IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI
MID-AMERICA CARPENTERS
REGIONAL COUNCIL,
(Plaintiff, )
Case No.: 2322-CC09663
(vs. )
ALBERT BOND,
(Defendant. )
DEFENDANT ALBERT BOND’S
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT ALBERT BOND'S MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW
Defendant Albert Bond (hereinafter "Defendant"), by and through his
counsel John H. Goffstein, respectfully moves for this Court to dismiss Counts I and II and each
of its subsections in Plaintiff's Petition pursuant to Rule 55.27(a)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. In support of its motion, Defendant states the following:
This case against Defendant is now barred as a matter of law under the doctrines of federal
preemption, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Plaintiff's Petition traces the facts and
circumstances that were pled or in existence when Plaintiff previously filed its Federal Complaint,
Case No.4:22-cv-00291, which it filed in the Eastern District of Missouri and Eastern District of
Missouri after which the court correctly dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. See
Exhibit 1, Plaintiff's Complaint; See Exhibit 2, Court's Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with
Prejudice. In short, Plaintiff cannot bring any additional alleged or unfounded facts in this present
case that they brought or were in existence and not pled in the previous case before the Eastern
District of Missouri Federal Court. That irrefutable fact alone means that this Court should dismiss
2
this latest case Plaintiff filed against Defendant before Defendant even discusses the factual and
legal background to this case.
There are a few additional new allegations by this Plaintiff, which are each regulated by
either the U.S. Department of Labor Labor and Management annual filings or as unfair labor
practices before the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B.).
Therefore, these allegations are preempted under time limits long since expired. See 29 U.S.C. §
151 §10(b).
In addition to failing to inform this Court that the U.S. Eastern District of Missouri already
dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint and allegations, Plaintiff also ignores the fact that the Eastern
District of Missouri dismissed Defendant's allegations from their counterclaims and affirmative
defenses without prejudice.
After Plaintiff's hostile takeover of the St. Louis–Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council
(hereinafter referred to as "St. Louis Carpenters Regional Council" or "St. Louis Carpenters"),
Plaintiff has and continues to act invidiously and capriciously from day one to the present).
In all due respect, in plain English, the Mid-America Carpenters (hereinafter sometimes
referred to as "Chicago") managed what can fairly be called an unincorporated theft and now
liquidation of all St. Louis Carpenters' members' assets, including but not limited to their very
named existence. This hostile takeover began with an overnight dissolution of the St. Louis
Carpenters Union and the subsequent ordered takeover by the Chicago Carpenters Regional
Council (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Chicago" or "Chicago Carpenters" from the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, hereinafter referred to as, UBC, ). Plaintiff
did all these actions pursuant to the direct orders and or obvious approval of Douglas McCarron
(hereinafter "McCarron"), President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (hereinafter
3
sometimes also referred to as "U.B.C."). As the time-honored expression goes, "Follow the
money.” The Plaintiff’s actions were the result of Plaintiff's blatant fiduciary breaches. During
the federal case, Chicago then, without any prior judicial approval or other public notice, merged
the treasury and assets of the St. Louis Carpenters and Chicago's members without any
authorization or prior vote from the 22,000 St. Louis members. According to its documents, these
assets have been accruing and accumulating for the St. Louis Carpenters and their families here in
Missouri since the union’s founding in 1883. Chicago walked away with control of over 2 billion
dollars of fringe benefit assets and several million dollars of liquid cash and real estate assets. That
is not their money. That is the money of the St. Louis Carpenters members. McCarron either
directed or approved of these actions. By his own admission, McCaron is the person who dissolved
the St. Louis Carpenters Union without so much as first allowing a prior hearing under the St.
Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council Bylaws. See Exhibit A, Section 38 in Plaintiff's
Petition in this case. These actions against the financial and personal interests of Defendant Bond,
the twice-elected former Executive Secretary-Treasurer (hereinafter "E.S.T.") of St. Louis–Kansas
City–Southern Illinois Regional Council, which is the highest democratically elected official post
in the St. Louis Union. McCarron with six to eight handpicked, strong-armed representatives
physically surrounded Defendant without notice in what some observers might refer to as thuggery
fashion and caused the removal of Defendant from his own office behind closed doors. The
Eastern District of Missouri became aware of these and other alleged facts when it dismissed this
Plaintiff’s federal case against Defendant because Defendant filed several affirmative defenses and
counterclaims in the legal defense of the U.B.C. President McCarron and the Chicago Plaintiff's
allegations of illegal misconduct. The Eastern District of Missouri never dismissed any of
Defendant's affirmative defenses or his counterclaims, as the Eastern District of Missouri
4
specifically addressed that issue against this Chicago Plaintiff when it dismissed each of the
substantive claims against Defendant with prejudice. The Eastern District of Missouri expressly
preserved Defendant's counterclaims and affirmative defenses. The Eastern District of Missouri's
actions were no technicality. The Eastern District of Missouri was aware of this Plaintiff’s
allegations, which were well briefed and defended on an item-by-item basis, when it threw this
Chicago Plaintiff out of court. This present case is another frivolous case against Defendant and
the St. Louis Carpenters, which is utterly without merit. The federal court was aware of the facts
and the law in this case when it dismissed Plaintiff's federal action after a year of litigation and the
filing of over 80 docket entries, including countless citations of federal law by both parties. The
Court awarded costs incurred to Defendant Bond after dismissing this Plaintiff's federal case. Of
all the Parties involved in the federal case, only the Eastern District of Missouri correctly dismissed
only the allegations against Defendant with prejudice.
This case primarily involves the unilateral dissolution of the St. Louis Council originally
brought in the federal court by this same Plaintiff’s suit based on its Complaint filed on or about
March 10, 2022. Defendant here correctly alleged to the federal court in that action that this
Plaintiff’s action unlawfully arose from §501 (a) and 28 U.S.C. §2201 where the federal Court
under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Labor has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over
union expenditures such as those alleged in this case. The Carpenters’ accounting department
reported its regular required timely filings under the L.R.D.A. without significant incident for
every day that Defendant was a union official pursuant to the express terms of filing and oversight
under the L.M.R.D.A. of 1959, as amended. At no time during, before, or after the federal action
related to this case did Plaintiff file any unfair labor charges or practices against Defendant, the
E.S.T. of the St. Louis Carpenters, or any other officers, agents, or other representative of the St.
5
Louis Carpenters Union before the National Labor Relations Board. The N.L.R.B. is the federal
agency exclusively charged by Congress with such otherwise preemptive oversight of any unfair
labor practices committed by Defendant or any other of the officers of the St. Louis Carpenters.
The N.L.R.B. and the Department of Labor are the exclusive federal statutory authority for this
Plaintiff’s existence under the federal statutory and common law, which this Plaintiff admittedly
cites on page 1, lines 2 and 3 for the genesis of its jurisdictional claims without the citation of any
other authority to support this cause of action. Plaintiff never filed a pendent state court count of
tort or fiduciary breach in the federal case against Defendant Bond, which clearly arises out of the
same facts and circumstances as this case and, as such, are inadmissible in this action under federal
preemption as previously discussed and evidenced in detail under Missouri and federal law.
Plaintiff at no time sought to formally amend its Complaint in federal court to litigate any of the
baseless factual allegations here alleged. In any event, each allegation Plaintiff now claims in this
latest case against Defendant still requires federal preemptive oversight because of such facts as
now plead as violations of state law in this case. The record is unmistakable that Defendant filed
his Motion to Dismiss against this same Plaintiff's lawsuit, which is the same Plaintiff in the federal
case in February of 2023 (see Doc. 72), which was dismissed by the federal court almost a year
ago after all the relevant facts and applicable law albeit tort or including fiduciary obligations
under federal law were before the court on March 31, 2023, when it dismissed this Plaintiff’s action
with prejudice against any future filing. This same Plaintiff presents issues completely controlled
and properly expressly timely identified as federalism in this case, which Plaintiff entered in the
previous case, under facts that existed at the time and present throughout the case.
