4-29-13 DDS Letter to RMB Doc. 1311

7/30/2019 4-29-13 DDS Letter to RMB Doc. 1311

1/14

Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 14

Demian D. Schroeder14 Meadow Street

B r o o k : l ~ NY 11206

April29,2012BY HANDThe Honorable Richard M. BermanUnited States District JudgeDaniel Patrick MoynihanUnited States Courthouse500 Pearl StreetNew York, NY 10007-1312

USDCSDNYDOCUMENTE L E C T R O N I C ~ A - L _ L _ Y _ r _ I L . . : : E ~ D ~ - - . . . . . JDOC#:DATE FILED: j/z'1/!3

Subject: United States ofAmerica v. New York City District Council of Carpenters et al.;Case 1 90-cv-05722-RMB-THKReference: August 5, 2011 NYCDCC By-Laws, Section 20, 35, 37 & 38Dear Judge Berman:We write to Your Honor noting our opposition to the following items:Subversion ofCourt Order and AurandizementofPower:The Office ofthe NYCDCC EST's intentional mis-statement of the Order ofthe Court dated April11,2013 wherein the D.C.'s EST stated:"As per the order and direction today of Judge Berman, the fully executed Wall & Ceilingagreement will be brought before the Delegate Body for ratification at the next Delegate meeting.The next meeting will take place on April 25th at 5:00p.m."Your Court Order dated April 11. 2013 stated:

The District Council is directed, as a matter of "best practices," to seek ratification of thecompleted Collective Bargaining Agreement, dated March 12,2013 ("CBA"). Among otherreasons, some of the material terms included in the CBA appear not to have been includedin the Memorandum of Understanding ratified by the Delegate Body on August 22, 2012.Following ratification, the Court will consider the District Council's application to modifythe Final Order and Judgment of Contempt and Remedy, dated May 26,2009, of UnitedStates District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr.

The April 11, 2013 letter to the delegates is wholly misleading, and contrary to established law.Under the Bilello administration's stated plan of action, the due process rights of Local UnionMembers of the NYCDCC are violated under TITLE I (29 U.S. C. 411), SEC. 101. (a)(I ) EQUALRIGHTS which states: Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges

1


2/14


within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the laboror&anization. to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting uponthe business of such meetin&s, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization'sconstitution and bylaws.In an e-mail directive to Dist rict Council comorate counsel James Mumby dated MondayApri115, 2013, the Review Officer stated:

Jim: Please convey to the relevant persons at the District Council the following formalrecommendations made pursuant to Paragraph 5.h of the Stipulation and Order:I. The District Council Delegate Body should immediately and fully comply with Section20 of the District Council Bylaws by formally adopting written rules and proceduresgoverning the method of collective bargaining ratification and should do so before anyfurther collective bargaining matter is taken up by the Delegate Body.2. All votes relating to collective bargaining ratification should be by roll call of thedelegates.Members have a right to know how their representatives in the delegate body vote oncollective bargaining matters. Such transparency is a rudimentary tenet of a democraticsystem. The fostering ofdemocracy is a fundamental goal of the Consent Decree, whichrecognizes that a vital democratic system is a strong deterrent to corruption.In my view, these recommendations are necessary and appropriate, and I stand ready topetition the court to require their implementation if necessary.Dennis M. WalshReview Officer90 Civ. 5722 (SDNY)

District Council attorney James Murphy responded to the directive of the R.O. on Apri115,2013, as follows:I forwarded to the District Council's three Officers and the Director ofOperations your email regarding these recommendations for adoption. Your recommendations can certainlybe adopted as standing rules of order and I anticipate the Officers putting before theDelegates for adoption such standing rules oforder at the next Delegate Body meeting onApril25.

