11206

l\I" t .1.1.\",'
SO ORDERED:
____Il-"'l- __ - ---
Demian D. Schroeder
14 Meadow Street
Brooklyn, NY
CHAMBERS OF
RICHARD M. BERMAN
U.S.D.J.
April 11, 2013
Honorable Richard M. Berman
,
U.S. District Judge,
U.S. District Court (SDNY)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pear) Street, Courtroom 12
New York, NY 10007
RICHARD M. BERMAN U.S.D.J.
"f/.,/. ].
USDC SDNY
DOClI!ViENT
ELf:CTRONICALLY FILED
D
C"-' li.
--' \..,- '-,
DATE Fl LED: Lf
13
SUbject:U.S. v. District Council ofNew York and Vicinity ofthe United Brotherhood
of Carpenters & Joiners ofAmerica, et al; (Index No. 90 Civ. 5722) (RMB)
Reference: February 13,2013 Order, Doc. No. 1255
Responsive Filings, Status ofUnion approval and ratification ofthe District
CouncillWall-Ceiling CBA dated March 12,2013
Dear Judge Berman,
We are in receipt ofthe Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc. collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) dated/executed on March 12,2012.
As Your Honor is aware, the contracts are complex legal documents effecting members rights.
The executed contract (CBA) was not properly or timely submitted to the Council Delegate Body
(CDB) or Executive Committee or rank and file member, for proper dissemination, review,
debate or contract ratification, per the past practice under the new by-laws as established by the
Council Delegate Body (CDB) and the follow-through March 27,2012 vote by the rank & file,
on 5-CBA's which were supervised & counted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA).
N.L.R.A. Section 8(1) verses 9(a):
The District Council and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNew York have presented to
the Court an untenable & false claim within the proposed contract, where on the one hand The
Contractor Association and the Union offer a Non-Exclusive HiringlReferral Hall; and, on the
other the Union waives its responsibilities to represent all of its members equally upon collection
and receipt ofdues and working assessment monies - yet, refuses to perform said duty and
awards the Contractor Association 100% control of all hiring under their joint and false claim of
exclusive and majority status.
WALL-CEILING CBA at ARTICLE II, SECTION 2. Page 2 & 3 states:
"Section 2. The Association and any employer that may hereafter become a signatory to this
Collective Bargaining Agreement hereby acknowledge that the Union has claimed and
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 11
demonstrated. and the Association of signatoty employers is satisfied and acknowledges. that the
Union represents a majority of the Association members' Carpenters Of said signatory employer's
Carpenters in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The Association and its members, as well as said signatory employer, accordingly recognize the
Union as the exclusive bargaining agent under Section 9(a) ofthe National Labor Relations Act
for all employees within the contractual bargaining unit (Carpenters) with respect to wages,
hours and working conditions. The Association and any employer that may hereafter become a
signatory to this Collective Bargaining Agreement by becoming a member of the Association
further agree that any dispute concerning its obligation to recognize the Union as sole and
exclusive bargaining agent for the Carpenters will be resolved solely under Article herein.
"The employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for all its
Carpenter employees who are performing covered work as herein defined."
There are multiple issues with res.pect to this Section.
1) None ofthe language was presented to the Council Delegate Body (CDB) prior to the
alleged contract ratification & vote ofAugust 22, 2012; thus, by with-holding critical
information, any & all alleged agreements and/or alleged votes taken upon an incomplete
Memorandum ofUnderstanding (M.O.U.) are void ab-initio.
2) The UBCJA International and the NYCDCC via the first Restructuring Plan in 1999
under Judge Haight or in the 2011 Restructuring Plan within Your Honor's tenure have
never proven majority status, nor held the required representation election required by
Federal Law(s). Through the never ending barrage of McCarron lawsuits across the
country, they have evaded this simple requirement, albeit illegally while simultaneously
destroying the Local Unions' autonomy, seizing assets and tangible & intangible property
which does not belong to them and eliminating and shredding every Federal law on the
book relative to rank & file member voting and property rights.
