SEC OF LABOR TOMAS PEREZ ASKED TO APPEAR IN MIKE MCCARRON CASE

JUDGE SELNA ASKED SECRETARY OF LABOR PEREZ TO APPEAR  AMICUS CURAE IN THE MIKE MCCARRON .PEREZ HAS BEEN ASKED TO ANSWER TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS

(1) “Does ERISA preempt a claim based on a transaction between two ERISA-regulated parties–the Union and the Training Fund–with respect to rent payments?”

IN REGARDS TO QUESTION 1. SORRY YOUR HONOR  BUT THIS QUESTION CANNOT BE ANSWERED AS ASKED BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT TWO ERISA REGULATED PARTIES. THE TRAINING FUND IS REGULATED BY ERISA (NO MATTER HOW ABSURD THAT FACT IS) BUT THE UNION IS NOT AN ERISA REGULATED PARTY. IT IS AN LMRDA REGULATED PARTY. THE UNION OVERSIGHT IS NOT THE OFFICE OF THE EBSA BUT THE DOL AND ANY VIOLATION OF THE LMRDA WHICH REGULATES IT ARE PURSUED BY AN AGENCY THAT IS NOT THE EBSA. THE JOB OF THE EBSA IS TO ENFORCE ERISA LAW. THE EBSA IS ONLY LEGALLY ALLOWED TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN ENFORCEMENT OF ERISA LAW.. A POINT IT APPEARS SEC BORZI HAS FORGOTTEN

IN REGARDS TO THE SECOND QUESTION 

(2) “Does federal law permit a party who has sustained a judgment for
violation of the LMRDA to seek contribution or indemnity?” THE ANSWER IS YES FOR MULTIPLE REASONS ONE BEING AS LONG AS THE LMRDA WILL NOT BE USED TO DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE. SINCE THE TRAINING FUND IS AN ERISA REGULATED PARTY (REGARDLESS OF HOW ABSURD THAT IS) THE ACTIONS OF THE TRAINING FUND BOARD,DIRECTOR AND TRUSTEES ARE REGULATED BY ERISA AND NOT THE LMRDA.

OPPOSING COUNSEL CRAIG SINGER THE UBC ATTORNEY"THAT IN MY OPINION GOT LAUGHED OUT OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT" IN THE UBC FAILED RICO CASE  AND "TRIED TO DECLARE UBC MEMBERS SLAVES OF THE UBC" AT WHICH TIME THE APPEALS JUDGE REMINDED MR SINGER OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT

HEARD ON AUDIO HERE http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000012731

WENT  BEHIND THE COURTS BACK AND SENT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION TO SEC PEREZ.  IN A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT JUDGE SELNAS COURT AND INFLUENCE SEC PEREZ WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE BLATANTLY FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION

SINGER TOLD SEC PEREZ 

LIE (1)

"The extensive investigation, which lasted almost three years, addressed the question whether these leases were prohibited transactions under ERISA."

FIRST THERE WAS NO EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION BUT PER TESTIMONY AT THE 14D TRIAL OF MIKE MCCARRON BY PETER AWYLWARD AND OTHERS  THE TRAINING FUND RECEIVED NOTICE OF AN UPCOMING ROUTINE AUDIT.

 MIKE DRAPER IN AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE ALL PARTIES TRIED TO DECLARE THIS AN INVESTIGATION AND WAS CORRECTED BY TESTIMONY IN THE SEPTEMBER 2013 14D TRAIL OF MIKE MCCARRON .BEFORE A UBC KANGAROO COURT.

Q The Training Fund hired you as a QPAM quite

 recently; is that correct?

 A That's correct.

Q Do you know how that came about?

 A Yes. In 2000 -- I believe in November of 2012,

 the Training Fund received notice from the Department of

 Labor that the Training Fund would be subject to a DOL

 audit, and I believe in preparation for the audit, the

 principal for the trustees or the Training Trust, counsel

 for the Training Trust, thought it was a good idea to

start getting their ducks in order

 LIE (2)SECOND SINGER TOLD SEC OF LABOR PERZ THE SO CALLED AUDIT LASTED 3 YEARS.

AGAIN AT THE 14 D TRIAL TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN IN SEPTEMBER 2013

Q So at the time you were hired, the Department had begun their investigation; is that correct?

 A They hadn't begun their investigation, but they had notified their counsel that they were going to be targeted for the investigation, for the audit.