It is clear here, that by falsely re-classifying specific duties held by the COB's full plenary power& authority as "standing orders" of the Executive branch dictated to the CDB where the EST andExecutive Delegates are limited to an appointed sub-committee role and a limited power torecommend, that; EST Bilello through his corporate counsel is attempting to usurp or seize controlofpowers and duties which are not specifically reserved to him or the Executive Committee orExecutive Board, District Council Officers or Counselor Murphy via the court approved by-laws;

2


3/14


and as such are an affront to restoration ofdemocratic control, transparency and constitute anaggrandizement of power held to be illegal by Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 ( 1976) & Nixon v.Adm'r. of Gen. Servs. 433 US 425 (1977).The New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenter By-laws approved by this Court onAugust 5, 2011 violate Federal Law, TITLE I (29 U.S. C. 411), SEC. 101. (a)(l) EQUAL RIGHTS,express requirement that "every member" ... "shall have equal rights and privileges" .. ."to votein elections or referendums of tbe labor organization, to attend membership meetings and toparticipate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings" ..No where within Federal Labor law, statute, policy, House or Senate reports or the NLRA preamble& Section 7 rights is there an express or implied right which limits or qualifies the phrase "everymember" to preclude a one man, one vote requirement in elections, referendums, deliberations andvoting upon the business of the meetings or of the labor organization as a whole.Accordingly, the NYCDCC By-laws denying this most fundamental and basic equal right to oneman, one vote for "every member" of the labor organization with respect to a contract ratificationvote which is a referendum under federal law, cannot be negated in whole or part by the By-lawswhich are not reasonable nor in accordance with the plain meaning, text and legislative intent ofthe words & phrases used, either individually, or in context of the whole of29 U.S.C. 411, Sec.IOI.(a)(l) and/or NLRA Preamble/Section 7 U.S.C. Sec. 157 with respect to the definedindividuals (worker, employee, employee member) individual and collective rights.The NYC District Council of Carpenters is a labor organization as defmed under the NLRA(Wagner Act-1935). The UBCJA International and the District Council and Contractor Association(WC & C) via contract require a Maintenance of Membership obligation for every membercarpenter irrespective of which contract (CBA) the individual is employed under for a signatoryGeneral Contractor or Subcontractor. Therefore, under Title I (29 U.S.C 411 ), SEC. 10 l.(a)(l)Equal Rights, neither the International nor the District Council can refuse to acknowledge or denythe "every member" mandate within the Federal Equal Rights clause "to vote in elections orreferendums of tbe labor organization" to attend membership meetings and to participate in thedeliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings" ..Blacks Law. 8th Ed. at pg. 1307 defines referendum:referendum. 1. The process of referring a state legislative act, a state constitutional amendment,or an important public issue to the people for fmal approval by popular vote .. 2. A vote taken bythis method.Amending of the NYCDCC by-laws under Title 1, (29 U.S.C. 411), Sec. 101. (a)(l) equal rightsexpress requirements; and, under New York State Labor Code, 704 3(a)(2) for conspiring to anddominating, supervising & controlling the meetings, management, operation, elections andformulation or amendment ofconstitution, rules or policies in violation ofN.Y. State law/statutemust be viewed in light of the specific construction requiring that "every member'' .. . "shall haveequal rights and privileges" .... "to vote in elections or referendums" of the labor organization, toattend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business ofsuch meetings."

