his law degree from Georgetown University.
General Criminal Defense
diGenova & Toensing represents U.S. and foreign corporations and individuals in matters involving criminal allegations, such as:
Civil and Criminal RICO
Defense Procurement
Environmental Crimes
Extradition
Financial Services
Healthcare Fraud
Mail and Wire Fraud
Money Laundering
Perjury and False Statements
Public Corruption and Ethics
Securities Fraud
diGenova & Toensing, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1775 Eye Street NW Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20006
Phone (202) 289-7701
Facsimile (202) 289-7706
dt@diGenovaToensing.com
https://www.scribd.com/document/380866416/Michael-Ratner-of-CCR-and-the-ACLU-etc
November 26, 2003
Victoria Toensing Laura Murphy
c/o
DiGenova & Toensing c/o Matt Coles and Leslie Cooper
901 15th Street, NW Suite 430 American Civil
Liberties Union
Washington, DC 20005 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor,
New York, NY 10004
Paul Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Michael Ratner, President
Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Center for Constitutional Rights
214 Massachusetts
Ave NE
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
Washington DC 20002-4999 New York, NY
10012
Re: Corruption
Sirs, Madams,
After viewing your talking heads on the TV byway of C-Span, I have determined that you are all just two sides of a counterfeit coin minted by a very corrupt system. You folks put on a fine show of smoke and mirrors while the malevolent powers that be go about their business of ruling the world. Your task is to make us think we are free and that our freedom is protected by a sincere and open debate. Meanwhile the lawyers for the bankers that own the media tell us only what they want us to hear.
I have acted in good faith with all of
you and have only been ignored or worse. The copies of the enclosed emails to
C-Span and my letters to and from the ACLU should tell the tale. Now I demand
that you obey the Rules of Professional Conduct after your review of the other
enclosed documents. Otherwise I will be due to sue you too.
To
further support the above statement I also must say that I liked what Michael Ratner had to say on C-Span in his
debate with Paul Rosenzweig and I went to his web
address. It is easy to remember because it is the same as one of my favorite
Rock and Roll Bands. The old hippy in me figured it to be good Karma if nothing
else. However his street address is the same number that is the sign of a
foretold devil wearing the mask of virtue. So my opinion of him was neutralized
by any prejudicial Karma. When I saw that he was approaching the Solicitor
General to Canada he made big brownie points with me. I have similar concerns
as his client in Syria. I called him immediately and left a detailed voice
mail. I was not surprised that he did not return the call. After all, he is a
lawyer first and foremost. I suspect that his concerns for the interests of
fellow Brothers of the Bar far outweigh the constitutional rights of an alien
layman.
With regard to Paul Rosenzweig I went to the web address mentioned on TV to see what planet he was from but after reading the quote of the recently defrocked high priest of fascists, Rush Limbaugh, I decided it would be unnecessary to read anymore.
Rush Limbaugh stated as follows: “Some of the finest conservative minds in America today do their work in the Heritage Foundation.” With that in mind, I wonder if Rosenzweig and Toensing are prepared to argue a free thinking fun loving fool. If they still hold their former high priest in high regard, I would have great fun poking fun.
Please find enclosed an exact copy of a letter sent to every U.S. Attorney in the USA just prior to the malicious side show held before Judge Borenstein in Norfolk Superior Court on September 29th. I suspect the recent developments about the SEC and the FBI in Beantown have caused him to delay his judgments of long delayed motions that he had no jurisdiction to hear. He need not be advised as to whether or not to dismiss Prima Facia complaints that belong in federal court. The irrefutable evidence supporting the allegations were filed and served with the complaints. He knew the truth when he read what remained of the dockets. The clerks’ actions in all courts were evil.
Today I finally received his judgments. At last I can proceed after over a one year delay. Just so you know everything was dismissed, even the complaint against the Kickhams under the First Amendment. After the Kickhams were illegally off the hook. They practiced the same crimes again. It is too funny for words.
The copy of wiretap tape numbered 139 is served upon you in confidence as officers of the court in order that it may be properly investigated. I was unable to determine if Laura Murphy is an officer of the court, so I elected to serve it upon her outspoken associates who are currently rejoicing the recent judgment of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. For their benefit I have included a copy of a letter recently sent to many other Gay Rights Activists and a copy of my Request for an Oral Argument with Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Quinan Jr. At the very least I have now made you all witnesses to my pursuit of Justice. May I suggest you forsake your bad-acting friends and assist me. In the long run the wrongful acts of the light lawyers and right wing politicians don’t amount to a hill of beans in a town full of nasty old farts. We must protect our children’s future even though a gay marriage could not bring them about. In my opinion it would not help your various causes to stand with the likes of Michael J. Sullivan, Judge Carey and Robb Quinan.
Cya’ll in Court
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave.
Milton, MA 02186
Hoffa’s House Divided: The 2021 Teamster Election, Explained
A rank-and-file Teamster describes what’s at stake.
Andy Sernatinger
Two slates are running for control of the IBT’s top offices: Teamster Power, led by Steve Vairma and running mate Ron Herrera, and Teamsters United, led by Sean O’Brien and running mate Fred Zuckerman. Five years ago, Teamsters United, then headed by Zuckerman, came only a few thousand votes shy of defeating Hoffa and winning the office of General President, 45.6% to 48.4%.
Backed by the reform group Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), Teamsters United built a campaign that drew on growing anger over a number of issues like concessionary contracts forced at UPS, inaction over a crisis in the union’s pension fund, and the decline of core industries (trucking and logistics). TDU, a grassroots organization of Teamster members formed in 1976, has a long history of campaigns to democratize the union, fight corruption, and organize for strong contracts. TDU’s campaigns resulted in the right to directly vote for top officials in 1989, as well as the election of Ron Carey as Teamster General President in 1991, and played a significant role in the successful 1997 UPS strike.
In 2016, Zuckerman narrowly lost to Hoffa, but Teamsters United won seats on the union’s General Executive Board for the Central and Southern districts, while Hoffa was able to swing the Eastern and Western regions as well as Teamsters Canada. The election revealed the deep dissatisfaction of Teamster members, the distance between the ranks and the leadership, and the existence of a base of members who could potentially change the course of the union.
The 2021 election has been billed as a rematch five years in the making. Vairma, a relatively unknown principal officer out of Teamsters Local 455 in Colorado and member of the Hoffa-Ken Hall slate (the establishment caucus that won in 2016) since 2011, is considered Hoffa’s successor. Hoffa has endorsed Vairma’s Teamster Power, and the slate features many loyalists. If that was all there was to it, this election could be viewed as another round of the reformers vs. the Hoffa “old guard.” Without Hoffa’s name and incumbency to tie the sitting administration’s coalition together, the challengers should have the advantage after coming so close to victory in the last election. It would be Teamsters United’s election to lose.
But this time around, Teamsters United has taken a turn with the introduction of new leadership. In 2016, Teamsters United was fronted by Zuckerman, principal officer of Teamsters Local 89 in Louisville, Ky. — home of the UPS headquarters hub. Zuckerman is a quiet and straightforward union officer who found himself allied with TDU in opposition to Hoffa’s direction of UPS negotiations. Despite Zuckerman’s success at the top of the ticket five years ago, Teamsters United is now being led by O’Brien of Teamsters Local 25 in Boston.
O’Brien, like Vairma, was until recently a member of the Hoffa-Hall slate, elected to the IBT’s General Executive Board in 2011 as an International Vice President for the Teamsters Eastern Region. At the end of 2017, Hoffa fired O’Brien as the chief negotiator for the union with UPS, ostensibly for taking too hard a position against the company. O’Brien broke ranks with Hoffa and reached across the aisle to Teamsters United. Zuckerman, already reluctant to lead the ticket in 2016, then handed Teamsters United over to O’Brien and slid down to the number two position. TDU endorsed O’Brien and Teamsters United at its 2019 Convention and began its campaign for the slate.
In defecting from the Hoffa camp, O’Brien brings connections to other local officers and votes in the Eastern Region — but he isn’t without baggage. O’Brien has earned a reputation among officers and the ranks as an ambitious, hotheaded figure, with several charges filed against him in the union. In 2013, O’Brien threatened members of Providence-based Teamsters Local 251 for running an election campaign to challenge the local’s leadership. The incident was captured on video, and led to his suspension. Charges were again filed against him for threats to opponents at Teamster conventions but were ultimately dismissed.
In 2014, O’Brien’s Local 25 made national news when the union’s picket for the TV show Top Chef was recorded making a series of racist and sexist slurs towards members of the filming crew. Five men involved with the picket were then brought up on criminal extortion charges for threats to the production. (Local 25 officer Mark Harrington pleaded guilty; the remaining four were eventually acquitted. O’Brien denied wrongdoing, calling the accusations “fiction at best”.)
The underdog character of Teamsters United has changed with the new leadership. O’Brien’s connections through the IBT have brought so many local officers into the fold that Teamsters United led the delegate race going into this summer’s 2021 convention. Zuckerman had to fight to get onto the ballot in 2016, just clearing the minimum requirement by getting 8% of delegates to support his nomination. This year, O’Brien got on the ballot with 52% of delegates supporting him.
This half of local Teamster functionaries who supported O’Brien’s nomination have not suddenly been won to the 2016 Teamsters United platform for democracy and militancy. Delegates who supported O’Brien agreed to reform the most egregious issues that have driven rank-and-file anger, like delays on strike pay and the dreaded Two-Thirds Rule, a policy that requires a supermajority of “no” votes to reject a contract if fewer than 50% of members participate in ratification, which allowed Hoffa to impose the 2018 UPS contract despite a majority “no” vote. But their commitment ended there.
Proposals that confronted the privileges of Teamster officials were all defeated. These sought to (1) limit the number of salaries union officials could collect; (2) require top officers to have experience as working Teamsters; (3) preserve the rule that candidates for president only need the support of 5% of delegates to qualify; and (4) bar any officials who have been suspended from the office of General President. As if to bold the point, Teamster delegates at the convention voted overwhelmingly to enshrine Hoffa Jr. as “General President Emeritus for Life.” My own Local 695 leadership endorsed O’Brien and his slate, while at the same time getting a fresh order of “TDU Sucks” pins for the hall.