In Ladies'Garment Workers l!. NLRB (Bernhard-Altmann), 366 U.S. 731 (1961) the Supreme
Court stated:
In the bona fide but mistaken beliefthat a majority ofthe employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit had authorized petitioner union to represent their interests, the union and the
employer entered into an agreement under which the employer recognized the union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain ofits employees, although in fact only a minority
ofthose employees had authorized the union to represent their interests. The National Labor
Relations Board found that, by extending such recognition, the employer interfered with
the organizational rights ofits employees in violation of 8 (a) (1) ofthe National Labor
Relations Act and gave unlawful support to a labor organization in violation of 8 (a) (2),
and that the union violated 8 (b) (1) (A) by its acceptance of exclusive bargaining authority.
The Board ordered the unfair labor practices discontinued and directed the holding of a
representation election. The Court ofAppeals granted enforcement of the Board's order.
2
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 11
Held: The Board and the Court ofAppeals correctly held that such extension and acceptance of
recognition constituted unfair labor practices; the remedy provided was appropriate; and the
judgment is afDnned. pp. 732-740.
(a) A different conclusion is not required by the fact that the union subsequently obtained
authorization from a majority ofthe employees to represent their interests, since k
earlier recognition of the minority union was a fait accompli dxgriving the majority of
the employees oftheir guaranteed riabt to choose their own representative. P. 736.
(b) The agreement Was void in its entirety. and it cannot be held valid and enforceable as
to those employees who consented to it. pp. 736-737.
(c) By granting exclusive bargaining status to a union selected by a minority of its
employees, thereby impressing that union upon [366 U.S. 731, 732] the non
consenting majority, the employer violated both 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (2). pp. 737-738.
(d) The employer's bona fide belief in the majority status of the union is no defense. Pp.
738-739.
(e) The remedy provided by the Board's order was proper. pp. 739-740.108 U.S. App.
D.C. 68, 280 F.2d 616, affirmed.
The NYCDCC and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNew York, Inc. have violated
NLRA Sec. 8(aXl), 8{a){2) and 8{b)(l)(A) via the unlawful support and acceptance of exclusive
bargaining authority and via NLRA Sec. 9(a) by:
o Failing to prove majority support
o Failing to hold the required Representation Election as mandated by the NLRA and long
settled law
Items (a) through (e) in Justice Clark's majority opinion are fully applicable to the Wall-Ceiling
and BCA proposed CBA's, and, any/all remaining contracts yet negotiated with the NYCDCC.
Said parties have colluded directly, by and through and with the assistance ofthe UBCJA
International's legal counsel Latham & Watkins, through a former Federal Judge, Kenneth
Conboy via direct coercion, intimidation, fraud and by violating the two primary prongs of the
Civil RCID Consent Decree to end racketeering and to restore democracy, and have engaged in a
lengthy extortionate Hobbs Act scheme to defraud members of tangible and intangible property,
and the rights according thereto, all in a continued pattern of racketeering in violation ofU.S.C.
Section 1861. NYCDCC in house counsel Murphy's March 29, 2013 letter (Doc. No. 1290)
evinces noting more than a campaign ofdistraction, diversion and deception.
Voluntruy recognition based on support that was induced by either union or employer coercion is
unlawful. as is the coercion. See, e.g., Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, 310 NLRB 579,
580 (1993), enfd. 13 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1994).
In 358 NLRB No. 15 (2011), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 25 and Denise
Avallon at pg. 11 The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of hiring hall referral systems,
acknowledging that ''the very existence of a hiring hall encourages union membership," but
holding that ''the only encouragement or discouragement ofunion membership banned by the
3
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 11
Act is that which is "accomplished by discrimination."45 Teamsters Local 357 v. NLRB, 365
U.S. 667, 674-676 (1961) (quoting Radio Officers v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17,43 (1954)).
But, since a union has such comprehensive authority vested in it when it acts as the exclusive
agent of users of a hiring hall and because the users must place such dependence on the union,
there necessarily arises a fiduciary duty on the part of the union not to conduct itself in an
arbitrary, invidious, or discriminatory manner when representing those who seek to be referred
out for employment by it. Iron Workers Local 111 (Steel Builders), 274 NLRB 742,746 (1985).
