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

Demian D. Schroeder
14 Meadow Street
NY 11206
April29,2012
BY HAND
The Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT

DOC#:
DATE FILED: j/z'1/!3
Subject: United States of America v. New York City District Council of Carpenters et al.;
Case 1 :90-cv-05722-RMB-THK
Reference: August 5, 2011 NYCDCC By-Laws, Section 20, 35, 37 & 38
Dear Judge Berman:
We write to Your Honor noting our opposition to the following items:
Subversion of Court Order and Aurandizement of Power:
The Office ofthe NYCDCC EST's intentional mis-statement of the Order ofthe Court dated April
11,2013 wherein the D.C.'s EST stated:
"As per the order and direction today of Judge Berman, the fully executed Wall & Ceiling
agreement 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 the
completed Collective Bargaining Agreement, dated March 12,2013 ("CBA"). Among other
reasons, some of the material terms included in the CBA appear not to have been included
in 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 modify
the Final Order and Judgment of Contempt and Remedy, dated May 26,2009, of United
States 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 Union
Members of the NYCDCC are violated under TITLE I (29 U.S. C. 411), SEC. 101. (a) (I) EQUAL
RIGHTS which states: Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges
1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 2 of 14
within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor
or&anization. to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon
the business of such meetin&s, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's
constitution and bylaws.
In an e-mail directive to District Council comorate counsel James Mumby dated Monday
Apri115, 2013, the Review Officer stated:
Jim: Please convey to the relevant persons at the District Council the following formal
recommendations made pursuant to Paragraph 5.h of the Stipulation and Order:
I. The District Council Delegate Body should immediately and fully comply with Section
20 of the District Council Bylaws by formally adopting written rules and procedures
governing the method of collective bargaining ratification and should do so before any
further collective bargaining matter is taken up by the Delegate Body.
2. All votes relating to collective bargaining ratification should be by roll call of the
delegates.
Members have a right to know how their representatives in the delegate body vote on
collective bargaining matters. Such transparency is a rudimentary tenet of a democratic
system. The fostering of democracy is a fundamental goal of the Consent Decree, which
recognizes that a vital democratic system is a strong deterrent to corruption.
In my view, these recommendations are necessary and appropriate, and I stand ready to
petition the court to require their implementation if necessary.
Dennis M. Walsh
Review Officer
90 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 of Operations your e-
mail regarding these recommendations for adoption. Your recommendations can certainly
be adopted as standing rules of order and I anticipate the Officers putting before the
Delegates for adoption such standing rules of order at the next Delegate Body meeting on
April25.
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 and
Executive Delegates are limited to an appointed sub-committee role and a limited power to
recommend, that; EST Bilello through his corporate counsel is attempting to usurp or seize control
of powers and duties which are not specifically reserved to him or the Executive Committee or
Executive Board, District Council Officers or Counselor Murphy via the court approved by-laws;
2
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 3 of 14
and as such are an affront to restoration of democratic control, transparency and constitute an
aggrandizement 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 on
August 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 vote
in elections or referendums of tbe labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to
participate 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 "every
member" to preclude a one man, one vote requirement in elections, referendums, deliberations and
voting 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 one
man, one vote for "every member" of the labor organization with respect to a contract ratification
vote which is a referendum under federal law, cannot be negated in whole or part by the By-laws
which are not reasonable nor in accordance with the plain meaning, text and legislative intent of
the 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 defined
individuals (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 member
carpenter irrespective of which contract (CBA) the individual is employed under for a signatory
General 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 deny
the "every member" mandate within the Federal Equal Rights clause "to vote in elections or
referendums of tbe labor organization" to attend membership meetings and to participate in the
deliberations 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 by
this method.