3


4/14


Referendwn votes of he labor Organization to be taken by the people which in the instant matterherein discussed under normal construction and the plain meaning and black-letter law clearlyrequire the amendments proposed a mandatory By-law Sec. 37(D) 30-day advance written noticebe furnished to alllOO-Council Delegates as condition precedent to By-law Sec. 35A-C becomingoperative, which subsequently require any/all proposed amendments first be initiated by & through1/3 of the Local Unions, under their Seal, subsequently presented to the District Council'sExecutive Committee and when viewed as proper, transferred to an elected By-laws Committee fordrafting of he express language of said amendment(s) proposed per NYCDCC By-law Sec. 35(A)(B) & (C) and Sec. 37; subject to a binding referendwn vote of the people for final approval, whichin the instant matter of he District Council is "every member" as clearly defined under Title I, (29U.S.C. 411), Sec. 101. (a)(l).Property Ri&hts:In Tropiano, the Court stated: "3. Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim togive up property or property rights?""Property" has been held to be "any valuable right considered as a source of wealth." United Statesv. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir. 1969) (the right to solicit garbage collection customers)."Property" includes the right of commercial victims to conduct their businesses. See United Statesv. Zemek, 634 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980) (the right to make business decisions and to solicitbusiness free from wrongful coercion) and cited cases. It also includes the statutory right of unionmembers to democratically participate in union affairs. See United States v. Debs, 949 F.2d 199,201 (6th Cir. 1991) (the right to support candidates for union office); United States v. TeamstersLocal560, 550 F. Supp. 511, 513-14 (D.N.J. 1982), afl'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1985) (rightsguaranteed union members by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. 411 )."Again, per the above, District Council corporate counsel Murphy has attempted to coerce &intimidate members to give up the intangible property rights conferred by the Court approved bylaws and he has willfully, wantonly and intentionally persisted in this untenable "position" whichdoes not comport to the Federal or State Labor law or binding court precedent, the Consent Decreeand the waiver of rights attached thereto; thus, the Cour t must view his continued efforts to ignoreCourt Orders, to extort rank & file member due process and known property rights and hold themunto himself or transfer or convert said rights to the District Council Officers, the ExecutiveCommittee or Executive Board and/or the non-union Benefit Trust Fund fiduciary's and Trusteesthe Council Delegate Body's vested Legislative rights to "initiate & pass" legislation in the firstinstance, to "make business decisions" and to thus hold unto himself and the parties thus mentionedas an offending act warranting contempt of court charges, sanctions and the appropriate fine tocompel him to obey the law(s).The Court approved Stipulation & Order at 5(b)(i)(2l stated:The Review Officer must be given prior notice of, and is granted the authority to review, allcontracts or proposed contracts on behalf of the District Council (except for CollectiveBargaining Agreements).

4


5/14


District Council corporate counsel Murphy's continued attempts to induce the Court appointedReview Officer to approve his illegal efforts to unilaterally change the by-laws by fraudulently relabeling them as "standing orders" are an express violation of the protocol established byNYCDCC By-law Sections 35 A-C, 37 & 38.sm Interim Report of Review Officer:During July and August of2012 both before and after the August 22, 2012 MOU, the ReviewOfficer had been investigating the District Council President William Lebo for incidents occurringon July 25,2012 Delegate Meetings for harassment ofDeleiates which facilitated Executivecontrol of he agenda in continuance of racketeering, which subsequently led to the Notice OfPossible Action on September 19, 2012 and the resignation of the D. C. President shortly thereafter.Reference: 5th Interim Report of the Review Officer at pg. 1, Item 1; and pg. 3 Democracy andDistrict Council Delegate Meetings.Enablin& Leaislation, SelfExecutina reguirements;As this court is aware, the District Council and the government negotiated a treaty/contract to endthe criminal aspects of the racketeering case against it resulting in the March 3, 1994 ConsentDecree. With respect to our prior submission to this Court (Doc. No. 1,231 dated February 27,2013) regarding NYCDCC By-law Section 5, 12 & 20, the Sec. 20 reguirement is not selfexecuting until the 100-member Council Delegate Body (CDB) initiates and passes enablinilegislation as is its right under its full plenary power and authority per Sec. 4(B) via 37(P) and Sec.35(A) (B) & (C) and Sec. 37 as noted herein:In Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888) at 194 supra, the Court stated: ''When thestipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry theminto effect" ..In 552 U.S. 491 (2008) Medellin v. Texas Opinion of he Court at B, page 18 the Supreme Courtstated:

The interpretive approach employed by the Court today-resorting to the text-is hardlynovel. In two early cases involving an 1819 land-grant treaty between Spain and the UnitedStates, ChiefJustice Marshall found the language of the treaty dispositive. In Foster, afterdistinguishing between self-executing treaties (those "equivalent to an act of helegislature") and non-self-executing treaties (those "the legislature must execute"), ChiefJustice Marshall held that the 1819 treaty was non-self executing.And at page 19 the Supreme Court stated: "Our Framers established a careful set of procedures thatmust be followed before federal law can be created under the Constitution-vesting that decision inthe political branches, subject to checks and balances. U.S. Const., Art. I, 7."We note in the instant matter, when the parties creating the By-laws provided the forum for rank &file member commentary, it was the members who pointed out to this Court that the UBCJAInternational & the D.C. had attempted to subsume the powers of each of the three co-equal