No specific intent to discriminate need be shown to support a finding of an unfair labor practice
in the improper operation of a hiring hall. Carpenters Local 25 v. NLRB, 769 F.2d 574, 580 (9th
Cir. 1985). Such fiduciary duty requires a union to employ objective standards for the referral of
employees. Operating an exclusive hiring hall without reference to such is violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act. Laborers Local 394 (Building Contractors Assn. o/New Jersey), 247
NLRB 97 fn. 2 (1980).
Granting 100% exclusive control (FULL MOBILITY) of all hiring/referrals to the Wall-Ceiling
Contractor Association violates the NYCDCC's Fiduciary duties, is arbitrary, capricious and
discriminatory as the case law above requires "'the union" to employ objective standards and
nowhere within the body, text or legislative history ofthe NLRA do the laws discuss Contractor
Associations running the unions referral or hiring halls and dominating/interfering with this
relationship, while the Union does nothing more than hold its hand out and collect money for
doing absolutely nothing for the rank& file member. This is reminiscent ofwhat street gangs,
drug dealers and the mob do via typical shakedowns and racketeering schemes via fear,
intimidation, coercion & fraud.
Immediately prior to the alleged negotiation ofthe MOU with the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry
Industries ofNew York, Inc. ("Wall-Ceiling") in July 2012, the Review Officer, rather than veto
the new Benefit Funds Director Mr. Epstein, whom he championed prior, instead directed the
Trustees to terminate his employment for "inappropriate & unauthorized expenditures" on credit
cards, business transactions with a vendor whom he reported to law enforcement authorities and
for acquisition of furniture purchased through a printing company as well as mis-allocation of
funds totaling $450k dollars for 1 quarter ofprinting work without issuing a request for proposal
(RFP) or without affording the Council Delegate Body (CDB) the opportunity to review same
and decline the expenditure in whole or in part as required by its inherent plenary power &
authority vested to it by the by-laws. Reference the 5
th
Interim Report ofthe R.O. at pg. 2, Item
2; and, pg. 26, items 28 & 29.
During July and August of2012 both before and after the August 22, 2012 MOU, the Review
Officer had been investigating the District Council President William Lebo for incidents
occurring on July 25,2012 Delegate Meetings for harassment which facilitated
Executiye control of the agenda in continuance ofracketeering, which subsequently led to the
Notice OfPossible Action on September 19,2012 and the resignation of the D.C. President
shortly thereafter. Reference Sth Interim Report of the Review Officer at pg. 1, Item 1 and pg. 3
Democracy and District Council Delegate Meetings.
At page 7, the Review Officer stated:
4
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 4 of 11
" I have always felt the great scope ofauthority granted to the EST as conceived by the UBC
Constitution presents a risk in the New York District Council. That is one of the reasons that the
office is different here, for instance, arguably fettered by the unique hiring process for business
representatives required by the District Council Bylaws. The Bylaws endeavored to strike a
proper balance between the authority of the EST, the Delegate Body and mandatory process all
with oversight of an Inspector General and a compliance overlay4. I would not presently
recommend that any offices be eliminated or created. In my view, the governance is still a
fledgling. Despite some growing pains, I think the system will not only work, but serve the
District Council well. Much will depend on the commitment of all to take it seriously, master the
Bylaws, study issues and engage in collegial debate."
The obvious should not escape this honorable Court - that being, The District Council's EST
usurped his proper balance and authority by facilitating Executive control of the agenda in
continuance ofracketeering throughout the course of the alleged contract negotiations,
presentation ofthe MOU and the alleged vote on what was, is and remain nothing more than
notes kept relative to basic discussions during a period where the racketeering continued
unabated in direct violation of Prong I of the Consent Decree (Elimination of Racketeering).
The D.C. & Contractor Associations now wish to insult the rank & file member and the Court's
intelligence via the <nunc pro tunc' diversionary argument to dissuade the Court that EST
Bilello's schoolboy type notes now constitute a formal contract which had yet been developed or
voted upon; and which contract was first presented to the Court on March 12,2013 and first
received by members and Council Delegate Body members via PACER on March 13, 2013.