Amending of the NYCDCC by-laws under Title 1, (29 U.S.C. 411), Sec. 101. (a)(l) equal rights
express requirements; and, under New York State Labor Code, 704 3(a)(2) for conspiring to and
dominating, supervising & controlling the meetings, management, operation, elections and
formulation or amendment of constitution, rules or policies in violation ofN. Y. State law/statute
must be viewed in light of the specific construction requiring that "every member'' .... "shall have
equal rights and privileges" .... "to vote in elections or referendums" of the labor organization, to
attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of
such meetings."
3
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 4 of 14
Referendwn votes of the labor Organization to be taken by the people which in the instant matter
herein discussed under normal construction and the plain meaning and black-letter law clearly
require the amendments proposed a mandatory By-law Sec. 37(D) 30-day advance written notice
be furnished to alllOO-Council Delegates as condition precedent to By-law Sec. 35A-C becoming
operative, which subsequently require any/all proposed amendments first be initiated by & through
1/3 of the Local Unions, under their Seal, subsequently presented to the District Council's
Executive Committee and when viewed as proper, transferred to an elected By-laws Committee for
drafting of the 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, which
in the instant matter of the District Council is "every member" as clearly defined under Title I, (29
U.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 to
give up property or property rights?"
"Property" has been held to be "any valuable right considered as a source of wealth." United States
v. 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 States
v. Zemek, 634 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980) (the right to make business decisions and to solicit
business free from wrongful coercion) and cited cases. It also includes the statutory right of union
members 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. Teamsters
Local560, 550 F. Supp. 511, 513-14 (D.N.J. 1982), afl'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1985) (rights
guaranteed 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 by-
laws and he has willfully, wantonly and intentionally persisted in this untenable "position" which
does not comport to the Federal or State Labor law or binding court precedent, the Consent Decree
and the waiver of rights attached thereto; thus, the Court must view his continued efforts to ignore
Court Orders, to extort rank & file member due process and known property rights and hold them
unto himself or transfer or convert said rights to the District Council Officers, the Executive
Committee or Executive Board and/or the non-union Benefit Trust Fund fiduciary's and Trustees
the Council Delegate Body's vested Legislative rights to "initiate & pass" legislation in the first
instance, to "make business decisions" and to thus hold unto himself and the parties thus mentioned
as an offending act warranting contempt of court charges, sanctions and the appropriate fine to
compel 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, all
contracts or proposed contracts on behalf of the District Council (except for Collective
Bargaining Agreements).
4
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 5 of 14
District Council corporate counsel Murphy's continued attempts to induce the Court appointed
Review Officer to approve his illegal efforts to unilaterally change the by-laws by fraudulently re-
labeling them as "standing orders" are an express violation of the protocol established by
NYCDCC By-law Sections 35 A-C, 37 & 38.
sm Interim Report of Review Officer:
During July and August of 2012 both before and after the August 22, 2012 MOU, the Review
Officer had been investigating the District Council President William Lebo for incidents occurring
on July 25,2012 Delegate Meetings for harassment ofDeleiates which facilitated Executive
control of the agenda in continuance of racketeering, which subsequently led to the Notice Of
Possible 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 and
District Council Delegate Meetings.
Enablin& Leaislation, Self Executina reguirements;
As this court is aware, the District Council and the government negotiated a treaty/contract to end
the criminal aspects of the racketeering case against it resulting in the March 3, 1994 Consent
Decree. 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 self
executing until the 100-member Council Delegate Body (CDB) initiates and passes enablini
legislation 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 the
stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them
into effect" ...