5


6/14


tripartite branches and hold them unto itself; and, that by our objections, the U.S.A.O. & R.O. thusrevised the proposed first draft of the by-laws to comport with the "subject to checks and balances"language which the Review Officer and United States Attorney fully endorsed.In 552 U.S. 491(2008) MEDELLIN v. TEXAS Opinion of he Court at B, page 20 the SupremeCourt stated: The point of a non-self executing treaty is that it "addresses itself to the political, notthe judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rulefor the Court." Foster, supra, at 314 (emphasis added); Whitney, 124 U.S., at 195. See also Foster,supra, at 307.We note here that the 100-member CDB is the Legislature within the District Council structuremandated by the August 5, 2011 By-laws approved by this honorable Court; and, until it formallylegislates written rules for contract ratification procedures per the specific, binding and controllingD.C. By-laws, the August 22, 2012 Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) and the subsequent 60-26 vote for the MOU by Council Delegates fails to execute any contract.To date, the 100-member CDB has failed to legislate the written rules (enabling legislation) whichwould then provide the legal authority for it to execute a legitimate, final and binding contract, asopposed to the District Council EST's illegal execution of the contract(s) (CBA's) which first weremade available to the 100-member Council Delegate Body on March 13,2013 before enablinglegislation has passed. In any event, under the August 5, 2011 NYCDCC By-laws, Section 20, 3 7,35(A)(B) & (C), the EST and/or in house counsel Murphy have no binding legal authority to usurpthe legislative powers of the 100-District Council Delegates and execute any contract, as theReview Officer, the D.O.J. - U.S.A.O. and Your Honor's Court provided the exclusive power to''ratify and execute" to the 100-member CDB; thus, the purported March 12, 2013 rush by ESTBilello & in-house legal counsel Murphy to usurp and/or aggrandize the power to "execute" the .Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNew York, Inc. contract (CBA) when said powers ofratification and execution are held and reserved specifically for the 100-member Council DelegateBody (CDB), subject to the "every member" express requirements clearly defined by TITLE I (29US.C. 411), SEC. 101. (a)(J) and the NLRA Preamble & Section 7 cannot be sustained as a matterof law.Blacks Law, 8111 Ed. at pg. 89 defines amendment as:

Amendment. 1. A formal revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution,pleading, order, or other instrument; specif., a change made by addition, deletion, orcorrection; esp., an alteration in wording .. . 2. The process ofmaking such a revision.Subsequent to the February 27,2012 Court Conference, the District Council's Executive SecretaryTreasurer Michael Bilello and in house legal counsel James Murphy presented the Court with aMarch 12,2013 Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNewYork, Inc. and NewYork City &Vicinity District Council ofCarpenters "executed contract" containing the signatures ofESTBilello and of one John DeLollis, the authorized agent of the Contractor Association whichpurports to bind the District Council and its rank & ftle members to a contract term beginningMarch 3, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2016, that translates to a remaining term approximating4.33 years.

6


7/14


It is our stated position of fact, reason and law- per the terms and conditions of the March 3, 1994Consent Decree, and the August 5, 2011 By laws- that EST Bilello does not have the authority to"bind" or "execute" this contract (CBA) or any other and that said rights are retained by the 100-member CDB subject to the enabling legislation which they failed to pass on or about March 12,2013 at the time of he false submission to the Court; and, subject to the express requirement within29 U.S.C. 411, Sec. 101.(a)(l) and/orNLRAPreamble/Section 7 U.S.C. Sec. 157 which togetherprovide for one man, one vote and "every member' ' and "referendum "language which iscontrolling. Section 20 Collective Bargaining language is controlling, and states:

SECTION 20: COLLECTIVE BARGAININGFollowing recommendation by the Executive Committee, the Council Delegate Body shallhave the exclusive power and authority to ratifY and execute Collective BargainingAgreements for and on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions, except to the extent theInternational Union exercises its jurisdiction or authority.The District Council Delegate Body shall adopt rules and procedures governing the methodofcollective bargaining ratification.