This latest case involves federal labor law and statutes, and as such, these allegations
Plaintiff asserts are preempted from state court jurisdiction. In short, this Plaintiff is no different
6
from any other plaintiff, and it does not get two bites of the apple of all claims it made or could
have made to a previous court of competent jurisdiction. That is the very nature of the timehonored
black letter rule of law known as “judicial economy.”
The Federal regulatory authority here cited is the governing authority within its exclusive
expertise in the areas of Chicago’s Complaint blanketed its every federal allegation under the
express prerequisites of the L.M.R.D.A. and the N.L.R.A. as amended. As stated herein, the St.
Louis Carpenters Union properly made all appropriate federal filings in a timely manner before all
required federal agencies. That has always been the order of the day to the professional accountants
on each subject matter under this and the federal action on a skilled professional basis without any
significant adverse agency response. Never in this factual situation did the St. Louis Carpenters
under the Defendant's leadership ever ignore even any U.S. Department of Labor
recommendations regarding the union's accounting practices.1 The Parties even briefed this issue
when Defendant Bond successfully raised issues of federalism and the “supremacy clause” Article
VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution in the earlier federal action under the same facts and
circumstances present and existing in this case. That is only one reason the case against Defendant
Bond was dismissed with prejudice in federal court and must be again in his redundant and
regurgitated state court action.
Pendent party jurisdiction is a form of supplemental jurisdiction codified by 28 U.S.C.
§1367. Plaintiff brought its original claim seeking federal jurisdiction admittedly for a cause of
action existing by claims of original federal jurisdiction without any claim of pendent state action.
This case is about an illegal “hostile takeover” and a coup d’état of a labor organization described
in this Motion to Dismiss. In any event, Plaintiff did not plead a single pendent state claim for
1 See August 9, 2018, CALIBRE letter attached.
7
either the federal court to consider or the state court now to reconsider in its unartfully drafted
disguised state law claims before this court, which remain regulated exclusively under federal law
but which are also now since barred under state law by the doctrine of res adjudicata and collateral
estoppel because they arise out of the same facts and circumstances between the same Parties
which were in existence but not plead before the federal court in any pendent state claim. In short,
Plaintiff's state law claims must now be dismissed as untimely and inapplicable for state court
review because they must be regulated by stated exclusive regulatory authority (i.e., E.R.I.S.A.)
and barred by the doctrine of pre-ordained federal preemption. Further, this Plaintiff waived its
state claims and allegations because Plaintiff did not plead any applicable state law count in its
federal suit. As such, this case must be dismissed based on federal preemption, collateral estoppel,
and res judicata as here set out in the foregoing and the following sections of this motion and
memorandum. Plaintiff is further attempting to split its cause of action not under new facts but
facts that existed under the same circumstances as its previously dismissed federal case. Either
way, federal regulatory law controls this fact situation; therefore, this Court must dismiss this case
as a matter of law.
Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint filed against him by the Mid-America
Carpenters Regional Council in its Federal court action. The Plaintiff, in its Petition, made no
mention of details of the federal action and its attempts to strip all control of and from financial
and other assets of the St. Louis members in its Petition before this Court. This comes close to a
fiduciary breach in and of itself and an abuse of discretion and judicial process. Plaintiff’s Petition
has also, to date, failed to advise this court that the Eastern District of Missouri found that Plaintiff
did not have a federal cause of action against Mr. Bond when it usurped and dissolved the St. Louis
Carpenters Union under the direct orders of its own U.B.C. affiliate under 29 U.S.C. §501(a) as
8
impermissible misconduct under federal law. That provision of law contains no statutory cause of
action for a union against its affiliate organization under the federal laws, which were sustained by
the Court and not appealed to the 8th Circuit U.S.C.A. in large part because of the federal authority
and numerous case citations which Defendant previously filed in his own defense. This Chicagobased
Plaintiff, upon the orders originating and authorized from its Las Vegas office, reeks of
barratry, champerty, and maintenance by seeking in this common law action in Missouri to impose
regulatory oversight by this Court over fiduciary duties regulated by federal law upon which Mr.