In 552 U.S. 491 (2008) Medellin v. Texas Opinion of the Court at B, page 18 the Supreme Court
stated:
The interpretive approach employed by the Court today-resorting to the text-is hardly
novel. In two early cases involving an 1819 land-grant treaty between Spain and the United
States, Chief Justice Marshall found the language of the treaty dispositive. In Foster, after
distinguishing between self-executing treaties (those "equivalent to an act of the
legislature") and non-self-executing treaties (those "the legislature must execute"), Chief
Justice 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 that
must be followed before federal law can be created under the Constitution-vesting that decision in
the 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 UBCJA
International & the D.C. had attempted to subsume the powers of each of the three co-equal
5
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 6 of 14
tripartite branches and hold them unto itself; and, that by our objections, the U.S.A.O. & R.O. thus
revised 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 the Court at B, page 20 the Supreme
Court stated: The point of a non-self executing treaty is that it "addresses itself to the political, not
the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule
for 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 1 00-member CDB is the Legislature within the District Council structure
mandated by the August 5, 2011 By-laws approved by this honorable Court; and, until it formally
legislates written rules for contract ratification procedures per the specific, binding and controlling
D.C. By-laws, the August 22, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (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) which
would then provide the legal authority for it to execute a legitimate, final and binding contract, as
opposed to the District Council EST's illegal execution of the contract(s) (CBA's) which first were
made available to the 100-member Council Delegate Body on March 13,2013 before enabling
legislation 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 usurp
the legislative powers of the 1 00-District Council Delegates and execute any contract, as the
Review 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 EST
Bilello & 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 of
ratification and execution are held and reserved specifically for the 1 00-member Council Delegate
Body (CDB), subject to the "every member" express requirements clearly defined by TITLE I (29
US. C. 411), SEC. 101. (a)(J) and the NLRA Preamble & Section 7 cannot be sustained as a matter
of law.
Blacks Law, 8
111
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, or
correction; esp., an alteration in wording ... 2. The process of making such a revision.
Subsequent to the February 27,2012 Court Conference, the District Council's Executive Secretary-
Treasurer Michael Bilello and in house legal counsel James Murphy presented the Court with a
March 12,2013 Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNewYork, Inc. and New York City &
Vicinity District Council of Carpenters "executed contract" containing the signatures of EST
Bilello and of one John DeLollis, the authorized agent of the Contractor Association which
purports to bind the District Council and its rank & ftle members to a contract term beginning
March 3, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2016, that translates to a remaining term approximating
4.33 years.
6
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 7 of 14
It is our stated position of fact, reason and law- per the terms and conditions of the March 3, 1994
Consent 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 the false submission to the Court; and, subject to the express requirement within
29 U.S.C. 411, Sec. 101.(a)(l) and/orNLRAPreamble/Section 7 U.S.C. Sec. 157 which together
provide for one man, one vote and "every member'' and "referendum "language which is
controlling. Section 20 Collective Bargaining language is controlling, and states:
SECTION 20: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Following recommendation by the Executive Committee, the Council Delegate Body shall
have the exclusive power and authority to ratifY and execute Collective Bargaining
Agreements for and on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions, except to the extent the
International Union exercises its jurisdiction or authority.
The District Council Delegate Body shall adopt rules and procedures governing the method
of collective bargaining ratification.
The District Council Delegate Body's adoption of"rules and procedures" governing the method of
collective bargaining ratification is controlled by NYCDCC By-law Section(s) 37(D), which is the
condition 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 fact
that the D.C. EST Bilello and corporate counsel Murphy and the Contractor Association
representative DeLollis and their legal counsel ignored these requirements does not save it from the
inherent illegality or the contractual requirements to sever any & all illegal provisions contained
therein which violate state & federal laws; thus, the contract as proposed must be declared facially
unlawful and void ab-initio.
Moreover, the Review Officer's direction via e-mail to D.C. corporate counsel Murphy directing
him to use the word "should" in place of "shall" with respect to the qualified sentence in section 20
Collective Bargaining stating "The District Council Delegate Body shall adopt rules and
procedures governing the method of collective bargaining ratification" .. .is an untenable change of
the NYCDCC By-laws requiring formal amendment requirements be followed, to black letter law
as the R.O. has stated in past submissions to this Court. Changing the rules or legal qualifiers mid-
stream 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, and
that qualification amounts to a free pass to EST Bilello and the D.C.'s corporate counsel to violate
NYCDCC mandatory By-law procedures at will without following black letter law and can
therefore not be sustained.