The District Council Delegate Body's adoption of"rules and procedures" governing the method ofcollective bargaining ratification is controlled by NYCDCC By-law Section(s) 37(D), which is thecondition precedent to NYCDCC By-law Section 35(A)(B) & (C); and, Section 37 & 38; and,subject to both New York State Labor Law and Federallaw(s) as previously noted herein. The factthat the D.C. EST Bilello and corporate counsel Murphy and the Contractor Associationrepresentative DeLollis and their legal counsel ignored these requirements does not save it from theinherent illegality or the contractual requirements to sever any & all illegal provisions containedtherein which violate state & federal laws; thus, the contract as proposed must be declared faciallyunlawful and void ab-initio.Moreover, the Review Officer's direction via e-mail to D.C. corporate counsel Murphy directinghim to use the word "should" in place of "shall" with respect to the qualified sentence in section 20Collective Bargaining stating "The District Council Delegate Body shall adopt rules andprocedures governing the method of collective bargaining ratification" .. .is an untenable change ofthe NYCDCC By-laws requiring formal amendment requirements be followed, to black letter lawas the R.O. has stated in past submissions to this Court. Changing the rules or legal qualifiers midstream obviates the need here for judicial intervention. The difference between "shall" and"should" cannot be overlooked as to the direct impact to rank & file member collective rights, andthat qualification amounts to a free pass to EST Bilello and the D.C.'s corporate counsel to violateNYCDCC mandatory By-law procedures at will without following black letter law and cantherefore not be sustained.In 552 U.S. 491(2008) MEDEUIN v. TEXAS Opinion of he Court at B, page, at page 32, theSupreme Court stated:

7

As Madison explained in The Federalist No. 47, under our constitutional system ofchecks and balances, "[t]he magistrate in whom the whole executive power residescannot ofhimseHmake a law." J. Cooke ed., p. 326 (1961).


8/14


Here, EST Bilello and corporate counsel Murphy, in concert with the Wall-Ceiling & CarpentryContractor Association seek to avoid compliance with the specific terms, conditions and waivers ofthe UBCJA International and the District Council as agreed to in the Consent Decree in directcontempt and in violation of both Prong 1 (elimination of racketeering) and Prong 2 (restoration ofdemocracy) via an illegal power grab or usurpation of powers which they jointly & severally fail tohold or possess.The Review Officer intentionally removed the power to execute the contract from the Executivebranch's EST as part ofa comprehensive plan within the 'checks and balances' requirement ofarepresentative democracy to avoid the autocratic and dictatorial control of an all consuming andcorrupt EST as was present under the Forde administration.Now in direct contravention to his previous mandate and direct statements to the Court via hisInterim Reporting, the Review Officer is violating the tenets of the Stipulation & Order whichprevent him from interfering and dominating in any and all contract (collective bargainingagreement) negotiations and the R.O. himself is directly advising the NYCDCC corporate counseland its Executive Secretary-Treasurer on ways they can collectively manipulate and attempt to endrun the By-laws he ostensibly authored in tandem with UBCJAintemational counselors of recordKenneth Conboy & Brian Quinn. The Review Officer is supposed to report corruption to the Court,not participate in it.April 25, 2013 District Council Delgate Meetina and Illeaal Delgate Votina:In the instant matter of the April25, 2013 Delegate meeting, the executive (Bilello) in concert withthe Executive Board made the law and then forced an illegal vote on the law, per the direction ofR.O. Walsh and D.C. corporate counsel Murphy. Their actions warrant a direct veto of theirservices by this Court.Given the fact that the Executive branch consisting ofEST Bilello, the Executive Board and D.C.Officers failed to abide by or follow NYCDCC By-laws dated August 5, 2011 as approved by thishonorable Court in September of2011 per the condition precedent established by By-law Sec.37(D) for constructive notice, and subsequently failed to follow and apply NYCDCC By-law Sec.35(A), (B) & (C), and that they fraudulently and collectively on the advice of corporate counselMurphy ignored the strict mandate ofNYCDCC By-law Sec. 20 providing the 100-memberCouncil Delegate Body (the Delegates) with "the exclusive power and authority to ratify andexecute Collective Bargaining Agreements for and on behalfof ts affiliated Local Unions"; allactions conducted at the April25, 2013 Delegate Meeting must be declared facially unlawful and adirect violation of the by-law sections cited and thus be declared a willful violation of the ConsentDecree.The controlling language in NYCDCC By-laws Sec. 20 is to "ratify and execute" and that ofcourse is ''subject to" strict compliance with the Court approved By-laws. That authority is vestedexclusively in the 100-member CDB, the Legislative branch as opposed to the Executive branch.UBCJA Constitution. Roberts Rules:

8


9/14


Because the NYCDCC Sec. 20 mandate stating "The District Council Delegate Body shall adoptrules and procedures governing the method of collective bargaining ratification" was not adheredto, as per the UBCJA Constitution Rule S. "All questions of a parliamentary nature not providedfor in these Rules shall be decided by Roberts' Manual."Motions Requiring a Two-thirds Vote:

1. Amend (Annul, Repeal, or Rescind) any part of the Constitution, B y ~ laws, or RulesofOrder, previously adopted; it also requires previous notice.68. Amend or Rescind a Standing Rule, a Program or Order ofBusiness, or a Resolution,previously adopted, without notice being given at a previous meeting or in the call for themeeting.37. Take up a Question out of its Proper Order.22. Suspend the Rules, Make a Special Order.20. Discharge an Order of the Day before it is pending, Refuse to Proceed to the Orders ofthe Day.

Irrespective of the fraudulent claims for roll call votes made onApril25, 2013, the DistrictCouncil, were their actions legally binding and in compliance with the B y ~ l a w s as previouslynoted herein; said actions and the subsequent voting wherein under black letter law "everymember" is afforded Equal Rights per Federal law to vote, a fraudulent vote conducted by the100-member NYCDCC Delegate Body (CDB) would require a 2/3'rds vote which they failed toachieve with respect to the fraudulent vote on the WC & C contract (CBA); noting that 82 TotalDelegates voted on the Illegal Motion; and, that those in favor were 46, while those opposedwere 34.EST Bilello, corporate counsel Murphy and R.O. Walsh failed to achieve the minimum 2/3'rds voterequired to sustain their collective illegal actions. Two-thirds voting by basic math would require55 votes in favor; thus, the Illegal Voting were it deemed legal by this Court would fall9 votes shyof passing, and fail to establish the tenet mandated by the Unites States Supreme Court in 552 U.S.491 (2008) MEDELLIN v. TEXAS Opinion of he Court at B, page 20- the Supreme Court stated:The point ofa non-self executing treaty is that it "addresses itself to the political, not the judicialdepartment; and the legislature must exeeute the contract before it can become a rule for theCourt." Foster, supra, at 314 (emphasis added); Whitney, 124 U.S., at 195. See also Foster,supra, at 307.Conclusion:The usurpation of and aggrandizement of power not possessed by EST Bilello, the Executive Boardor the Review Officer and District Council attorney Murphy and the WC & C ContractorAssociation or UBCJA International and their respective legal counsel cannot be allowed to stand.Each and all of them have individually and jointly conspired to violate the prohibitions in US.C.

9


10/14


Sec. 157and U.S. C. Sec. 158(a)(l) & (2) and U.S.C. Sec. 158-8(b)(l)(A) for Employer and Labororganization domination and interference and Title I (29 U.S. C. 411), Sec. 101. (a) (I) Equal Rights.As such, the continued racketeering efforts warrant EST Bilello's immediate veto notwithstandingBy-law Section 21 violations to extort $165-$200 million dollars in members' pay raises (wages) inan illegal quidpro quo exchange wherein the Contractor Associations and the District CouncilBenefit Trust Funds, Fiduciaries/Trustees and their separate entity, at will employees and respectivecorporate counsel illegally conspire to mis-appropriate and convert, exact and extort to its ownuse/benefit, the guaranteed member wage increases for approximately 18-million man-hours oflabor over the 4.33 year remaining life of the contracts; and, wherein the Contractor Association inconsummation of the deal with said parties is awarded 100% control of all hiring; or, reversion ofall control of the New York City & Vicinity District Council ofCarpenters (the Union) in exchangefor the $165-$200 million reallocation ofwages to the Welfare Fund.This illegal quid pro quo exchange is the very core and essence of criminal racketeering the 1994Civil RICO Consent Decree was designed to cure and it cannot be sustained under any rationale orlegal basis.Prayer for Relief:We pray this honorable Court:1) Direct the Court appointed Review Officer to veto NYCDCC EST Bilello & CounselorMurphy's employment; and, further instruct the R.O. to seek indictments with the D.O.J.'s-United States Attorney's Office Preet Bashara and Benjamin Torrance against Bilello &Murphy for criminal racketeering under guidelines established by the F.B.I. & United StatesD.O.J. and U.S. Attorney's Office.2) Direct the Review Officer to file charges with the State BarAssociation ofNew York followingindictment and to seek revocation of counselor Murphy's license to practice law.3) Direct the Review Officer & U.S.A.O. to file charges against EST Bilello, attorney Murphy andWC & C Contractor Association executive John DeLollis for willful and wanton violations of

