MORE CONSPIRACY CLAIMS AGAINST THE SWCC TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR
ED RIPLEY.
TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR ED RIPLEY TOSSED UNDER THE BUS
IF ANY OF THIS IS TRUE AND NOT YET ANOTHER DECARLO AND CROOKED TOOF LIE WHY HASN'T THE EBSA BEEN BROUGHT IN TO INVESTIGATE.WHY HAVEN'T 14D CHARGES BEEN FILED
DECARLO AND SHANLEY ARE ACCUSING TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR ED RIPLEY OF TAKING MONEY FOR DOING AS HE WAS TOLD
"Training Fund’s Director yearly “bonuses” for doing a good job—for doing whatever McCarron wanted done."
ECF No. 261 at 3.
FOOTNOTE:261-3 ARE THREE SHEETS FOR 2010-2011 AND 2012 SHOWING DECEMBER BONUSES FOR ED RIPLEY AND OTHERS.FOR THESE YEARS ED RIPLEY WAS THE DIRECTOR THE TRAINING FUND
DECARLO AND SHANLEY ARE ACCUSING ED RIPLEY OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR LEASE "OVER CHARGES". DECARLO AND SHANLEY HAVE TOLD THE COURT THERE WERE NO OVER CHARGES
"The Training Fund’s Director did not object to the reverse-engineered Ontario lease that resulted in over charges of 118%. See ECF No. 218-1 at 18:21–19.
FOOTNOTE:THE ONTARIO LEASE WAS LAST AMENDED IN 2010 AND SIGNED BY ED RIPLEY.REVERSE ENGINEERED IS A FALSE STATEMENT CREATED BY MIKE DRAPER AT THE 14 D TRIAL AND NOT VERIFIED BY A SINGLE WITNESS .
DECARLO AND SHANLEY ARE ACCUSING TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR ED RIPLEY OF BEING PART OF THE DENVER GARAGE PROJECT LABELED BY THE UBC AS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY UNDER SECTION 501
"The Director built McCarron a garage using Training Fund’s assets and staff. ECF No. 143-13."
FOOTNOTE:143-13 IS A BILL FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR FOR THE DENVER GARAGE IN 2011.IN 2011 ED RIPLEY WAS THE TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR.
ACCUSES TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR OF ASSUMING DECARLO AND SHANLEYS LIABILITY FOR THE LEASES.NO PROOF OFFERED
"The Director agreed to no longer seek advice from the Training Fund’s counsel unless he first ran his request by McCarron.
FOOTNOTE: NOW THAT THIS COURT HAVE DECLARED DECARLO AND PECKER WOOD TO BE LIABLE AND SUED FOR THEIR LEGAL ADVICE THEY ARE NOW CLAIMING THE TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR WOULD NOT LISTEN TO THEM
DECARLO AND PECKER WOOD ARE ACCUSING THE TRAINING FUND DIRECTOR OF POSSIBLE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR POSSIBLY ACCEPTING OUTSIDE INFLUENCE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE TRAINING FUND.NO PROOF OFFERED
McCarron was rightly worried about civil exposure under Section 406(b)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1106(b)(3), and criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 1954 for attempting to influence the Training Fund’s director as to the performance of his duties.