EST Bilello and President Lebo were engaged in "Executive control of the agenda in
continuance of Racketeering" during the entire period when the MOU was operative. In direct
contravention to subsequent/recent submissions ofNYCDCC in house counsel Murphy's false
statements are the Review Officers charges against the NYCDCC EST for a:
NOTICE OFPOSSmLEACTION: (source, 157blogspot.com)
Breaking NewsThe New York City District Council of Carpenters is once again rocked by
scandal as Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael BUeDo faces a possible veto for among
other things, failing to abide by Section 21 ofthe District Council Bylaws and caused or
attempted to cause employer compensation for members to be directed to the New York City
District Council ofCarpenters Welfare Fund, according to a notice ofpossible action letter
signed by Review Officer Dennis Walsh (see letter below).
Pursuant to Paragraph 5.b.iii of the Stipulation and Order entered on June 3, 2010, in the matter
ofUnited States y. District Council. 90 Civil 5722 (SDNY) (RMB) (the "StipUlation and
Order"), please be advised that the Review Officer is considering issuing a veto of your service
as Executive Secretary-Treasurer ofthe New York District Council of Carpenters.
The facts and circumstances under review involve suspected violations of (1) Paragraph 5.b.iii
(c), (d) and (e) of the Stipulation and Order entered in this matter on June 3, 2010, and (2)
5
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 5 of 11
violation of Paragraph 7 of the Stipulation and Order; to wit:
(a) from on or about July 1. 2012. through March 12.2013, you failed to abide by Section 21 of
the District Council Bylaws and caused or attempted to cause employer compensation for
members to be directed to the New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund;
(b) on March 22,2013, you directed a business representative of the District Council attempting
to properly enforce the collective bargaining agreement at the Javits Center to let a suspended
member work at the Javits Center knowing that the person had been suspended as a member;
(c) on March 13.2013. you refused to answer questions about your report to the Delegates
properly posed to you by a delegate at a meeting of the Delegate Body ofthe District Council;
(d) on July 25. 2012, you engaged in indecorous and undemocratic behavior in a debate with a
delegate at a meeting ofthe District Council Delegate Body;
(e) from on or about September 2012, to the present, you failed to continue the development of
the business representative cross-training program recommended by the Review Officer and
begun by the former District Council President and Assistant to the EST;
(f) from on or about August 22,2012, through October 2012, you failed to take reasonable and
prudent measures to implement the terms of the Memorandum ofAgreement between the
District Council and the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Camentry Industries ofNew York. Inc.;
(g) from on or about January 11,2012, to the present, you failed to review minutes of the
meetings ofthe Board ofTrustees of the Benefit Funds with the District Council Executive
Committee;
(h) on March 22,2013, you failed to cooperate with an investigation of the Review Officer by
falsely stating, in sum and substance, that a certain business representative "suggested to me that
I give [a suspended member] to the end ofthe week [working at Javits Center], like we are doing
for others."
Pursuant to procedures promUlgated by the Review Officer to supplement the record in such
matters (enclosed), and as provided for herein, you may deliver a written submission to this
office via email stating any facts, law or arguments (and appending any exhibits) which might
be, in your view, relevant to consideration ofthis matter. Said submission must be delivered by
noon on April 9, 2013. A pre-action conference will be scheduled to occur at a later date. Please
email anysubmissionorothercommunicationsrelevanttothisnoticetodmwfw@verizon.net.
with copies to jacknmitchell@gmail.com and Bill O'Flaherty at oflah267@optonline.net.
Dated: March 26, 2013
Dennis M. Walsh
Review Officer
6
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 6 of 11
Charge (f) by the Review Offic.er Dennis Walsh states: (f) from on or about August 22,2012,
through October 2012, you failed to take reasonable and prudent measures to implement the
terms ofthe Memorandum ofAgreement between the District Council and the Association of
Wall-Ceilin& and Carpentty Industries ofNew York. Inc.;
The failure to implement the MOU between those dates and through to the present day is
significant. The MOU was not a contract rather it was a mere update to the Council Delegate
Body of4-pages of EST Bilello's personal notes culled from ongoing collective bargaining
negotiations.
