WE ARE REVISITING THE UBC CAMPAIGN OF LIES AND BS AGAINST MIKE MCCARRON AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF A RECENT FILING IN THE STATE CASE CONCERNING EX EST AL BOND
LET THIS SERVE AS A WARNING TO THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE IN OUR FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM AND LET UBC MEMBERS SEE THAT THE ENTIRE CASE AGAINST MIKE MCCARRON WAS BS AS IT WAS WITH SHAPIRO AND SO MANY OTHERS
THIS AND THE OTHERS WERE PERSECUTION CAMPAIGNS OF LIES AND MISINFORMATION FOR SIMPLY SAYING NO AND NOT DOING AS THEY WERE TOLD
UBC MEMBERS NEED TO BE REMINDED THESE DIRT BAGS COULD DO THIS TO THEM NEXT
A LAWYER ON THE UBC PAYROLL JUST FILED THE FOLLOWING IN THE STATE CASE INVOLVING EX EST BOND
26. Each expense of the St. Louis Council was to be reviewed by the St. Louis Council’s Trustees and specifically approved by motion of the St. Louis Council’s elected Delegate Body
AS ALL WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE UBC STRUCTURE KNOW THIS IS HOW THE UBC SYSTEM WORKS
TRUSTEES ARE PRESENTED WITH COUNCIL EXPENDITURES AFTER THE FACT FOR REVIEW AND IF THEY SEE SOMETHING OUT OF PLACE THEY ALERT THE COUNCIL OFFICERS AND DELEGATE BODY IN THEIR REPORT TO BOTH AT THE NEXT MEETING. AT THIS TIME THE DELEGATE BODY EITHER APPROVES THE EXPENDITURES OR DENYS THEM.
THE DELEGATE BODY IS THE ONLY BODY THAT HAS THE POWER TO APPROVE OR DENY.
UNION TRUSTEES NEVER APPROVE COUNCIL EXPENDITURES.NOT BEFORE THEY ARE PAID AND NOT AFTER
NEVER!!!
ALTHOUGH THESE MEETINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY 30 DAYS IN MANY CASES THEY MEET EVERY 3 MONTHS
WHILE THE UNSUSPECTING AND NAIVE EXPECT TO APPEAR IN OUR FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM AND RECEIVE JUSTICE SO MANY WALK AWAY LEARNING THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. NOT EVEN CLOSE
MANY LEARN THAT OUR FEDERAL JUDGES WHOSE DECISIONS HOLD SWAY OVER THEIR LIVES
(1)SUFFER FROM CASE OVERLOAD
(2)ARE CORRUPT
(3) ARE FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER
(4)ARE JUST PLAIN DUMB ARSE WHO SHOULD NOT BE RULING OVER FLEAS ON A DOGS ASS
AS WE SEE TIME AFTER TIME JUSTICE IN SO MANY CASES IS ONLY FOR THOSE WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF CASH
AS DIRTY DOUG PROCLAIMED."TRY TO FIGHT ME . I HAVE MILLIONS OF MEMBERS MONEY TO GET YOU"
AS WE WATCHED IN MIKE MCCARRONS CASE BOTH THE COURT AND THE OUTCOME ARE CONTROLLED BY LOW LIFE DIRT BAG LAW FIRMS LIKE SPINDLE DICK DECARLO/CROOKED TEETH SHANLEY AND THE MISFITS TOYS ON THEIR PAYROLL.MUCH TO THE SURPRISE OF THE NAIVE AND UNSUSPECTING THESE RATS WILL NOT HESITATE TO FILE LIES IN A FEDERAL COURT AND LIE TO A FEDERAL JUDGE AS IS THE FACT IN THIS CASE
DOES THAT MAKE THEM GOOD LAWYERS OR JUST LOW LIFE POS
THE STATEMENT FILED IN THE BOND FIASCO BY UBC LAWYERS IS EXACTLY HOW THE UBC STRUCTURE WORKS SO ONE HAS TO ASK HOW MIKE MCCARRON WAS CONVICTED FOR NOT GETTING TRUSTEE APPROVAL BEFORE HE WROTE A CHECK
AFTER ALL THE LIES,BS AND FILLER MATERIAL INCLUDED BY DECLARO AND SHANLEY IN THE CASE TO INFLUENCE THE COURT AGAINST MIKE MCCARRON WAS ALL DROPPED .....MIKE MCCARRON WAS FOUND GUILTY OF AN LMRDA 501 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR NOT GETTING TRUSTEE PRE APPROVAL BEFORE HE REIMBURSED THE TRAINING FUND FOR OVER PAYMENT OF RENTS
DOCKET 274
On March 4, 2015, the Court granted partial summary judgment in SWRCC’s
favor on its LMRDA § 501 claims based on McCarron’s “reimbursement” of rent to
SWTF without SWRCC Trustee approval
A TRUSTEE APPROVAL THAT HAS NOT AND DOES NOT EXIST
RENTS THAT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN OVERPAID IF THE FUNDS LEGAL COUNSEL DECARLO AND SHANLEY HAD NOT FAILED TO ADVISE THE TRUSTEES THAT UNDER ERISA THEY HAD A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO REVIEW LEASES EVERY 3 YEARS AND ADJUST THEM TO MARKET RATES
THE JUDGE WAS APPOINTED TO THE BENCH BY DOUG MCCARRONS GOOD BUDDY DIANE FEINSTEIN AND FOR SOME REASON CAME IN WITHOUT BEING ASKED AND TOOK THE CASE FROM JUDGE ANDERSON.
