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
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
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