“There’s no reform slate in this election,” says Tom Leedham, the three-time candidate for Teamster General President from 1997 to 2006. Leedham, who maintains that he is proud of his record with TDU, explained at a debrief of a recent debate, “People say this is the reform slate with TDU. There’s essentially five candidates [on the Teamsters United slate] that proudly carry a TDU moniker. Two of them will be in non-voting positions. It is so difficult to make anything happen when you have three seats on a 25-person board.”
Rather than a referendum on reform, this election reveals a split in the old leadership of the union. Two candidates from the Hoffa administration are competing for the top office, pulling together different sections of the membership to try and carry them over the finish line. O’Brien has focused on the union members who fall under national contracts at UPS, UPS Freight (now TForce), and Yellow Roadway Corporation (YRC) Freight, drawing on the prestige of the 2016 Teamsters United campaign while also bringing along local leaders previously aligned with Hoffa. It makes sense: 70% of UPS Teamsters voted for Zuckerman last time.
Vairma and Teamsters Power have focused their message on the need to have a racially diverse leadership to match the changing demographics in the union, bringing with them the backing of the Teamsters National Black Caucus. Vairma is following Hoffa’s winning election strategy of drawing on the majority of Teamsters under local “white paper” agreements (standalone contracts specific to local unions), using the connections of allied local officers to turn out votes. “United Parcel Service is extremely important in this union, we have 325,000 members,” said Vairma in the first Teamsters 2021 Presidential Debate, “but we also have another million members in the ‘white paper’ industry that want to know that their voices are going to be heard in this administration.” Vairma plainly rejected members’ concerns over bargaining at UPS: “The ‘Vote No’ campaign down at UPS was a farce.” Many members of Vairma’s slate are directors of the union’s various divisions: warehouse, port, rail, public service, healthcare, construction trades. Vairma has doubled down on this approach by criticizing the union’s preoccupation with UPS.
O’Brien’s campaign has capitalized on his aggressive approach. “It’s clear that I’m ambitious and I want to run this union to the fullest extent,” said O’Brien in the same debate. “When you’re out there and you’re being aggressive, you’re taking calculated risks for the betterment of your members, of course there’s going to be controversy.” O’Brien is calling for defense of contracts, organizing core industries that have been neglected, and using the strike weapon. Vairma has leaned heavily into attacks on O’Brien’s record, painting himself as the safe bet. (Though Vairma has some skeletons in the closet as well: In 2017, the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found his Local 455 guilty of discrimination against a group of Somali workers they represented.)
How this will play out is difficult to predict. The Teamsters are rare among North American unions in that elections for top union office are held by direct member vote. (Most international unions determine their leadership by delegate convention.) Participation in Teamster elections has been declining since the direct vote was won in 1989 with the Federal government’s “consent decree”; in 2016, an abysmally low 200,000 of 1.4 million members cast ballots — roughly 15%. Anger over the 2013 UPS contract made for a perfect storm in 2016, with a clear choice between the officialdom and the alternative. In 2021, the merger of a section of the Hoffa leadership with the reformers from TDU blurs the lines.
The slates differ largely in who they think will elect them, and then how they intend to confront employers (or not). Teamsters United, with materials almost exclusively for UPS workers, advertises that it’s ready to fight. Teamster Power, stitching together the union’s various sector conferences, appeals to candidates’ good character and asks for faith in their integrity while they stay the course. Mark Solomon, writer with FreightWaves magazine, stated it plainly in a question submitted to the Teamster Presidential debate: “You represent the status quo and are considered less militant than Sean O’Brien and Fred Zuckerman.” Rank-and-file Teamsters will have to make the best of the situation, which starts with knowing who the candidates are and what they represent.
It’s the activity of union members on the shop floor that has pushed the IBT to adopt any changes. The reforms that were passed this year were the product of rank-and-file organizing over the past decade: the “Vote No” campaigns at UPS and YRC, the refusal of Teamster retirees to accept that their pensions could be lost, and the repeated challenges to local officers. With two disastrous debates for Vairma, O’Brien seems to have the lead. Regardless of who wins the election, members will need to be organized to keep the leadership accountable.
Andy Sernatinger is a member of Teamsters Local 695 in Madison, Wisconsin.
https://teamster.org/leadership/james-hoffa/
James P. Hoffa
General President
James P. Hoffa has been building the International Brotherhood of Teamsters into the strongest, most powerful voice in North America for working families. Under Hoffa’s leadership, the Teamsters Union is winning industry-leading contracts, engaging in vigorous contract enforcement and organizing the unorganized. Teamster positions on the issues of the day—from pension and retirement security, infrastructure development and worker rights to developing fair trade policies—now hold sway in Washington’s power corridors.
Hoffa is recognized as one of the foremost authorities on Union issues. As the most visible and outspoken critic of government trade policies and anti-worker corporate agendas, Hoffa is recognized as a leader on issues that affect working people.
Hoffa has been elected by direct-members vote five times – 1998,
2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016. He is the second-longest serving General
President (Dan Tobin, 1907 – 1952) since the union was founded in 1903.
Hoffa
grew up on picket lines and in union meetings. He is the only son of
James R. Hoffa, former Teamsters General President (1957 – 1971). Prior
to being elected General President, Hoffa worked as a Teamsters laborer
in Detroit and Alaska in the 1960s. He then spent 25 years as a labor
attorney representing members, local unions and Joint Councils. From
1993 until his inauguration as General President in 1999, Hoffa served
as Administrative Assistant to the President of Joint Council 43 in
Michigan.
Hoffa has been appointed to several committees by both Democratic and Republican administrations. His appointments include:
- 2019 – Present, Chair, Road Section, International Transport Workers Federation
- 2019 – Present, Member, Executive Board, International Transport Workers Federation
- 2015 – Present, Board Member, Roosevelt Institute
- 2010 – Present, USTR Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations
- 2009 – Present, Department of Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy
- 2013 – 2015, National Freight Advisory Committee
- 2002 – 2004, President’s Council on the 21st Century Workforce
- 2002 – 2004, Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board
EDUCATION
- BA, Michigan State University, 1963
- LLB, University of Michigan, 1966
Hoffa has been married to his wife Virginia for 50 years, he has two sons, David and Geoffrey, and six grandchildren.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-jo1tztVlM&ab_channel=Teamsters
Episode 212: Flexing Political Muscle in the Corridors of Power
Hoffa: Passage of Infrastructure Bill Will Create Millions of Good-Paying Jobs
Improved Roads, Rails, Airports, Power Grid, Water Systems Will Benefit All Americans
Press Contact: Ted Gotsch Phone: (703) 899-0869 Email: tgotsch@teamster.org
(WASHINGTON) – The following is a statement from Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa on the House’s passage of a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill yesterday that would invest and rebuild in essential networks that will grow jobs.
“After years of inaction, Democrats and Republicans came together to approve important legislation that will boost necessary transportation, electrical and water networks that will create good-paying jobs and bring the nation’s economy into the 21st century. I want to thank the Biden administration and congressional leaders for all their hard work to get this done.
“Previously, elected officials have only talked about infrastructure investment but done little about it. But now the traveling public as well as those do the work to keep the nation’s roads, rails and bridges up-and-running have reason for hope.
“This bill will modernize essential transportation systems – all critical parts of America’s supply chain. Teamsters work each day in every part of this supply chain and know firsthand that our transportation infrastructure has been neglected for too long.”
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Visit www.teamster.org for more information. Follow us on Twitter @Teamsters and “like” us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/teamsters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4OzXgKXOLE&ab_channel=NashvilleBarAssociation
HOFFA! Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBW3gYlRuh8&ab_channel=NashvilleBarAssociation
HOFFA! Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8m-Djr8l5k&ab_channel=SceneMaker
Jimmy HATES the Kennedy family| The Irishman
Congressional Record: July 11, 2001 (Senate) Page S7437-S7440
NOMINATION OF ROBERT MUELLER
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to comment about the confirmation hearings which are scheduled later this month for Mr. Robert Mueller to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That position arguably is as important as any position in the United States of America, perhaps even the most powerful position.
The statutory 10-year term is 2 years longer than the maximum a President may serve under the Constitution. The Director of the FBI has power over the largest investigative organization in the world, global in its exposure.
There are an enormous number of problems which have befallen the agency in recent years. The confirmation hearing will provide a unique opportunity for oversight for the U.S. Senate to seek to establish standards as to what the FBI should be doing in cooperating with congressional oversight.
The FBI is a well-respected organization. I have had very extensive opportunities to work with the FBI. After graduation from college, I was in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations for 2 years and had training from the FBI. The commanding officer of the OSI was a former top aide to Director J. Edgar Hoover.
I worked with the [[Page S7438]] FBI on the prosecution of the Philadelphia Teamsters, an investigation which was conducted by the McClellan committee, with then-general counsel, Robert Kennedy, and saw their very fine work. Then, as Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, I worked with the FBI; then as district attorney of Philadelphia and for the last 20 years extensively on the Judiciary Committee.
I have great respect for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the same time, my experience has shown me that there is an over concern by the personnel of the FBI with their so-called institutional image and that there cannot be a concession of any problems, which is really indispensable if problems are to be corrected.
(Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Sergeant at Arms restore order in the galleries.
Mr. SPECTER. We have a nominee who has been put forward by the President who has very impressive credentials: United States Attorney in Boston, United States Attorney in San Francisco, 3 years as Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, where I had contacts and saw his impressive work.
He will be succeeding a man, Director Louis Freeh, who came to the Bureau with extraordinary credentials and overall did a good job, although he presided over the Bureau at a time when there were many institutional failures.
I analogize Director Freeh to the little boy on the Netherlands dike running around putting his finger in all the holes to try to stop the water from coming through. With so many holes and so many problems, it was not possible.