 Q To your knowledge, has the Department

 investigation concluded?

 A To my knowledge, it still has not yet commenced.

 CROSS TESTIMONY REVEALED

Page 74 Griffin cross of Peter Aylward

Q BY MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you.

 You've stated the Fund was going to be targeted

 for a Department of Labor investigation; correct?

 A No. I said that it had received notice from

 the Department of Labor that an examination was

 forthcoming.

 Q. Do you know why it was being targeted by the

 Department of Labor?

 A. The Training Fund received notice that it would

 be subject to an audit by the Department of Labor.

SO IN SEPTEMEBER 2013 IT HAD NOT STARTED AND IN FEBRUARY 2015 IT WAS DECLARED OVER.IT COULD NOT HAVE LASTED 3 YEARS BUT AT THE MOST, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHEN IT STARTED BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER SEPTEMBER 2013, SO AT THE MOST IT COULD HAVE ONLY LASTED 1 YEAR AND 4 MONTHS.

LIE(3)

 In response to the Court’s February 2, 2016 letter, the Training Fund hereby
submits for the Court’s information two letters the Training Fund received from the
Department of Labor in 2015 that are pertinent to the Court’s inquiry.

The information sent do not have anything to do with the court inquiry to the Sec of Labor or pertinent to The Court Inquiry.

 The Court Inquiry was to answer 2 questions. (1) “Does ERISA preempt a claim based on a transaction between two
ERISA-regulated parties–the Union and the Training Fund–with respect to rent
payments?” and (2) “Does federal law permit a party who has sustained a judgment for
violation of the LMRDA to seek contribution or indemnity?”

 We have shown question one to be moot and in regards to Question 2 it has nothing to do whether the leases were or were not illegal under ERISA so the information sent to Sec Perez was not pertinent

        The last counsel Decarlo and Shanley banned from the case by Judge Selna because the Court found that Decarlo and Shanley's continued representation of SWTF is
fundamentally unfair and would raise serious questions about the integrity of the judicial
process should it be permitted to continue" have declared the leases were NOT a violation of ERISA and that Mike McCarron did not overcharge anyone.But we see Decarlo and Shanley still being cced on the documents in this case,This change of theory made the entire case with false statements by many UBC Officers and the supervision  of the SWRCC that continues in to this day which is a violation of the LMRDA all a lie.

IN DOCKET 191 AND OTHER ORDERS BY HIS HONOR JAMES SELNA HE HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT MIKE MCCARRON WAS FOUND GUILTY ONLY UNDER SECTION 501 OF THE LMRDA FOR "VIOLATING THE COUNCILS BYLAWS" JUDGE SELNA FURTHER DECLARED  DID NOT CARE WHETHER THERE WERE OR WERE NOT OVER CHARGES. HE MADE IT CLEAR MIKE MCCARRON WAS GUILTY FOR WRITING A CHECK WITHOUT THE PRE APPROVAL OF THE TRUSTEES. A PRE APPROVAL THAT DID NOT EXISTS AND DOES NOT EXIST AND WAS A FABRICATION IN THIS CASE. THERE WAS NO TRUSTEES PRE APPROVAL THEN AND THERE IS STILL NOT ONE NOW.

This is a blatant attempt by the training fund counsel to influence the Sec of Labor and mislead SEC PEREZ. 

FURTHER THE 12 PAGE AUDIT IS SO FULL OF LIES AND FALSE STATEMENTS  ONE CAN ONLY HOPE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL LOOK AT IT. AFTER REVIEW IT (APPEARS)IS CLEAR THE ONLY INVESTIGATING THEY DID WAS TO WRITE DOWN WHAT EVER DECARLO AND SHANLEY TOLD THEM . THERE IS NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE REVIEWED ANY OF THE COURT CASE DOCKET.

"ACCORDING TO THE TRAINING FUND COUNCIL NONE OF THE OTHER 15 TRUSTEES WERE AWARE OF THE ED RIPLEY CHRISTMAS BONUSES AD NONE OF THEM GOT A CHECK BUT ED RIPLEY .THAT IS OF COURSE BUT THE 15 OTHERS THAT DID GET THEM EVERY YEAR ON THE SAME DATE WITH 4 OR 5 BEING TRAINING FUND TRUSTEES.FURMAN,THORNHILL AND HUBEL TO NAME A FEW.