As recognized by the All Writs Act-which permits "courts established by Act of Congress" to
issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions," 28 U. S. C.
1651(a)--a court's power to issue any form ofrelief, extraordinary or otherwise, is contingent
on its subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or controversy. Such jurisdiction is determined by
Congress. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 212.
The New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry
Industries ofNew York, Inc. contractor association have converted the former illegal Blue Card
(reference attachment in Doc. No. 1-7) to the White Card and are now attempting to coerce the
same illegalities by forcing members to sign said cards as a vehicle or means to demonstrate
majority support for the District Council, but without offering one scintilla ofproof. As it stands
now, the contract proposal being foisted upon this honorable Court is by a minority Union which
purports to act for the majority of its members. Said practices have long settled and held to be
illegal under Federal Labor laws.
Accordingly, the only way to remediate this would require;
o An Order from the Court directing the District Council to furnish proof of Majority
Support, or;
o An Order from the Court directing the District Council to hold the mandatory NLRA Sec.
9(a) Election via secret ballot
o Sustaining the R.O.'s veto of the EST,
o Voiding the Wall-Ceiling Contract in its entirety
In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 10-179, Stem v. Marshall (2011)
at page 1 the court stated: 'This "suit has, in course oftime, become so complicated, that ... no
two ... lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to
all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause: innumerable young people
have married into it;" and, sadly, the original parties "have died out of it." A "long procession of
[judges] has come in and gone out" during that time, and still the suit "drags its weary length
before the Court." Those words were not written about this case; see C. Dickens, Bleak House, in
1 Works of Charles Dickens 4-5 (1891), but they could have been.
At page 15 - We have recognized "the value of waiver and forfeiture rules" in "complex" cases,
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U. S. 471, 487-488, n. 6 (2008), and this case is no exception.
In such cases, as here, the consequences of "a litigant ... 'sandbagging'the court-remaining
7
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 7 of 11
silent about his objection and belatedly raising the error only ifthe case does not conclude in his
favor,"
In accordance with the above case, the NYCDCC & the WC & C are trying to sandbag the Court
via their intentional with-holding ofthe required proof of majority status and their willful failure
to hold the required 9(a) Representation Election to remedy their failure to furnish the Court with
proof of Majority status, notwithstanding the fact that both the International & the District
Council and Contractor Associations(s) have executed waivers under the Consent Decree.
At pg's 16-18, Stem v. Marshall, the court stated "Article III, 1, of the Constitution mandates
that "[t]hejudicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such
inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The same section
provides that the judges of those constitutional courts "shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour" and "receive for their Services[] a Compensation[] [that] shall not be diminished"
during their tenure. As its text and our precedent confirm, Article III is "an inseparable element
of the constitutional system ofchecks and balances" that "both defines the power and protects
the independence of the Judicial Branch." Northern Pipeline, 458 U. S., at 58 (plurality opinion).
Under "the basic concept of separation of powers ... that flow[s] from the 17 Cite as: 564 U. S.
(2011) scheme of a tripartite government" adopted in the Constitution, "the 'judicial Power
ofthe United States' ... can no more be shared" with another branch than "the Chief Executive,
for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the
Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto." United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 704
(1974) (quoting U. S. Const., Art. III, I).
In establishing the system of divided power in the Constitution, the Framers considered it
essential that "the judiciary remain[] truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive."
The Federalist No. 78, p. 466 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). As Hamilton put it, quoting
Montesquieu, '''there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative
and executive powers.'" /bid (quoting 1 Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws 181).