I believe similarly that the Congress, including the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, has not been sufficiently active on oversight. These hearings will give us an opportunity to set standards as to what the FBI should be doing in response to oversight activities by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I had an opportunity to talk for the better part of an hour yesterday to FBI Director-designee Mueller and went over quite a number of issues that I intend to ask him in the public forum. I comment about these today because the Senate ought to be preparing for this hearing with unique care for this very important position.
One of the matters I intend to discuss with Mr. Mueller in the confirmation hearings is the failure of the FBI to turn over for congressional Senate oversight a memorandum dated December 9, 1996, which was written at a time when there was a question as to whether Attorney General Reno was going to be reappointed by President Clinton. At that time, the campaign finance investigation was just being started. There was a conversation by a top FBI official Esposito, with a top Department of Justice official Lee Radek, and FBI Director Freeh wrote this memorandum to the file to Mr. Esposito actually. Referring to a meeting that he had with the Attorney General on December 6, Director Freeh wrote this memo December 9:
I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and the Public Integrity Section regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). This memorandum did not come to the attention of the Judiciary Committee until April of 2000, some 3\1/2\ years later, when, in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on Department of Justice oversight, a subpoena was issued for all of the FBI records and writings relating to the campaign finance investigation. When this memo was discovered, Director Freeh was questioned as to why he hadn't turned it over for Judiciary Committee oversight, because it was the view of many that it absolutely should have been done.
Director Freeh defended his inaction on the ground that it would have compromised his relationship with Attorney General Reno. But notwithstanding that fact, it is my view that this is the sort of oversight the Judiciary Committee must undertake. This will be the subject of my questioning of Mr. Mueller during the confirmation hearing.
Director Freeh declined to appear voluntarily before the Judiciary Committee or the subcommittee to comment about this memorandum, and the committee decided not to issue a subpoena, which I thought should have been done.
It is my view that when a matter of this importance comes to light there ought to be a public inquiry as to what happened between the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. It takes a congressional committee to get to the bottom of that. When Attorney General Reno testified, she said, ``I don't recall that, but if that had come to my attention, I certainly would have done something about it.'' In my view, anybody who is going to be confirmed for FBI Director has to have a commitment to making this sort of information available to Senate oversight.
Another matter which I intend to question Mr. Mueller about is the insistence of the FBI on not cooperating with Senate oversight where there is a pending criminal investigation. Now, I understand the sensitivity of a pending criminal investigation, having some experience as a prosecutor myself, but the case law is plain that congressional oversight is so fundamental and so important that it may proceed even as to pending criminal investigations. But that has not been honored by the Department of Justice or by the FBI. And in the case involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the subcommittee on the Department of Justice oversight was stymied at every turn by the FBI refusing to make available information, citing a pending criminal investigation.
Now, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, or chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee, have standing, it seems to me, on a discrete inquiry, carefully controlled, where the prosecution would not be compromised. That is the role of oversight. But when Wen Ho Lee was indicted on December 11, 1999, immediately, the FBI used that as a reason to resist any further Senate oversight. And there was a real question of why the FBI and the Department of Justice allowed Dr. Lee to remain at large after a search of his premises in April of 1999 was conducted, and then he was at liberty, at large, until December when an arrest warrant was issued. Suddenly, he became more problematic than public enemy No. 1, when he was put in manacles and solitary confinement, in a situation which had all the earmarks of an effort at the top of the Justice Department and FBI to coerce a guilty plea.
After the guilty plea was entered, Judiciary Committee oversight had been further stymied by the refusal of the FBI to allow access to what was going on because Dr. Lee was still being debriefed. Here again, I believe the Judiciary Committee is entitled to a commitment that oversight will be respected, and the case law will be respected, and that there may be oversight even on pending criminal investigations.
In the case of Hanssen, who has just entered a guilty plea on an arrangement to be spared the death penalty, raises some very fundamental questions that need to be answered as to procedures in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although this matter did not come to light until very recently, in August of 1986, Hanssen's voice was recorded by an FBI wiretap on his Soviet contact's telephone. In 1992, Hanssen improperly accessed his supervisor's computer. In 1997, Hanssen began to search the FBI computerized case database for his name, his home address, and for terms referring to espionage activities.
A question arises, what steps have been taken by the FBI to detect a spy such as Hanssen? There was a very probing report issued by the inspector general of the CIA after Aldrich Ames was detected as a spy, and the inspector general of the CIA, Fred Hitz, wrote this in the report:
We have no reason to believe that the directors of Central Intelligence who served during the relevant period were aware of the deficiencies described in this report.
That relates to Aldrich Ames.
But directors of Central Intelligence are obligated to ensure that they are knowledgeable of significant developments relating to crucial agency missions. Sensitive human source reporting on the Soviet Union and Russia during and after the Cold War clearly was such a mission, and certain directors of Central Intelligence must therefore be held accountable for serious shortcomings in that reporting.
[[Page S7439]]
Now, what that does essentially is to say that the Directors are at fault, even though they didn't know about Aldrich Ames, or have reason to know about Aldrich Ames, because the presence of spies in the Central Intelligence Agency so threatens national security that the Directors have an obligation to find out about it.
If you make it an absolute responsibility, that, according to the CIA inspector general, would put the pressure on the Directors to find out about it. The three Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency who were in office during the time Aldrich Ames functioned--Judge Webster, Gates, and Woolsey--responded with a very hot letter denying responsibility and saying that the standard set by the CIA inspector general was too high. Well, this is a subject I have discussed preliminarily with Mr. Mueller and intend to ask him about.
It is a very tough standard to say that a public official is liable for matters that he didn't know about or didn't have reason to know about. But if our Nation's secrets are to be guarded, and if we are to be secure from spies such as Ames and Hanssen, this is a matter that we are going to have to determine as to what is the appropriate standard.
When I talked to Mr. Mueller, I didn't ask him for a response, but this is another subject that will be probed during the course of the confirmation hearings. The issues of management in the FBI are just gigantic; they are enormous. We have seen repeated failures by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to come forward with documents in a timely manner. In the McVeigh case, for example, the FBI had reason to know as early as January of this year that all of the documents relating to McVeigh had not been turned over to McVeigh's lawyers. Yet those documents were not made available until May. And then there was the issue about the fairness to McVeigh. No doubt he was guilty; he had confessed to the most horrendous crime in American history, where 168 people were killed in a Federal building in Oklahoma City--women, children, men, going there for official business, blameless, and it was done in a cold, calculated way.
There was no doubt as to guilt or as to the justification for the death sentence which was imposed, but there was an obligation on the part of the prosecution to turn over all the papers. There may have been something which bore on sentencing. Here you had a 5-month delay where the Federal Bureau of Investigation had reason to know that all those documents were not turned over.
The question is: What is to be done in the management of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to avoid this sort of an error? In an age of computerization and mechanization, we search for an answer and really must find a way that the FBI will correct these kinds of problems.
A similar issue was confronted in the Waco matter. It was an incident which occurred on April 19, 1993, where the compound was attacked and where so many people lost their lives in one of the most controversial incidents in American history, but it was not until August of 1999 that the FBI suddenly found a whole ream of records. Here again, management responsibilities require something much, much better than that.
The incident at Waco is really a very sad chapter in American history for many reasons: The confrontation, the deaths, the failure of congressional oversight, the failure of candid disclosure by the officials who were in charge.
On April 28 of 1993, Attorney General Reno and then FBI Director William Sessions testified before Congress that no pyrotechnic tear gas rounds were used at Waco. The hostage rescue team commander, Richard Rogers, who was present for their testimony but who did not testify, did not correct them.
Regrettably, that is an occurrence which has happened too often where there is a concern about the FBI institutional image which blinds people who ought to be coming forward and who ought to be making a disclosure as to what the facts were when there is congressional oversight and you have critical testimony by the Attorney General of the United States and by the Director of the FBI.
When Mr. Mueller and I talked yesterday, we discussed at some length the culture of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the difficulties of even the Director finding out what is going on in the FBI. That is a challenging task which Robert Mueller is going to have to confront.
In the context of what has happened with Wen Ho Lee, Waco, McVeigh, Hanssen, and the campaign finance investigation, these are issues which need to be very thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearing, and we ought to come to some common understanding between those of us who have oversight responsibilities on the Judiciary Committee and the Director of the FBI as to what his standard will be and what we think the standard should be so that we can come to a meeting of the minds or so that we may not confirm a Director who does not measure up to what Congress thinks is required as a matter of legitimate oversight.
At the same time, as I suggested before, Congress has not done its job on oversight. We had the incident at Waco on April 19 of 1993. In my view, there should have been a prompt, detailed, piercing oversight investigation of what went on there. It was not until former Senator Danforth undertook that investigation in 1999 that anything really was done.
Who can say as to the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building 2 years to the day after the Waco incident, when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995, whether that was related to the Waco incident or whether it might have been prevented had there been vigorous congressional oversight?
In 1995, I served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and moved to have oversight hearings at that time on both Waco and Ruby Ridge because I thought a great deal more needed to be done. Finally, the subcommittee was permitted to have oversight as to Ruby Ridge.
That was an incident where Randy Weaver was on the mountain and refused to come down. There was a veritable army which approached him and had a firefight, and a U.S. marshal was killed in the process.
The oversight in which the Terrorism Subcommittee got to the bottom of the matter, and to the credit of FBI Director Louis Freeh, the FBI changed the rules of engagement related to the use of deadly force in what was a very important matter.
When we finished the hearings, Mr. Weaver said in the hearing room, had he known there was going to be this kind of congressional oversight, he would have come down from the mountain if he had believed there would be an inquiry and an appropriate resolution.
It was at that time that militia were springing up in some 40 States across the United States. If Congress exercises appropriate oversight, it is my view that will do a great deal to quell public unrest and public doubts as to what is happening with Federal action in a place such as Ruby Ridge and Federal action in a place such as Waco.
In summary, these are matters which are of the utmost importance when we will be confirming the next Director of the FBI, an occurrence which happens only once every 10 years because it is a 10-year turn, although a Director may leave earlier. Louis Freeh is leaving after 8 years, a term of office longer than the maximum a President may serve under the Constitution. The Justices of the Supreme Court have enormous power on 5-4 decisions establishing the law of the land, but there are four others who go with the one deciding vote.