New York State Labor Code 704 3(a)(2) for conspiring to and with each other in dominating,supervising & controlling the meetings, management, operation, elections and formulation oramendment of constitution, rules or policies of the duly organized 100-member CouncilDelegate Body of the NYCDCC in direct contravention to the Court approved NYCDCC Bylaws dated August 5, 2011; in direct violation ofN.Y. State law/statute.4) Direct the Executive Board of the District Council to abide by NYCDCC By-law Sec. 37(D)which states: "The Executive Committee of the Council shall have the authority to call aSpecial Convention. Written notice describing the purpose ofa Special Convention must begiven to all Delegates and the principal office of each Local Union at least thirty (30) days priorto such Convention. The delegates of any Special Convention of this Council shall consistexclusively of the Delegates to this Council" ... noting that said Executive Committee failed toprovide for the required 30-day Written Notice for a called/desired "Special Convention" to

10


11/14


amend the by-law member ratification rules and procedures prescribed by NYCDCC By-law Sec.20.5) Consider and approve our previous 52 page submission and Proposed Order, Docket No. 1,246

dated March 11, 2013, as submitted and filed with this honorable Court.6) The Court issue an Order which voids, ab-initio the:

~ August 22, 2012 MOU and illegal vote of the 100-member CDB;~ March 12, 2013 WC & C contract (CBA);~ April25, 2013 all Delegate Meeting Roll Call Votes wherein said delegate by and through

their illegal votes violated NYCDDC By-laws Sections 35(A)(B) & (C) and Sec. 37through votes denying "every member" the right to ratify the contract as required byFederal law under the normal construction, clear & plain meaning of he by-laws and thewords and phrases used therein; or, in the alternative;

> Issue an Order directing the District Council that any and all By-Law Amendments andReferendums to adopt Rule & Procedures for Contract (CBA) ratification must followRoberts Rules of Order which demand a 2/3'rds Majority Vote of the quorum present, aftercompliance is had by following the mandated requirements of By-law Section 37(D) and35(A), the condition precedent to application of By-laws Sections 35(A-C) which followwith respect to and prior to Section 20 application

We respectfully pray this honorable Court take these and other actions deemed appropriate in lightof he serious nature of the continued criminal activity.Respectfully,/JJirriMv /JDemian D. SchroederMember Local 45Enclosurecc: BYE-MAILBenjamin H. TorranceAssistant United States AttorneyCivil DivisionOffice of the United States Attorneyfor the Southern District ofNew York86 Chambers StreetNew York, NY 10007

1.1


12/14


Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.Review OfficerThe Law Office ofDennis M. Walsh415 Madison Avenue, 11th FloorNew York, NY 10017Bridget M. Rhode, Esq.Counsel to the Review OfficerMintz, Levitz, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C.666 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10017New York City & Vicinity District Council ofCarpentersExecutive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello395 Hudson StreetNew York, NY 10014James M. Murphy, Esq.Counsel for the New York City & Vicinity District Council ofCarpentersSpivak Lipton, LLP1700 BroadwayNew York, NY 10019John DeLollisExecutive DirectorAssociation ofWall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNew York, Inc.125 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 301Jericho, NY 11753-1022Mark A. Rosen, Esq.Counsel for the Association ofWall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNew York, Inc.McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter, LLP1300 Mount Kemble AvenueMorristown, NJ 07962-2075

ADDmONAL SERVICE via E-Mail:Robert F. Makowski,Sterling Dadone,Norman Saul,Raynier Gamboa,Veronica Session