MORE FEDERAL COURT JUSTICE
HOW COULD HE BELIEVE THAT ANY TRUSTEE APPROVAL EXISTED??
BECAUSE SPINDLE DICK JOHN DECARLO AND CROOKED TEETH DAN SHANLEY HAD THE BRASS TO FILE LIES MULTIPLE TIMES TO THE COURT AND THE JUDGE AND CONVINCED HIM THAT IT WAS REQUIRED
12. On May 31, 2013, Mike McCarron paid a bill for $4,736,970.52 without referring this bill to the SWRCC Trustees
15. Mike McCarron paid this bill without having presented it to the SWRCC’s Trustees before payment was made.
19. Mike McCarron “did not present the bill for the GARAGE to the SWRCC’s Trustees before payment.”
ASK YOURSELF WHY THE JUDGE NEVER CONFIRMED IF THIS WAS INDEED TRUE AND NOT JUST A LIE TOLD BY A CROOKED RAT LAW FIRM??
MORE FEDERAL COURT JUSTICE!!
ALSO ASK YOURSELF HOW THIS CASE WAS EVEN BROUGHT IN FEDERAL COURT.BOTH THE EST SHAPIRO CASE AND THE EST AL BOND CASES WERE DISMISSED BY THE COURTS
WHY?BECAUSE AS DECARLO AND SHANLEY KNEW IN ADVANCE UNDER THE LMRDA THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO FILE THE LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO START WITH
"Plaintiffs cannot bring a claim under section 501 of the LMRDA"
IN THE END IT TOOK THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO VINDICATE MIKE MCCARRON AND OVERTURN JUDGE SELNAS BS RULING THAT PUT A $5 MILLION PLUS JUDGEMENT ON MIKE MCCARRONS HEAD
THE 9TH CIRCUIT RULED THAT PART OF THE DECISION BY SELNA AND THE FEDERAL COURT WAS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR MULTIPLE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO ANSWER IF SPENDING MILLIONS OF MEMBERS DUES MONEY TO WAGE PERSECUTION CAMPAIGNS AGAINST THOSE WHO STAND UP AND SAY NO TO CORRUPTION IS A LEGITIMATE EXPENSE IN THE OPERATION OF A UNION AND SELF DEALING
PERHAPS UNDER THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION THESE AGENCIES WILL BE FORCED TO PROTECT ALL WORKERS FROM LOW LIFE RATS LIKE THE UBC INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP
6 comments:
Historically everyone, ie, working members, has allowed Team McCarron to take the offense against the rest of us. The membership only reacts to McCarron’s misdeeds, no one puts him on the offense. That needs to change because he’s weak and has major legal liabilities that can be exploited. It’s time to put him on the defense in front of a neutral federal judge and it’s time to file complaints with the relevant federal agencies once their directors are switched over by Trump.
It’s time we punched first.
Interestingly, most of EST Mike McCarron’s e-board knew all the facts to discredit the false allegations presented by DeCarlo and Shanley. But unfortunately, most of the e-board stood by (Thornhill. Langford and Hawk) and pissed on Mike. You can wipe your ass with the phrase Brotherhood!
It’s human nature, I don’t care where you go, the average person will always err on the side of survival, and no one more so than a at will employee of the Carpenters Union, no one!!
True, look at New Jersey they have been rubber stamping for the last 20 years.
Having served many years on several executive boards in several different capacities, it was always the accepted practice that no bill was to be paid unless accompanied with the appropriate back up. Meaning documentation to go along with the corresponding check.
That is not the question here. There was plenty of back up documentation such as letters from Decarlo demanding payment. Letters from Dougys lacky Peter Aylward demanding payment. Also “who” are you saying an EST has to show “appropriate back up” before he or she can pay a bill. The EBoard??
The issue here is Trustee approval. Regardless of "accepted practice" since you served many years on several executive boards in several different capacities can you point me to any document that declares Trustees must Pre Approve any payment before it is made or EVER approve at all with the exception of payments by EFT.As stated the court found McCarron guilty of a 501 breach for not getting Trustee approval before he gave the fund the money. He had no obligation to do so and while the Trustees review they have no power to approve or deny . Correct??
Further it is my opinion that in truth the council had no obligation, other then doing the right thing, to return the money. They did not purposely overcharge. In the beginning they told the LIE that Mike McCarron lost $5 million of the councils money and overcharged the fund on purpose to get money to cover the losses. Complete BS. The Training fund Trustees ALL, as later declared by the OLMS, were at fault for the over payments. Not the council. Since the Trustees in many cases are not even qualified to be Trustees they rely almost completely on the funds legal counsel and investment managers. It was Decarlos law firm who failed to advise them of their 3 year review obligation that resulted in the rent over payments. I myself would have at least tried to made sure Decarlo paid his share
Post a Comment