The FBI, with all of its power--most of what it does is necessarily confidential and secret--requires that there be very profound changes in FBI management on the items which have been mentioned and an attitude that will not emphasize the institutional image to the sacrifice of not having appropriate congressional oversight, not having appropriate congressional disclosure of the memorandum referred to, having appropriate congressional disclosure when a matter is pending, even if it is a criminal matter.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the memorandum from Director Freeh, dated December 9, 1996, be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S7440]]
December 9, 1996.
To: Mr. Esposito.
From: Director, FBI.
Subject: Democratic National Campaign Matter. Memorandum As I related to you this morning, I met with the Attorney General on Friday, 12/6/96, to discuss the above-captioned matter.
I stated that DOJ had not yet referred the matter to the FBI to conduct a full, criminal investigation. It was my recommendation that this referral take place as soon as possible.
I also told the Attorney General that since she had declined to refer the matter to an Independent Counsel it was my recommendation that she select a first rate DOJ legal team from outside Main Justice to conduct the inquiry. In fact, I said that these prosecutors should be ``junk-yard dogs'' and that in my view, PIS was not capable of conducting the thorough, aggressive kind of investigation which was required.
I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and PIS regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). I stated that those comments would be enough for me to take him and the Criminal Division off the case completely.
I also stated that it didn't make sense for PIS to call the FBI the ``lead agency'' in this matter while operating a ``task force'' with DOC IGs who were conducting interviews of key witnesses without the knowledge or participation of the FBI.
I strongly recommend that the FBI and hand-picked DOJ attorneys from outside Main Justice run this case as we would any matter of such importance and complexity.
We left the conversation on Friday with arrangements to discuss the matter again on Monday. The Attorney General and I spoke today and she asked for a meeting to discuss the ``investigative team'' and hear our recommendations. The meeting is now scheduled for Wednesday, 12/11/96, which you and Bob Litt will also attend.
I intend to repeat my recommendations from Friday's meeting. We should present all of our recommendations for setting up the investigation--both AUSAs and other resources. You and I should also discuss and consider whether on the basis of all the facts and circumstances--including Huang's recently released letters to the President as well as Radek's comments--whether I should recommend that the Attorney General reconsider referral to an Independent Counsel.
It was unfortunate that DOJ declined to allow the FBI to play any role in the Independent Counsel referral deliberations. I agree with you that based on the DOJ's experience with the Cisneros matter--which was only referred to an Independent Counsel because the FBI and I intervened directly with the Attorney General--it was decided to exclude us from this decision-making process.
Nevertheless, based on information recently reviewed from PIS/DOC, we should determine whether or not an Independent Counsel referral should be made at this time. If so, I will make the recommendation to the Attorney General.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an extract of a report from CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
We have no reason to believe that the DCIs who served during the relevant period were aware of the deficiencies described in this report. But DCIs are obligated to ensure that they are knowledgeable of significant developments related to crucial Agency missions. Sensitive human source reporting on the Soviet Union and Russia during and after the Cold War clearly was such a mission, and certain DCIs must therefore be held accountable for serious shortcomings in that reporting.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
John C. Cheasty, Star Witness In Teamsters Case, Dies at 96
John C. Cheasty, who became the government's star witness after James R. Hoffa of the Teamsters union recruited him to spy on a Senate committee investigating labor racketeering in the 1950's, died June 14 in Bahama, N.C. He was 96.
The cause was congestive heart failure, Mr. Cheasty's family said. He died at the home of a daughter with whom he had lived for several years, the Rev. Patrice Cheasty-Miller, the pastor of St. Paul United Methodist Church in Durham.
A New York lawyer and investigator, Mr. Cheasty (pronounced CHASE-tee) figured in an episode that began with Hoffa's offer of big-money bribes. Mr. Cheasty took the first payment straight to Robert F. Kennedy, the chief counsel to the committee Hoffa wanted Mr. Cheasty to infiltrate. Hoffa was arrested after what he believed was a clandestine meeting with Mr. Cheasty in a Washington hotel.
But a federal jury acquitted Hoffa of bribery and conspiracy charges, fanning a long-running feud between Hoffa and Kennedy.
Mr. Cheasty began his career as a Treasury agent in the 1930's. After graduating from Manhattan College and Fordham Law School, he worked with the Treasury team that built a tax-evasion case against Enoch L. (Nucky) Johnson, the Republican boss of Atlantic County, N.J.
As a Navy commander in World War II, he was put in charge of the military base at Luzon, in the Philippines. He was a Navy lawyer in 500 courts-martial after the war before he contracted an illness that was diagnosed as a heart problem and he retired on disability.
Back home in Brooklyn, after realizing he was not dying, he opened a law practice. He handled tax-evasion cases for Joe Bosano, a nephew of Albert Anastasia, the New York Mafia leader, among others.
He also made friends with a lawyer named Hyman I. Fischbach, who said a client wanted to infiltrate the Senate committee and find out what it was looking into.
''I asked him, 'Who is your client?''' Mr. Cheasty later testified. ''He opened an address book and said 'Jimmy' or 'James Hoffa,' and two phone numbers. I whistled and said, 'Wow, Mr. Big himself.'''
Mr. Cheasty flew to Detroit for a meeting with Hoffa, then called Kennedy, who arranged for him to join the committee's staff. Kennedy later said Mr. Cheasty had felt Hoffa ''was asking him to betray his country.''
With Mr. Cheasty's testimony and undercover film showing Hoffa accepting a packet of Senate material, the case seemed solid. Kennedy said he would ''jump off the Capitol dome'' if the government lost.
But on the day Hoffa testified, the former heavyweight champion Joe Louis walked into the courtroom, threw an arm around Hoffa and told reporters he wanted to ''see what they're doing to my good friend Jimmy Hoffa.''
Louis's appearance ''undoubtedly had a strong effect on the black members of the jury,'' Walter Sheridan wrote in ''The Rise and Fall of Jimmy Hoffa'' (Saturday Review Press, 1972).
However, the jury of eight blacks and four whites told reporters that race was not a factor in their verdict; they said that they voted to acquit Hoffa because they did not believe Mr. Cheasty. (Bribery and conspiracy charges against Mr. Fischbach were later dropped.)
Federal agents kept watch on the Cheasty household for more than a year. Mr. Cheasty's relatives say the F.B.I. gave him the code name Cat.
After the Hoffa verdict, Mr. Cheasty's old client Mr. Bosano asked for a meeting. He told Mr. Cheasty that a contract had been taken out on him but that ''Uncle Albert'' -- Mr. Anastasia -- had blocked it.
Mr. Cheasty worked on John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1960 and later moved his law practice to Washington for a few years before returning to New York. After he retired at 87 in 1994, he told his family that in the 60's and 70's he had been a contract employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.
In addition to Ms. Cheasty-Miller, he is survived by two other daughters, Virginia Lucey of Old Greenwich, Conn., and Mary Kornman of New York; two sons, John C., of Clarksville, Tenn., and Robert C., of Berkeley, Calif.; and 16 grandchildren. Mr. Cheasty's wife, Virginia, died in 1998.
Rocco v Pension Plan of NY State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 13, 2004
Supreme Court, Kings County
Thomas Rocco and Dorothy Casey, on behalf of themselves and all other active, retired and vested participants and their surviving spouses and estates of the Brewery Fund Pension Plan who were denied benefits under the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Plan from on or about August 12, 1973, Plaintiffs,
against
The Pension Plan of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, The Board of Trustees of the Pension Plan of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund and all predecessor Trustees who have served as such since 1973, Defendants.
31804/02
Yvonne Lewis, J.
This court has been requested by the captioned plaintiffs to certify the within action as a class action pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902, with the following individuals designated as the members thereof; to wit,"all individuals who are or were participants or beneficiaries of participants in the Brewery Workers Pension Plan (Brewery Plan) as of August 7, 1973 when the agreement to merge the Brewery Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) was executed, who ceased to be active participants prior to December 1976 and who elected to receive benefits under the terms of the plan of benefits of the Teamsters Fund and who did not receive benefits under the terms of the plan of benefits of the Teamsters Fund." It is asserted by the plaintiffs that class certification is warranted herein since "all members of the putative class are receiving or have received benefits under the terms of the Brewery Plan; however, these benefits are less than the benefits they would have receive[d] under the terms of the merger agreement. . .which they seek to obtain in this case." More to the point, the plaintiffs contend that the agreement to merge the Brewery Plan and the Teamsters Plan, signed by the respective trustees on July 30, 1973 and August 7, 1973, was violated by the absence of contributions on their behalf on or after December 1, 1976.
The subject merger was to become effective thirty days after
notification to the parties that the Internal Revenue Service had
approved their individual agreements. Accordingly, the parties were each
required to forthwith seek that approval and to ". . .execute or cause
to be executed any and all documents necessary to implement this
Agreement." The Teamsters not only failed to abide by the foregoing
terms, but on February 4, 1974 voted not to proceed with the merger,
which resulted in the initiation of litigation for the specific
performance of said merger. [*2]On April 11, 1975, The Queens County
Supreme Court upheld the merger and directed the Teamsters to comply,
which they failed to do. Consequently, on April 29, 1976, the Brewery
Fund Trustees applied for the IRS approval on behalf of the Teamsters.
On September 28, 1976, the IRS issued a letter of approval, and the New
York State Supreme Court thereafter, in a supplemental enforcement
proceeding, ". . .declared that the Brewery Fund was 'fully integrated'
with the Teamsters Fund as of December 1, 1976." Brewery Workers Pension
Fund et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and
Retirement Fund, et. al., No. 9997/74 (NY Sup. Ct., April 12, 1977). On
two subsequent occasions, the Teamsters were held in contempt for
refusing to adhere to the terms of the merger, which they purged ". .