Bond has already prevailed on a substantive basis. See but for one example, 29 U.S.C., §158,
which provides the six-month limitations expiration period for unfair labor practices. Further, the
St. Louis Carpenters Union has never been charged for any illegal misconduct under Mr. Bond's
leadership in his 39-plus years of union membership, his ten (10) years as a business representative,
or his six (6) years as Assistant Executive-Treasurer as he was well into his second term as
Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the St. Louis Carpenters Union of any improper local, state, or
federal public authority for violations of general accounting principles or other violations of law
under the L.M.R.D.A. which is the statute charged by Congress with the U.S. Department of
Labor's regulation of unions' internal affairs and their officials relationship with not only
employers but also their members and employes. Those time periods of limitation that may have
been available to this Plaintiff and its U.B.C. appointing authority have long since passed and
expired as a matter of federal law.
This Plaintiff admits but without significant detail exactly how this fact situation went
down. The St. Louis Council was dissolved by the U.B.C. with no judicial or internal hearings
under the St. Louis Bylaws, ostensibly on the express orders of Douglas McCarron. This factual
situation is obviously right out of the U.B.C. playbook but clearly without proof of altruistic
9
motivation. That was the easiest way to proceed to accomplish its political goals, on the orders of
a U.B.C. President who has done this kind of thing without hyperbole, upon information and belief
on over sixty (60) occasions, inclusive of local unions and not just District Councils. As earlier
stated, follow not only the money but the power. The Chicago E.S.T. is a case in point. He was
recently appointed to the third highest post in the U.B.C. by all appearances as a reward for
carrying out McCarron’s orders in this case. Mr. McCarron accomplished his nefarious goals
without having to justify his actions before the fact and without having to explain himself acting
under a U.B.C. umbrella before a judge or jury before the fact. This same kind of diddle has been
pulled before throughout the U.B.C.'s jurisdictions by Mr. McCarron. Whatever this Plaintiff’s
case is about, it does not rise to the level of providing a state court cause of action before this
Court.
The Kansas City Medical Center, which Plaintiff calls to the court's attention, is welcomed
for the Defendant's defense. The Kansas City Medical Center was a great and highly touted
member benefit modeled “brick by brick” identical to the St. Louis Carpenters medical facilities
approved by the U.S. Department of Labor, and it was well in process under the facts and
circumstances present when the pandemic hit our entire nation. The City of St. Louis ordered the
union's offices closed. The City of St. Louis prohibited via ordinance membership meetings, which
previously were largely attended. Several carpenters had died from Covid 19 during this time
frame, but Mr. Bond reported daily for work. Further, the Kansas City medical facility had already
been member-approved and authorized when, after McCarron’s admitted dissolution, the Chicago
administration to dissolve the St. Louis Carpenters Council, and walk away with its assets. Those
background facts alone substantiate Mr. Bond’s defense of federal preemption since this member
benefit in Kansas City was available for Department of Labor regulatory oversight, accounting
10
suggestions, based upon union prior authorized funding or even mandates from available funds
from Carpenters' existing funds when this Plaintiff instead, following the orders of the U.B.C.,
took over the St. Louis Carpenters Union and left its treasury unguarded leaving the Kansa City
members in the lurch. Plaintiff did not plead this state action alleged and resulting issues of federal
concern in this unverified Petition at all in the federal court action that this Plaintiff earlier lost. It
has nothing to do with the law in this case. EST Bond was not even in office at the time to resolve
any Department of Labor issues that had not even been raised to the lawyers or accountants that
could have presumably been easily resolved as is professionally customary under such
circumstance. This Plaintiff’s sword would better serve it as a shield. The proposed Kansas City
Medical Center was a union benefit that provided union members expert medical care without a
co-pay but also included substantial other medical care benefits at little or no comparative cost. It
is no wonder that the Kansas City Carpenters wanted access to these medical benefits without
themselves and their families having to travel back and forth to and from St. Louis to see their
doctors and other health care providers. The Department of Labor never disapproved of any part
of this medical facility at any time while Defendant was in office. If it had, Plaintiff and the St.