12


13/14


Reference Material:NYCDCC By-laws dated August 5, 2011SECTION 35: AMENDMENTS(A) Any amendments and changes to these Bylaws may be put into effect by the action of theDelegates at a Special Convention of the Council.(B) A proposed change must be submitted in writing by at least one third of he Local Unionsaffiliated with the District Council, with the seal affixed provided that the Resolutions Committeeconsisting of three (3) or more members has reviewed and approved the resolution as to its legalityin accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood and the applicableCollective Bargaining Agreement, and State and Federal laws.(C) All changes or proposed changes to the Bylaws or Trade Rules of this Council or any of theLocal Unions shall be first referred to the Executive Committee for consideration andrecommendation, and then referred to a Bylaws committee for consideration and, if warranted,recommendation to the Delegate Body that a proposed change or changes be adopted. If approvedby the Council and in accordance with Section l iB of he Constitution and Laws of he UnitedBrotherhood (the "UBC Constitution"), the proposed change or changes must be submitted to theGeneral Vice President for approval after review of, among other things, whether such change orchanges are in conformity with the UBC Constitution, are in the best interests of the DistrictCouncil, and will further the objectives of he Consent Decree or Stipulation and Order.Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall change or limit the authority of the GeneralVice President pursuant to the UBC Constitution to approve or disapprove changes to theseBylaws. All proposed changes to the Bylaws shall be subject to the approval of the United StatesAttorney and, during the term of the Review Officer, the Review Officer.SECTION 36: SEVERABILITYIf any Section or part of these Bylaws shall be held invalid by operation oflaw or by any tribunalofcompetent jurisdiction, the remaining Sections of hese By aws shall not be affected thereby andshall remain in full force and effect.SECTION 37: MISCELLANEOUS(A)The Council Delegate Body, by majority vote of the Delegates present, either in regular orspecial session, shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures consistent with theseBylaws to govern the Council and all Local Unions, and to enact all measures, resolutions, traderules, instruction to members and Local Unions and all other actions that may be necessary tofurther the objectives and purposes of the CounciL Provided further that the foregoing shall be inconformity with the Consent Decree, Stipulation and Order of June 3, 2010, and any other Orderentered, in United States v. District Council, 90 Civ. 5722 (CSH), and subject to the approval of theUnited States Attorney and, during the term of he Review Officer, the Review Officer.(B)These Bylaws, Trade Rules and any other rules, resolutions and directives adopted by theCouncil shall govern and be binding on each Local Union.

13


14/14


(C)Any subject not covered by these Bylaws and Trade Rules shall be governed by the Constitutionof the United Brotherhood and nothing in these Bylaws shall in any way be construed to conflictwith the Constitution of the United Brotherhood.

(D) The Executive Committee of the Council shall have the authority to call a Special Convention.Written notice describing the purpose of a Special Convention must be given to all Delegates andthe principal office of each Local Union at least thirty (30) days prior to such Convention. Thedelegates of any Special Convention of this Council shall consist exclusively of the Delegates tothis Council.(E) All current Bylaws of Local Unions must be submitted to the Council for approval. All BylawsofLocal Unions that are inconsistent with these Bylaws are superseded.SECTION 38: IDRING HALL OR JOB REFERRAL SYSTEMThe Executive Committee of the Council shall maintain, and all workers shall be governed by,uniform rules and/or procedures consistent with the Consent Decree, and any other Order enteredin United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722, for the registration and/or referral toemployment of unemployed workers. Workers shall have the right to seek work and be employedthroughout the territorial jurisdiction of the Council. The referral of all workers to jobs shall beperformed by the Executive Secretary-Treasurer. Representatives, organizers and agents of theDistrict Council may not otherwise refer members to jobs or in any way inform an employer that amember is available for employment. The Executive Secretary-Treasurer shall maintain records ofall worker registration and referrals, which shall be reviewed regularly by the Executive Committeeand which may be reviewed by any member upon reasonable request.

New York State Labor Code: 704. Unfair labor practices. I t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer:3. To dominate or interfere with the formation, existence, or administration of anyemployee organization or association, agency or plan which exists in whole or in part for thepurpose of dealing with employers concerning terms or conditions ofemployment, labordisputes or grievances, or to contribute financial or other support to any such organization, byany means, including but not limited to the following:(a) by participating or assisting in, supervising, controlling or dominating (2) the meetings,management, operation, elections, formulation or amendment of constitution, rules orpolicies, ofany such employee organization or association.

###

14

Documents

4-29-13 DDS Letter to RMB Doc. 1311