.by inter alia, accepting the Brewery Fund assets and giving notice to
Brewery Fund members. Nevertheless, they ultimately refused to provide
higher Teamsters Fund benefits to participants, like Plaintiffs, who
were actively employed when the Merger Agreement was executed and who
'but for' Defendants' wrongful conduct, would have been actively
employed on the merger's effective date (had the IRS approval been
sought as required under the Agreement), but who, due to an intervening
plant closing, were no longer employed on December 1, 1976." It is also
the plaintiffs' contention that they are entitled to benefits under the
merger agreement under state common law claims, and that the "prevention
doctrine" would bar the defendant from effectively arguing as to any
delay in effective merger date since the defendant was the cause of such
delay. The plaintiffs further contend that the requirements for class
certification under CPLR 901 fully apply, in that the size of the
claimants makes joinder impracticable; there exists questions of law and
fact common to the class that predominates any individual concerns;
and, the captioned individuals typify the concerns of the other class
members, and will adequately represent their interests. In addition, the
plaintiffs assert that the defendants' act of suing them as a class in
prior litigation for a finding that ". . .the class of former Brewery
Fund participants for whom no contributions were made on or after
December 1, 1976, were not entitled to receive benefits under the terms
of the Teamsters plan," was a tacit admission that a class action is
appropriate. In that case, Brewery Delivery Employees Local Union No.
46, IBT, et. al. v. Mosely, et. al., Civ. 80-1476 (E.D.NY), the parties
settled on an agreement that the statute of limitations would be tolled
for "rights or claims which may be asserted against the Fund by members
of Local 46 on whose behalf contributions were made into the Brewery
Workers Pension Fund between 1973 and 1976 and who were not given the
option to elect to become members of the New York State Teamsters
Conference Pension and Retirement Fund." The plaintiffs also note that
in prior unrelated litigation involving the Teamsters, Miele v. NYS
Teamsters Pension Fund, 81 Civ. 0084, the Teamsters had furnished
". . .a computer print-out of all participants in the Brewery
Pension Plan who, following the effective date of the Merger Agreement
between the Brewers and Teamsters Pension Funds, were denied benefits
under the Teamsters Plan. . . .a total of 1,148 members."
In response to the foregoing, the defendants cross-moved this
court for an order, pursuant to CPLR §§501 and 510(3), to transfer the
within matter to the New York State Supreme Court in Onondaga County as a
more convenient forum. They predicated that request on the fact that
". . .(1) the rules of the Pension Fund mandate that any action
brought against it be commenced in the County of Onondaga, (2) the
convenience of material witnesses and interest of justice support a
change in venue[,] and (3) the Southern District specifically ruled in
the previously dismissed federal court action brought by Plaintiffs that
the most convenient forum is the County [*3]of Onondaga, to which it
transferred the matter. Seitz, et. al. v. New York State Teamsters
Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 953 F. Supp. 100
(S.D.NY 1997)." The defendants also contend that, by its terms, the
merger agreement resulted in two entities, the Pension Fund and the
Brewery Plan and, that "[t]his meant that, pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, only Brewery members who worked and had contributions made on
their behalf after December 1, 1976 were eligible to have a portion of
their benefits determined under the Pension Fund's Plan. All other
Brewery members, like Plaintiff Rocco and Mr. Casey, were eligible for
benefits solely under the Brewery Plan." Plaintiff Rocco ". . .ceased
being a member of the Brewery Fund on March 26, 1976 and received an
Early pension under the Brewery Plan effective June 1, 1984. . . .Mr.
Casey retired on a Disability Pension under the brewery Plan effective
February 1, 1976. He died on March 9, 1982." The defendants further note
that all prior litigation, ". . .some 22 federal and state courts over
the last 28 years have also recognized that the effective date of the
Brewery Merger was December 1, 1976 and that this is the operative date
for determining a Brewery member's eligibility for benefits." In their
memorandum of law, the defendants also highlight the fact that the
Northern District Court, in the matter of Seitz, et. al. v. New York
State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 97-CV 232,
went on to confirm the December 1, 1976 effective merger date (Jan. 7,
2000); determine that it had jurisdiction under ERISA to adjudicate
plaintiffs' claims; dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the merits for
failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Aug. 7, 2000); find that
plaintiffs were without standing to assert such claims (June 9, 2000) as
they were not participants or beneficiaries in the Pension Fund's Plan;
and, finally, that plaintiffs failed to plead or argue any pendant
claims under New York common law or statute. The defendants reinforce
the foregoing by noting that said rulings were upheld by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Seitz, et. al. v. New
York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 281 F.3d
62 (2nd Cir. 2002) and that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Certiorari.
Furthermore, the defendants argue that by virtue of the holdings
aforementioned, the plaintiffs are barred from asserting any claims
under New York State law by the principles of res judicata since "a
final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their
privies from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised
in that action." (Citing Meagher v. Cement and Concrete Workers' Pension
Fund, 921 F. Supp. 161, 164 (S.D.NY 1997); Hennessey v. Cement and Concrete Workers, 963 F. Supp, 963 F. Supp. 334,
337 (S.D.NY 1997), and a host of other cases, including Buechel v.
Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 740 NYS2d 252 in its reply memorandum of law), and/or
collateral estoppel since ". . . an issue of fact or law actually
litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior
action may not be re-litigated in a subsequent suit between the same
parties or their privies." (Citing, United States v. Alcan Aluminum
corp., 990 F.2d 711 (2d Cir. 1993), citing Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147,
153 (1979); Remington Rand Corporation v. Amsterdam Rotterdam Bank, 68
F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 1995), etc. The defendants also distinguish the fact
that David Seitz, unlike the plaintiffs herein, had been a member of
Local 46 who had made contributions to the Pension Fund after December
1, 1976.
With regards to class certification, the defendants point out
that CPLR §902 specifically required that the plaintiffs had to have
moved therefor within sixty days after the filing of its responsive
pleading herein, and that the courts may not extend this period (citing
in particular, [*4]O'Hara v. Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363, 418 NYS2d 334).
Accordingly, since its answer was filed on September 19, 2002 and the
plaintiffs did not make this motion until June 4, 2003, they are barred
therefrom. In addition, the defendants note that the tolling of the
statute of limitations afforded by the Mosley, infra settlement, by its
terms, applied only and specifically from the filing of that action in
1980 until its settlement in 1990, not to the within action which was
commenced some twelve years after execution of the settlement agreement.
In their reply, the plaintiffs note that this action was remanded to state court after the date that the defendants assert that the instant motion should have been filed. Consequently, their motion can in no way be viewed as untimely. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that "the 60 day requirement is not a statute of limitations, and a motion for class certification may be granted under appropriate circumstances even if it is brought after the expiration of that period." (Citing, John Bourdeau, Paul Coltoff, Christine M. Gimeno, 3A Carmody-Wait 2d §§19:395, a fourth department case, and some miscellaneous opinions). The plaintiffs then reassert their arguments for class certification, along with pointing out that the defendants have not filed an answer in state court; i.e, in this action. With regards to the request for change of venue, the plaintiffs argue that in Seitz, et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, supra, 953 F. Supp. 100 (S.D.NY 1997), "[t]he Eastern District of New York, which encompasses Kings County, was found to be a proper venue after the issue was briefed before Judge Batts in the Southern District of New York;" however, the plaintiffs concede that his opinion was silent vis-a-vis the "purported plan rule requiring venue in the county of Onondaga. . ." In any event, the plaintiffs assert that the trustees exceeded their authority in adopting such a rule as "[t]here is nothing in the Trust Agreement that permits the Trustees to abridge Plaintiffs' rights by adopting a venue provision or to limit or regulate litigation against or by the Fund."
The Defendants, in response to the foregoing, submitted a reply memorandum which essentially reiterated their position against class certification and for a change of venue, save to assert that the plaintiffs had not initially quantified the number of the purported class in its original motion, but only did so in their supplemental affirmation on the basis of archival material, which they were unable to provide via discovery since ". . . Josephine Dontino, the person who allegedly generated the document some 25 years ago, retired from the pension fund, is in her 80's and is incapacitated. This is one of the reasons why this action is also barred by the statute of limitation since said statutes are designed to protect defendants against the elements of time, notably, the loss of evidence and faded memories of witnesses." (Citing Carmody Wait 2d, "Limitation of Actions," §13.2 (1994) (the policy behind the statutes of limitation is to protect defendants from the revival of claims where 'evidence has been lost, memories have faded and witnesses have disappeared')." (Citing Meyers v. Frank, 550 F.2d 726 (2nd Cir.), cet. Denied, 434 U.S. 830 (1977); Vastola v. Maer, 39 NY2d 1019, 387 NYS2d 246 (1976), McCarthy v. Volkswagen of America, 55 NY2d 543; etc.) Insofar as its failure to have submitted an answer is concerned, the defendants argue that their response in the federal matterserved after removal but prior to remand to state courtis sufficient, especially in light of the fact that the plaintiffs had agreed to an extension of time for service of the same. Lastly, with regards to the plaintiff's argument that the trustees exceeded their authority in adopting a venue rule, the defendants argue that ". . .the venue rule was adopted by the Pension Fund's trustees pursuant to ERISA and the Agreement and Declaration of Trust. The right to adopt a venue derives from the Trustees' [*5]'exclusive authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan' and fiduciary mandates imposed upon them by ERISA. In this regard, ERISA provides that 'Every employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument. . .and the fiduciaries. . .shall have the authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan. 29 U.S.C. §1102(a)(1)." Finally, the defendants assert that since the venue rule applies to participants as well as applicants of the Plan, it is immaterial that the plaintiffs are not members of the Plan. The fact is that "[t]he plaintiffs here applied for benefits under the Pension Fund's Plan and were denied because they did not have contributions made after December 1, 1976, the 'effective date' of the Brewery Merger as adjudicated by the courts."