We have recognized that the three branches are not hermetically sealed from one another, see
Nixon v. Administrator o/General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 443 (1977), but it remains true that
Article III imposes some basic limitations that the other branches may not transgress. Those
limitations serve two related purposes. "Se.paration-of powers principles are intended. in part. to
Protect each branch of government from incursion by the others. Yet the dynamic between and
among the branches is not the only object of the Constitution's concern. The structural principles
secured by the separation ofpowers protect the individual as weI!." Bond v. United States, 564
U. S. --' _ (2011) (slip op., at 10). Article III protects liberty not only through its role in
implementing the separation ofpowers, but also by specifying the defining characteristics of
Article III judges... .Ifour decision today does not change all that much, then why the fuss? Is
there really a threat to the separation ofpowers where Congress has conferred the judicial power
outside Article III only over certain counterclaims in bankruptcy? The short but emphatic answer
is yes. A statute may no more lawfully chip away at the authority of the Judicial Branch
than it may eliminate it entirely....At pg. 38 "Slight encroachments create new boundaries
from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture." Reidv. Covert, 354 U. S. 1,
8
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 8 of 11
39 (1957) (Plurality opinion). Although "[i]t may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest
and least repulsive form," we cannot overlook the intrusion: "illegitimate and unconstitutional
practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations
from legal modes ofprocedure." Boydv. United States, 116 U. S. 616,635 (1886).
EST Bilello's purported execution of this contract which the Council Delegate Body, the
legislative branch ofthe D.C. never reviewed or voted upon cannot be sustained.
In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 06-856 JAMES L. ARUE,
PETITIONER v. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL. ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT [February 20, 2008], JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion ofthe Court:
htt,o:llwww.sypremecourlgoylopinionsl07pdf706-856.pdf
The second question--whether Varity's deception violated ERISA imposed fiduciary obligations-
calls for a brief, affirmative answer. ERISA requires a "fiduciary" to "discharge his duties with
respect to a plan solely in the interest ofthe participants and beneficiaries." ERISA 404(a). To
participate knowingly and significantly in deceiving a plan's beneficiaries in order to save the
employer money at the beneficiaries' expense, is not to act "solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries." As other courts have held, "[l]ying is inconsistent with the
duty ofloyalty owed by all fiduciaries and codified in section 404(a)(l) of ERISA," Peoria
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Penn Milt. Life Ins. Co., 698 F. 2d 320,326 (CA7 1983). See also
Central States, 472 U. S., at 570-571 (ERISA fiduciary duty includes common law duty of
loyalty); Bogert & Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees 543, at 218-219 (duty ofloyalty
requires trustee to deal fairly and honestly with beneficiaries); 2A Scott & Fratcher, Law of
Trusts 170, pp. 311-312 (same); Restatement (Second) of Trusts 170 (same). Because the
breach ofthis duty is sufficient to uphold the decision below, we need not reach the question of
whether ERISA fiduciaries have any fiduciary duty to disclose truthful information on their own
initiative, or in response to employee inquiries.
http://www.1aw.comell.edu/supct/html/94-1471 ,ZO.html
EST Bilello cannot usurp the Council Delegate Body's (CDB) plenary power and authority
granted via Section 5, 12 and 20 ofthe bylaws and violate his fiduciary obligations and duties by
lying to the R.O., the Court and the rank & file members ofthis Organization, the NYCDCC.
The R.O. and/or the Court should veto his employment, issue an order to hold an interim election
for a new EST via the hybrid procedures and past practice ofthe court appointed Review Officer
Dennis Walsh and hold this and all other contracts in abeyance until such election is complete
and this honorable Court can set a Conference date for all matters presented for review from
February 27,2013 throughApriI41h, notwithstanding the EST's belated response to the charges
duly filed and served upon him.
Respectfully, 0 D _" ,
J!J.
Demian D. Schroeder
9
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 9 of 11
cc: BYE-MAIL
Benjamin H. Torrance
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
Office of the United States Attorney
for the Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
Review Officer
The Law Office of Dennis M. Walsh
415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Bridget M. Rhode, Esq.
Counsel to the Review Officer
Mintz, Levitz, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.e.
666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters
Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello
395 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
James M. Murphy, Esq.
Counsel for the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters
Spivak Lipton, LLP
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
John DeLollis
Executive Director
Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc.
125 Jericho Thrnpike, Suite 301
Jericho, NY 11753-1022
Mark A. Rosen, Esq.
Counsel for the Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc.
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter, LLP
1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
10
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 10 of 11
ADDmONAL SERVICE via E-Mail:
Robert F. Makowski,
Sterling Dadone,
Norman Saul,
Raynier Gamboa,
Veronica Session
11
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1306 Filed 04/11/13 Page 11 of 11