Louis Carpenters could have easily rectified the matter to satisfy any bureaucratic or other issues.
This member benefit suffered the same fate as the signs contract in the federal case, which was
scheduled to return significant profits far greater than the initial investment of the St. Louis
Carpenters Union had McCarron and Chicago not taken its actions to eliminate that union benefit
scheduled for several millions of dollars in return profits clearly allowable to the union under Form
990 or other I.R.S. or 5500 Department of Labor LM-2, 3 and 4 annual regulatory filings. This
issue was successfully argued in general and specific terms to the federal court in detail before it
threw this Chicago Plaintiff from the sanctity of its chambers. Those medical and apprenticeship
11
training issues in both instances were turned over to the lawyers and the accountants from their
beginnings for proper regulatory oversight. Appropriate filings would have certainly been allowed
after timely approval by the U.S. Department of Labor before the interference of the U.B.C.'s
McCarron and the alleged dissolution misconduct that the Mid-America Chicago Plaintiff engaged
in on the orders of its Las Vegas overlords or other Kangaroo entities which followed in lockstep
as officious intermeddlers which rudely even refused to allow Defendant who at the time was no
longer present in the St. Louis area even by telephone or zoom conference to appear in his own
defense. In any event, the Kansas medical facility is an E.R.I.S.A. issue, which, by the very judicial
admonitions cited by Defendant Bond in this motion, are governed by federal regulatory
mandatory statutory preemption for purposes of this case. U.S Constitution Article VI, Section 2.
This Plaintiff intentionally ignored its obligations to impose a trusteeship against the St.
Louis Council of Carpenters under the mandates of federal law under §302 of the N.L.R.A.;
otherwise, they would have had to return already every penny they appropriated from the exclusive
control of the members of the St. Louis Carpenters Union. That is why the U.B.C. never directed
the Chicago union in arguably sub rosa fashion not to file a trusteeship. Had they imposed a
trusteeship, they could not have stolen the St. Louis properties and money beyond a 2-year period
at best under federal law and instead the UBC and Chicago have been fighting the good and welfare
of the St. Louis Carpenters Union and membership with their own funds. That is their playbook
while they claim to be “holier than thou”- Isaiah 65.5
So far, this Plaintiff arguably or at the very least fairly can be called out for doing the dirty
work for U.B.C.'s McCarron when it seized the assets and other internal political voting power
before the U.B.C. 's upcoming 2025 convention. The Plaintiff, now under the control of the
U.B.C., right down to the filing of this latest case, can only present itself to any court of competent
12
jurisdiction with unclean hands. When either of those two (2) union entities based in Las Vegas
or Chicago points a finger at Mr. Bond, they only hoist themselves onto their own petards.
Ironically, McCarron followed the same practice he had done countless times before with the
overnight dissolution of the St. Louis carpenters union, claiming “holier than thou” ethical
behavior was himself caught red-handed when he served as a board member involved in an insider
stock scheme to the benefit of his own family members when the fiduciary entity for which he
served was about to take its stock public under the Security and Exchange Commission mandates.
Upon information and belief, McCarron had to resign his post in disgrace. The corporation and its
funds were victimized, and McCarron created the corporation where McCarron was a director to
protect unions from fiduciary breaches of its own officials. This fact situation is hardly a well-kept
secret. The defrauded corporation known as Ullico is and was at the time a union fiduciary
oversight insurance entity. This is the same Douglas McCarron who is alleged to have called or
approved the shots from day one of this Plaintiff’s federal and state court litigation. This is also
the same person who allegedly has defamed and seriously damaged Mr. Bond, as stated in his
preserved counterclaims, according to many onlookers, for working tirelessly to provide some the
best working opportunities and member benefits unmatched anywhere for carpenters in the United
States. Some things must be put on the record in a case like this one. The record in the federal
case will show that this Plaintiff reversed its own Rule 16 verbal position in the federal action and
opposed Mr. Bond’s motion to bring in U.B.C. President McCarron as an indispensable party into
the federal case that it lost. That motion was still pending in the federal court when the judge
dismissed this Plaintiff’s case against Mr. Bond with prejudice.