CPLR § 901 provides, in pertinent part, that "one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all if: 1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable; 2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; 3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; 4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and, 5. a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. CPLR § 902 adds that "within sixty days after the time to serve a responsive pleading has expired for all persons named as defendants in an action brought as a class action, the plaintiff shall move for an order to determine whether it is to be so maintained. An order under this section may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits on the court's own motion or on motion of the parties. The action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under section 901 have been satisfied. Among the matters which the court shall consider in determining whether the action may proceed as a class action are: 1. The interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; 2. The impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions; 3. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; 4. The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claim in the particular forum; and 5. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action."
The controversy presented by the various arguments of the parties
is whether the plaintiffs meet the statutory prerequisites and have
timely moved for class certification, or whether prior judicial
proceedings have resolved that determination and therefore preclude any
reexamination thereof on the basis of res judicata and/or collateral
estoppel. This court cannot proceed to make that analysis, however, in
light of the venue issue herein presented. The law is clearly
established that "contractual forum selection clauses are prima facie
valid and enforceable." (See McIntosh County Bank, et. al. v. St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe, 4 Misc 3d 1017(A), 2004 WL 1878201 (NY Sup.), 2004 NY Slip
Op. 50920(U), citing Premium Risk Group, Inc. v. Legion Insurance
company, 294 AD2d 345 (2nd Dept., 2002); and Koko Contracting Inc. v.
Environmental Asbestos Removal Corp., 272 AD2d 585 (2d Dept., 2000).
Although the plaintiffs argue that the trustees did not have the
authority to designate Onondaga county as the forum for any fund
disputes, they have failed to convincingly demonstrate that agreeing to
such a contractual provision is de hors the bounds of permissible and/or
legitimate contractual parameters, much less fiduciary action. The fact
is that "[i]n order to set aside such a clause, the party seeking to do
[*6]so must establish that enforcement of the clause would be
unreasonable or unjust, that the venue selection clause is void because
of fraud or overreaching or that permitting the matter to proceed to
trial in the venue established by the contract would be so difficult and
inconvenient to the party challenging the provision [that he or she]
would effectively [be] denied his or her day in court. (See McIntosh
County Bank, et. al. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 4 Misc 3d 1017(A),
supra, citing Hunt v. Landers, 309 AD2d 900 (2nd Dept., 2003); and
Hirschman v. National Textbook Company, 184 AD2d 494 [2d. Dept., 1992]).
The McIntosh County Bank, et. al. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 4 Misc 3d
1017(A), supra, court went on to aptly note that "Agreements are to be
interpreted in accordance with their plain meaning."(citing Green field
v. Philles Records, Inc., 98 NY2d 562 (2002); Katina, Inc. v.
Famiglietti, 306 AD2d 440 [2nd Dept., 2003]). "The court may not make a
new agreement for the parties under the guise of interpretation."
(Citing Rodolitz v. Neptune Paper Products, Inc., 22 NY2d 383 [1968].
See also, Iacobacci v. McAleavey, 222 AD3d 406 [2d Dept., 1995]).
Accordingly, this court sees no other alternative than to have the
within matter transferred to the Supreme court of Onondaga County
pursuant to the terms of the parties' Merger agreement above discussed.
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the defendants' motion
for a change of venue is granted, and the plaintiffs' request for class
certification is hereby deferred to the Supreme Court of Onondaga
County. In addition, the Kings County Clerk is hereby directed to
forthwith transfer the case file to the Onondaga Supreme Court for its
deliberations. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
_______________________________
JSChttps://teamsterslocal25.com/president-sean-m-obrien/
Sean M. O’Brien
President / Principal Officer, Teamsters Local 25
Secretary Treasurer/Principal Executive Officer Teamsters Joint Council 10 New England
Eastern Region Vice-President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Sean
M. O’Brien is a fourth generation Teamster, initiated in 1991 working
in the Rigging Industry. Since 1999, Sean has held nearly all positions
for Teamsters Local 25. In 2006, Sean became the youngest President in
Local 25’s long history. Teamsters Local 25 represents more than 12,000
members and their families in Greater Boston. In 2011, Sean was elected
Eastern Region International Vice President of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Sean also serves as Secretary
Treasurer/Principal Executive Officer of New England Teamsters Joint
Council 10 representing 45,000 Teamsters in six New England States.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Eastern Region Vice President O’Brien, has worked tirelessly to increase the membership of the Teamsters Union both locally and nationally and has been successful in organizing various diverse industries. Sean serves as a Trustee on both the New England Teamsters Pension Plan and the Local 25 Health Insurance Plan where he has skillfully negotiated growth of both plans over the last seven years. Sean was appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts to the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Port Authority in 2012.
Sean M. O’Brien, serves on the Board of Directors for Autism Speaks and since 2007, Teamsters Local 25 has been the premier fundraiser for Autism Speaks raising millions of dollars. Local 25 has lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature on behalf of families affected by autism and worked to pass insurance reform that requires insurers to pay for autism-related expenses. Teamsters Local 25 hosts and supports an annual Toy Drive, donating truckloads of toys and providing financial support at Christmas for the less fortunate in the Greater Boston area.
Teamsters Local 25
544 Main Street
Boston, MA 02129-1113
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/01-CB-010732
Date Filed: 03/19/2007
Status: Closed
Region Assigned: Region 01, Boston, Massachusetts
Reason Closed: Informal Settlement
Docket Activity
Date 
|
Document | Issued/Filed By |
|---|---|---|
| 03/26/2012 | Compliance Case--Closing Letter* | NLRB - GC |
| 08/11/2008 | Notice to Employees* | NLRB - GC |
| 07/30/2008 | Informal Settlement Agreement* | NLRB - GC |
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.
* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.
Related Documents
Related Documents data is not available.
Allegations
- 8(b)(1)(A) Hiring Halls
- 8(b)(1)(B) Other Allegations
- 8(b)(1)(A) Coercion, incl'g Statements and Violence
- 8(b)(2) Union Security Related Actions
Participants
| Participant | Address | Phone |
|---|---|---|
| Charged Party / Respondent Legal Representative FEINBERG, MICHAEL Feinberg, Dumont & Brennan |
177 Milk St., 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02109-3408 |
(617)338-1976 |
| Charged Party / Respondent Union INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 25 |
544 Main Street Charlestown, MA 02129-1109 |
(617)241-8825 |
| Charged Party / Respondent Additional Service International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO |
4818 East Ben White Boulevard Suite 300 Austin, TX 78741 |
(202)624-6847 |
| Charging Party Individual |
|
|
| Charging Party Individual |
|
|
| Charging Party Individual |
|
|
| Charged Party / Respondent Union International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 25 |
544 Main St Boston, MA 02129-1109 |
(617)241-8825 |
Related Cases
| Case Number | Case Name | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 01-CB-010710 | International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 25 | Closed |
| 01-CB-010712 | International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 25 |
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:41:58 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Attt Commissioner William A. Brooks id you wish to
recall I have some old documents for you and many foreign judges to
review ASAP
To: Amélie.Lavictoire@cas-satj.gc.
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NDP/NPD <info@ndp.ca>
Date: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Attt Commissioner William A. Brooks id you
wish to recall I have some old documents for you and many foreign
judges to review ASAP
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
*Le français suit*
Friend,
Thanks for your email.
To help us respond to you in the fastest way possible, please submit
your question or comment using our contact tool at
http://ndp.ca/contact
We’ll do our best to respond to you as quickly as possible.
Thanks again,
Canada's NDP
_______________________________________________________
300-279 Laurier West/Ouest Ottawa, ON K1P 5J9
(TÉL) 866.525.2555 | (TÉLÉC/FAX) 613.230.9950
ndp.ca | npd.ca
Cope 225:js
****
Bonjour,
Merci pour votre courriel.
Pour nous aider à vous répondre le plus rapidement possible, veuillez
faire parvenir votre question ou commentaire à l’adresse
http://npd.ca/contactez-vous.
Merci encore,
Le NPD du Canada
_______________________________________________________
300-279 Laurier West/Ouest Ottawa, ON K1P 5J9
(TÉL) 866.525.2555 | (TÉLÉC/FAX) 613.230.9950
ndp.ca | npd.ca
Cope 225:js
- Show quoted text -
---------- original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:33:52 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Attt Commissioner William A. Brooks id you wish to
recall I have some old documents for you and many foreign judges to
review ASAP
To: Chantal.Carbonneau@cas-satj.
Karine Fortin <info@ndp.ca>, "info@pco-bcp.gc.ca"
<info@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, thomas.farragher@globe.com, info@1510wmex.com,
michele@michelemcphee.com, gdumcius@masslive.com,
kevinreddington@msn.com, amcclain@nixonpeabody.com,
bkelly@nixonpeabody.com, "Fred.Wyshak" <Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov>,
"mark.vespucci" <mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, jcarney
<jcarney@carneybassil.com>, hb@hbjustice.com, mcoakley@foleyhoag.com
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
http://www.wcvb.com/news/
Refusing to talk, Bulger girlfriend won't be used 'as tool of
government' Catherine
Greig headed back to Boston court
UPDATED 7:31 AM EST Nov 19, 2015
BOSTON —The woman who helped James "Whitey" Bulger stay on the lam for more
than a decade is about to head back to a Boston courtroom.
Catherine Greig won’t talk to a grand jury about who else may have helped
the notorious mobster elude capture.
*Watch report
<http://www.wcvb.com/news/
Greig pleaded not guilty when she was arraigned on contempt charges last
month.
Prosecutors have upped the stakes against Greig, threatening her with more
prison time if she doesn't talk.
But NewsCenter 5 legal analyst Martha Coakley says don't expect that to
work.
“I can’t imagine that at this stage that leverage will change the course
she’s kept for most of her life now,” Coakley said.
Greig is already serving an eight-year sentence for her role in helping
Bulger.
Her lawyer has said repeatedly she has nothing more to offer and won't be
used as a "tool of the government" to harass people.
Bulger is serving a life sentence on 11 murder convictions.
http://michelemcphee.com/
"Best selling author, Emmy-nominated investigative reporter and
award-winning journalist Michele McPhee has spent two decades covering
terrorism, murder, mobsters, and corruption for television, newspapers and
radio.
McPhee’s investigative work has led to gunpoint threats delivered by angry
Boston mobsters, a frightening encounter on KKK-protected dirt roads in
Arkansas, threats from gang bangers, and IRS audits. She chased Gianni
Versace’s killer around South Beach, Miami; snuck into John Gotti’s wake in
Queens, New York; and posed as a mob moll with an undercover NYPD detective
targeting fight fixing in Las Vegas."
"McPhee is the author of five true crime books, including A Mob Story the
book notorious Boston mobster Whitey Bulger had on his bookshelf at his
Santa Monica hideout."
http://www.nixonpeabody.com/
http://www.masslive.com/news/
Former Whitey Bulger prosecutor Brian Kelly to investigate city role in Top
Chef case
"Boston Mayor Marty Walsh's administration is hiring Brian Kelly, a former
assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted mobster James “Whitey” Bulger, to
look into City Hall’s role in union members’ alleged extortion effort.
Four members of Teamsters Local 25 were indicted on federal extortion
charges earlier this week. U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said they used “thug
tactics” in an attempt to get “no-work jobs” while “Top Chef” was filming
in the Boston area in 2014."
http://hankbrennanlaw.com/
BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 720-1800
Fax: (617) 812-3066
hb@hbjustice.com
http://www.people.com/article/
Notorious Mobster Whitey Bulger Furious About New Movie *Black Mass* Based
on His Life
137SHARES
<http://www.people.com/
Reprint
<http://www.people.com/
0 Comments
<http://www.people.com/
subscribe
<https://subscription.people.
[image: Whitey Bulger, Notorious Mobster, Furious About 'Black Mass' Movie]
Whitey Bulger's mugshot from 2011
U.S. Marshals Service/AP
By Michele McPhee
@MicheleMcPhee <https://twitter.com/intent/
updated 09/19/2015 AT 10:30 AM EDT
*•*originally published 09/17/2015 AT 11:00 AM EDT
Notorious Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger
<http://www.people.com/people/
moniker he loathed – a nickname criminal cohorts never dared say to his
face – from the shock of platinum hair he perpetually slicked back from his
forehead. And despite the "millions upon millions" of dollars his lawyer
told a federal jury Bulger made in the rackets he ran in the insular Irish
neighborhood of South Boston, the mobster never bothered to fix a blackened
front tooth.
Still, many crime-watchers worldwide have been intrigued by the powerful
stronghold on South Boston – and multiple cold-blooded killings –
attributed to Bulger and his band of criminals known as the Winter Hill
Gang. In the new film *Black Mass*
<http://www.people.com/
actor Johnny Depp <http://www.people.com/people/
Bulger and told reporters at a screening
<http://www.people.com/
of the movie in Brookline, Massachusetts this week that he approached the
role by looking at Bulger as "a human being and not only as a man in that
business."
"There's a kind heart in there," Depp told reporters. "There's a cold heart
in there. There's a man who loves. There's a man who cries. There's a lot
to the man."
However, Bulger himself has no interest seeing how Depp portrays him, his
defense attorney Hank Brennan tells PEOPLE.
"Johnny Depp might as well have been playing the Mad Hatter all over again
as far as James Bulger is concerned," Brennan says. "Hollywood greed is
behind the rush to portray my client, and the movie missed the real scourge
created in my client's case, the real menace to Boston during that time and
in other mob cases around the country – the federal government's complicity
in each and every one of those murders with the top echelon informant
program."
Bulger, now 86, refused to meet or even correspond with Depp, and has no
plans to watch the film, even if it ever becomes one of the films piped
into the maximum security federal prison in Florida where he is serving two
life sentences, Brennan says.
But *Black Mass* director Scott Cooper says he captured the real Bulger by
relying on a lot of archival footage – and that he wanted to depict Bulger
in a way that "doesn't romanticize or glamorize him."
"It was really important for me to get that right, but also get the city
right and to get the men right who had fostered a lot of heartbreak for the
city," Cooper tells PEOPLE. "Emotional wounds have yet to heal."
Dick Lehr, who co-authored *Black Mass* says Depp didn't back away from
portraying the gangster.
"Yeah, I think Johnny nailed it," says Lehr. "Johnny didn't back away from
the fact that he's a monster."
Jay Carney, another one of Bulger's attorneys, was present briefly on set
of the movie. He attended the recent Boston premiere of the film.
The Case Against Bulger
In 2013, after a colorful federal trial rife with expletive-laced threats
between Bulger at the defense table and his former Winter Hill Gang allies
on the witness stand, the geriatric gangster was convicted in connection
with 11 murders and charges relating to his sprawling criminal racketeering
enterprise – which according to court records he was able to build with the
help of corrupt officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice.
That deadly alliance should have been the focus of movie, Brennan says
Bulger believes. Instead, he says, the movie focuses on just two corrupt
agents – John "Zip" Connolly and his supervisor, John Morris. Connolly is
serving 40 years in a Florida jail connected to the Winter Hill Gang hit
put out on victim John Callahan. Morris admitted his own corruption and
that of others in trial testimony in exchange for immunity.
Bulger has pointed to the FBI's deep ties with unsavory confidential
informants. Among these informants was Bulger, but also his criminal
lieutenant Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi, who had been secretly cooperating
with the FBI and bribing Morris and Connolly with cash, expensive wine, and
fancy trips, beginning in 1975 and ending with Flemmi's arrest in 1995.
Tipped to a pending indictment, Bulger went on the run for 16 years until
he was apprehended in 2011.
"The movie missed the real story and instead made a cartoon mockery out of
Jimmy Bulger," Brennan says.
Dark Days – and Brutal MurdersCourt testimony, however, backs up some of
the horrific elements of the movie – like the scene in which Bulger
strangles Flemmi’s stepdaughter Deborah Hussey to death with his bare hands
and then blurts, "clean up your mess" to his lieutenant before retiring to
a nap, a scene taken directly from testimony at trial.
Flemmi admitted on the stand that he drove Hussey, an allegedly
drug-addicted prostitute, to the South Boston brownstone where Bulger
killed her – after which, Flemmi, in the custom of many Winter Hill Gang
slayings, pulled her teeth from her head to prevent authorities from
identifying her remains.
"It was very distasteful to do and it was very difficult for me to do,"
Flemmi said on the stand.
Steven Davis, whose sister Debbie was murdered in 1986, allegedly at the
hands of the Winter Hill Gang, tells PEOPLE, "Everyone wants to talk about
Whitey as a loving ladies man. Whitey’s idea of taking care of a woman is
choking her to death with his own hands and ripping out their teeth."
The jury did not convict Bulger of killing Davis, but her body was
recovered in a scrubby patch along a Boston beach now known as the "Bulger
Burial Ground."
Davis's father had died mysteriously after he had confronted Flemmi and
Bulger in a fit of anger that the pair had "corrupted" his young daughter.
Days later, he drowned, and the only explanation given was that he had
fallen from a boat in a marina.
Whitey's WomenBulger's life had many women – and not just Lindsay Cyr,
whose affair with Bulger produced a son, Douglas Glenn Cyr, in 1967. The
boy died at age 6 of Reye's syndrome – a rare, fatal reaction to aspirin.
Cyr, who is now 70 and living in a ramshackle house near Nantasket Beach in
Hull, Massachusetts, "doesn’t talk about Whitey," her neighbor tells
PEOPLE. She could not be reached for comment.
Bulger’s frightening reputation didn't seem to impede his relationships: in
addition to Cyr, he was a common-law husband to high school sweetheart,
Theresa Stanley and a surrogate dad to her four children – and he had a
long-term love affair with dental hygienist Catherine Greig, who went on
the run with Bulger for 16 years, living under the pseudonyms Charlie and
Carol Gasko in a rent-stabilized apartment in Santa Monica, California.
The home was stockpiled with high-powered weapons secreted in the walls,
with bookshelves stocked with Bulger’s favorite mob books, many that
featured him.
"She’s in love with the guy; if she could be with the guy right now, she’d
be with him," Greig’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington told reporters after she was
sentenced to 8 years in prison for helping the fugitive. "He is the love of
her life."
Prison Life TodayDespite the fact that Bulger's dangerous allure drew in
many and still captivates the public imagination, Bulger himself is no
longer enthralled.
Earlier this year, when three teenage girls
<http://www.people.com/
from a Massachusetts high school wrote to him saying they were writing a
school essay about his criminal exploits, he wrote back, "My life is
wasted."
"I only know one thing for sure," he wrote. "If you want to make crime pay
– 'Go to Law School.' "
Still, his notoriety and murderous history is part of his identity, a
federal source tells PEOPLE.
"Bulger is in the general prison population, so he likes to tell stories
about the old days," the source says.
The source says that Bulger also spends a lot of time reading his favorite
true crime mafia books.
The movie *Black Mass* opens Sept. 18.
• With reporting by Megan Johnson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: Attt Commissioner William A. Brooks id you wish to recall I
have some old documents for you and many foreign judges to review ASAP
To: mcu@justice.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:00 PM
Subject: Attt Commissioner William A. Brooks id you wish to recall I have
some old documents for you and many foreign judges to review ASAP
To: info@fja-cmf.gc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, pmilliken <pmilliken@cswan.com>,
MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, "rona.ambrose.A1" <rona.ambrose.A1@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Welcome to the Website of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal
Judicial Affairs Canada
The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs reports directly to the
Minister of Justice. The Office of the Commissioner was established in
1978 to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and provide
federally appointed judges with administrative services independent of
the Department of Justice.
Duties and responsibilities include:
administering Part I of the Judges Act, which deals with
eligibility for appointment, retirement age, and salaries of federally
appointed judges;
preparing a budget and providing services and staff to the
Canadian Judicial Council;
managing the Judicial Appointments Secretariat, which administers
17 advisory committees responsible for evaluating candidates for
federal judicial appointment. The Minister of Justice has also
mandated FJA to administer the process for the most recent
appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada;
managing the Federal Courts Reports Section, which is responsible
for selecting and publishing Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court
decisions in both official languages;
administering a judicial intranet called JUDICOM, which provides
judges with email, a secure and restricted communication system, and a
virtual library;
providing language training to judges in both official languages;
coordinating initiatives related to the Canadian judiciary's role
in international cooperation.