Defendant Bond also brought his defenses in federal court to dismiss the latest federal case
against him under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1), which provides a defense for "lack of jurisdiction over
13
the subject matter." That rule of court is also patently present in this action. A party may move at
any time as such circumstances properly permit a judgment on a pleading. As such, that federal
court motion was also based upon further Rule 12(c), like Missouri Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 55.
Under Federal Rule 12(d), if matters are brought outside of pleadings under 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(c),
which are identical to the following Missouri rules, matters outside of a pleading when represented
are to be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56 in the federal court and Rule74.04
under the Missouri Rules of Court. When there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Federal
Rule 12(h), a case is ripe for decision. If the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action. Before the federal court filed its order on
February 24, 2023, Defendant Bond filed his own Exhibit 3 for the benefit and convenience of the
court from an order of the Western District of Washington at Seattle in the case that preceded the
Bond case brought by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, an
unincorporated association U.B.C., against its Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, an
original unincorporated association, Plaintiffs vs. Evelyn Shapiro, an individual defendant and
E.S.T. like Mr. Bond whom the federal court found was unlawfully terminated and removed from
her position. In that case, the Eastern District of Missouri rendered a decision on February 22,
2023, without a filing of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because the court construed the motion as
being brought by its terms under Rule 12(b)(c) for subject matter jurisdiction. This Motion to
Dismiss is without question now justiciable and timely as the legal basis on which it has brought
the allegations made before this Court and the Eastern District of Missouri by this Defendant in
factual and legal detail with complete success.
14
From that federal case recently thrown out of the U.S. Court by the Eastern District of
Missouri, Mr. Bond cited a scholarly opinion on page 4 of a previously filed Exhibit C from Judge
Chun that is equally applicable to this state court case,
The committee recognized the desirability of minimum interference by
the government in the internal affairs of any organization. Trade unions
have made a commendable effort in the internal affairs of any
organization; hence, the committee believes that only essential standards
should be imposed by legislation. Moreover, in establishing and
enforcing statutory standards, great care should be taken not to
undermine unions, self-government, or weaken unions in their role as
collective bargaining agents. It has been recognized that Section 501(a),
imposing fiduciary duties upon union officers, potentially invites undue
government interference. Hence, when dealing with this section, the
courts have been especially careful to define their role in areas clearly
within the act's intended reach.
A Missouri state law case supports Defendant Bond’s position, Josephine Andes,
Appellant v. Paden Welch, Martin & Albano, PC, 897 S.W.2d 19 (1995) when the Court barred
Plaintiff's later state action as res adjudicata after the Eastern District of Missouri earlier
dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint on statute of limitations grounds involving facts that were in
existence in the previous federal action between the same parties. The court cites State ex. re.
Shea v. Bossola, 827 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Mo.App.1992) and states that res judicia provides:
[W]here two actions are on the same cause of action, the earlier
judgment is conclusive not only as to matters that could have been
raised and determined therein.
Terre Du Lac Ass'n v. Tere DuLac, Ind, 737 S.W.2d 206, 212 (Mo.App.1987)
The Missouri Court of Appeals then cites on a string basis several other state and federal
cases for that same proposition previously raised in this motion to dismiss, including Blazer
Corp. v. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Auth., 199 N.J. Super. 107, 488 A.2d 1025, holding
that a plaintiff who does not raise state claims in a federal court action will be barred from
thereafter asserting them in a state court.
15
Respectfully submitted,
GOFFSTEIN LAW, L.L.C.
/s/John H. Goffstein
John H. Goffstein, #MO19143
225 S. Meramec Avenue, Suite 402
Clayton, Missouri 63105
(314) 932-1919 – Office
(314) 932-5048 - Facsimile
John@goffsteinlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant Bond
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this day 20th of February, 2024, the undersigned hereby certifies that Defendant’s
Memorandum in Support was electronically filed with the Missouri Courts E.C.F. system which
will also email said document to all attorneys of record.
/s/John H. Goffstein
No comments:
Post a Comment