In order to carry out these activities and provide services to
approximately 1,100 active judges and 850 retired judges and their
survivors in Canada, the Commissioner is assisted by the Deputy
Commissioner, six Directors and, at present, 70 other staff members.
This Web site is designed to inform all Canadians about FJA's role and
activities in judicial affairs in Canada. We welcome any requests for
information and any comments or suggestions. Please do not hesitate to
Contact Us.
Enjoy your visit to our site!
William A. Brooks, Commissioner
Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, Office of the Commissioner for
8th Flr., 99 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E3
Phone: 613-995-5140
Fax: 613-995-5615
info@fja-cmf.gc.ca,
http://opendatacanada.com/
William A. Brooks works as Commissioner (Commissaire) in
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE (BUREAU DU COMMISSAIRE), Office of the
Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada (Commissariat à la
magistrature fédérale Canada). The telephone number is 613-947-1793.
The address is 99 Metcalfe Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E3.
In 1996, Federal Judicial Affairs (FJA) was given the responsibility
by the Chief Justice of Canada and the Federal Minister of Justice to
coordinate the involvement of the Canadian judiciary in international
technical cooperation initiatives. The Commissioner for FJA thus
represents the principal instrument of intervention in the
international judicial arena on behalf of the federal government, the
Minister of Justice and the Canadian Judicial Council, ensuring that
their participation in international activities does not compromise
judicial independence and impartiality. The Commissioner is supported
in the discharge of these responsibilities by the Judicial Advisory
Committee on International Engagement.
Since its inception and with the professional contributions of members
of the judicial community, judicial experts and Canadian institutional
partners, the International Programs Division (IPD) has implemented
numerous international judicial cooperation activities and coordinated
the participation of Canadian experts to that end. IPD is guided by
the Canadian Judicial Council Policy on International Judicial
Activities.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/
Canadian Partners
A collage of 5 color photographs features Canadian and foreign judges
and court administrators at international conferences and meetings,
including the Legal Empowerment of the Poor Roundtable meetings held
across Canada.
Canadian organizations partnering with or providing support and
assistance to the International Programs Division of Federal Judicial
Affairs in its projects have included:
Court Administration Service
Supreme Court of Canada
Attorney General of Ontario
Canadian Department of Justice
Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association
National Judicial Institute
Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:35:01 -0400
Subject: RE My complaint against the CROWN in Federal Court Attn David
Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to submit a motion for a
publication ban on my complaint trust that you dudes are way past too late
To: David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, "peter.mackay"
<peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>, "peacock.kurt"
<peacock.kurt@
<mclaughlin.heather@
<david.akin@sunmedia.ca>, "robert.frater"
<robert.frater@justice.gc.ca>, paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.
joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.
peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, gopublic
<gopublic@cbc.ca>, Whistleblower <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/
http://thedavidamosrant.
I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
Feferal Court?
Petey Baby loses all arliamentary privelges in less than a month but
he still suposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:32:30 -0400
Subject: Andre meet Biil Csapo of Occupy Wall St He is a decent fellow
who can be reached at (516) 708-4777 Perhaps you two should talk ASAP
To: wcsapo <wcsapo@gmail.com>
Cc: occupyfredericton <occupyfredericton@gmail.com>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Subject: Your friends in Corridor or the Potash Corp or Bruce Northrup
or the RCMP should have told you about this stuff not I
To: "khalid" <khalid@windsorenergy.ca>, "Wayne.Lang"
<Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bruce.northrup@gnb.ca"
<bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>, "oldmaison@yahoo.com" <oldmaison@yahoo.com>,
"thenewbrunswicker" <thenewbrunswicker@gmail.com>, "chiefape"
<chiefape@gmail.com>, "danfour" <danfour@myginch.com>, "evelyngreene"
<evelyngreene@live.ca>, "Barry.MacKnight"
<Barry.MacKnight@fredericton.
<tom_alexander@swn.com>
Cc: "thepurplevioletpress" <thepurplevioletpress@gmail.
"maritime_malaise" <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 4:16 PM
http://www.archive.org/
http://www.archive.org/
http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
Senator Arlen Specter
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Specter:
I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that
these are illegal
FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you
about this previously.
Very truly yours,
Barry A. Bachrach
Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
the USDOJ for me will ya?
To: RBauer <RBauer@perkinscoie.com>, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith <msmith@svlaw.com>, bginsberg
<bginsberg@pattonboggs.com>, "gregory.craig"
<gregory.craig@skadden.com>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "bob.paulson"
<bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bob.rae"
<bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net>, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, leader
<leader@greenparty.ca>
Cc: alevine@cooley.com, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,
michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
QSLS Politics
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 29,419
Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP US Dept of Justice
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
DI60SP1001)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg
Search Engine google.com
Search Words david amos bernie madoff
Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
Visit Number 29,419
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Amos" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
> To: "Rob Talach" <rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>
> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
> a lot to you
>
> http://www.checktheevidence.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
> Bernadine Chapman??
> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca, webo
> <webo@xplornet.com>, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1
> <toewsv1@parl.gc.ca>, "Nycole.Turmel" <Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca>,
> Clemet1 <Clemet1@parl.gc.ca>, maritime_malaise
> <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, whistleblower
> <whistleblower@finra.org>, whistle <whistle@fsa.gov.uk>, david
> <david@fairwhistleblower.ca>
> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,
> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.
> <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, "Juanita.Peddle"
> <Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>,
> "Wayne.Lang" <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Robert.Trevors"
> <Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca>, "ian.fahie" <ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/
>
> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/
>
> From: Gilles Moreau <Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
> Constable Peddle???
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>
> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
> Director General
> HR Transformation
> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>
> Tel 613-843-6039
> Cel 613-818-6947
>
> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>
> tél 613-843-6039
> cel 613-818-6947
> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>>>> David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> 2012-11-21 00:01 >>>
Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it
yet
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:46:06 -0400
Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Cst Peddle ask the
nasty Newfy lawyer Tommy Boy Marshall why that is
To: "Wayne.Lang" <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, toewsv1
<toewsv1@parl.gc.ca>, georgemurphy@gov.nl.ca, tosborne@gov.nl.ca,
william.baer@usdoj.gov, randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca, yvonnejones@gov.nl.ca,
gerryrogers@gov.nl.ca
Cc: Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, tommarshall@gov.nl.ca,
"bob.paulson" <bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
To: randyedmunds <randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
affect the interests of every person in every district of every
country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
Conservatives
Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
Here is why
http://banking.senate.gov/
Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
following file
http://www.checktheevidence.
http://occupywallst.org/users/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hansen, David" <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello Mr. Amos,
I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
matters.
Thanks
David A. Hansen
Regional Director | Directeur régional
General Counsel |Avocat général
Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
services de consultation
Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
B3J 1P3
david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
426-2329
This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
this entire e-mail.
Before printing think about the Environment
Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.
Sent: August 1, 2013 12:04 PM
To: justmin; Hansen, David; macpherson.don; stoffp1
Cc: David Amos; justin.trudeau.a1; leader
Subject: I just called again Mr Hansen
David,Hansen,
Justice Canada,
Halifax, Nova Scotia,
B3J 1P3.
Phone: 902-426-3261.
Fax: 902-426-2329.
Email: david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hansen, David" <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:19:29 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Election Canada and hard copy and emails
sent to them and the RCMP and my calls,Duncan Toswell and
Ronald.Lamothe just now
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I am currently away from the office. Please contact Ginette Mazerolle
if you require assistance.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hansen, David" <David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:46:27 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE My calls to Jim Prentice, Mike Duffy's
lawyer and your Ministries please find hereto attached some of the PDF
files I promised before I argue the CROWN in Federal Court
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be away from the office from August 1st to September 2nd.
Please contact Ginette Mazerolle if you require assistance.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:55:29 -0300
Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and
Taxmen
To: hbrady@berkeley.edu, gsppdean@berkeley.edu, swinfo@scottwalker.com
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Henry E. Brady
Goldman School Dean
Class of 1941 Monroe Deutsch Professor of Political Science and Public
Policy
103 GSPP Main
hbrady@berkeley.edu
<javascript:void(location.href='mailto:
'+String.fromCharCode(104,98,114,97,100,121,64,98,101,114,107,101,108,101,121,46,101,100,117))>
gsppdean@berkeley.edu
<javascript:void(location.href='mailto:
'+String.fromCharCode(103,115,112,112,100,101,97,110,64,98,101,114,107,101,108,101,121,46,101,100,117))>
*Assistant: Beth McCleary*
(510) 642-5116
*Email Beth McCleary*
<javascript:void(location.href='mailto:
'+String.fromCharCode(98,109,99,99,108,101,97,114,121,64,98,101,114,107,101,108,101,121,46,101,100,117))>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and
Taxmen
To: jmwilson@mta.ca, alaina@alainalockhart.ca,
stephanie.coburn@greenparty.ca
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
http://james4fundyroyal.
https://alainalockhart.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and
Taxmen
To: Saint Croix Courier <editor@stcroixcourier.ca>, Duncan Matheson <
duncan@bissettmatheson.com>, infoacadie@radio-canada.ca
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
*
https://player.fm/series/
<
https://player.fm/series/
>*
Michelle LeBlanc, Vern Faulkner and Duncan Matheson look at the big
political stories of the week. - See more at:
https://player.fm/series/
https://twitter.com/mleblanc_
Keep up with Duncan
506-457-1627
*Editor:* Vern Faulkner
Phone: (506) 466-3220 ext. 1307; CELL (506) 467-5203
Email: editor@stcroixcourier.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:18:04 -0300
Subject: Fwd: Here is my latest complaint about the SEC, Banksters and
Taxmen
To: nicolas@allvotes.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, brendan@brendanmiles.ca
Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Tim.Moen@libertarian.ca,
info@
ENJOY
https://www.scribd.com/doc/
https://www.scribd.com/doc/
this blog sucks a bag of dicks
ReplyDelete