In 552 U.S. 491(2008) MEDEUIN v. TEXAS Opinion of the Court at B, page, at page 32, the
Supreme Court stated:
7
As Madison explained in The Federalist No. 47, under our constitutional system of
checks and balances, "[t]he magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides
cannot ofhimseHmake a law." J. Cooke ed., p. 326 (1961).
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 8 of 14
Here, EST Bilello and corporate counsel Murphy, in concert with the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry
Contractor Association seek to avoid compliance with the specific terms, conditions and waivers of
the UBCJA International and the District Council as agreed to in the Consent Decree in direct
contempt and in violation of both Prong 1 (elimination of racketeering) and Prong 2 (restoration of
democracy) via an illegal power grab or usurpation of powers which they jointly & severally fail to
hold or possess.
The Review Officer intentionally removed the power to execute the contract from the Executive
branch's EST as part of a comprehensive plan within the 'checks and balances' requirement of a
representative democracy to avoid the autocratic and dictatorial control of an all consuming and
corrupt EST as was present under the Forde administration.
Now in direct contravention to his previous mandate and direct statements to the Court via his
Interim Reporting, the Review Officer is violating the tenets of the Stipulation & Order which
prevent him from interfering and dominating in any and all contract (collective bargaining
agreement) negotiations and the R.O. himself is directly advising the NYCDCC corporate counsel
and its Executive Secretary-Treasurer on ways they can collectively manipulate and attempt to end
run the By-laws he ostensibly authored in tandem with UBCJAintemational counselors of record
Kenneth 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 with
the Executive Board made the law and then forced an illegal vote on the law, per the direction of
R.O. Walsh and D.C. corporate counsel Murphy. Their actions warrant a direct veto of their
services by this Court.
Given the fact that the Executive branch consisting of EST Bilello, the Executive Board and D.C.
Officers failed to abide by or follow NYCDCC By-laws dated August 5, 2011 as approved by this
honorable 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 counsel
Murphy ignored the strict mandate ofNYCDCC By-law Sec. 20 providing the 100-member
Council Delegate Body (the Delegates) with "the exclusive power and authority to ratify and
execute Collective Bargaining Agreements for and on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions"; all
actions conducted at the April25, 2013 Delegate Meeting must be declared facially unlawful and a
direct violation of the by-law sections cited and thus be declared a willful violation of the Consent
Decree.
The controlling language in NYCDCC By-laws Sec. 20 is to "ratify and execute" and that of
course is ''subject to" strict compliance with the Court approved By-laws. That authority is vested
exclusively in the 1 00-member CDB, the Legislative branch as opposed to the Executive branch.
UBCJA Constitution. Roberts Rules:
8
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 9 of 14
Because the NYCDCC Sec. 20 mandate stating "The District Council Delegate Body shall adopt
rules and procedures governing the method of collective bargaining ratification" was not adhered
to, as per the UBCJA Constitution Rule S. "All questions of a parliamentary nature not provided
for 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 Rules
of Order, previously adopted; it also requires previous notice.
68. Amend or Rescind a Standing Rule, a Program or Order of Business, or a Resolution,
previously adopted, without notice being given at a previous meeting or in the call for the
meeting.
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 of
the Day.
Irrespective of the fraudulent claims for roll call votes made onApril25, 2013, the District
Council, were their actions legally binding and in compliance with the B y ~ l a w s as previously
noted herein; said actions and the subsequent voting wherein under black letter law "every
member" is afforded Equal Rights per Federal law to vote, a fraudulent vote conducted by the
100-member NYCDCC Delegate Body (CDB) would require a 2/3'rds vote which they failed to
achieve with respect to the fraudulent vote on the WC & C contract (CBA); noting that 82 Total
Delegates voted on the Illegal Motion; and, that those in favor were 46, while those opposed
were 34.
EST Bilello, corporate counsel Murphy and R.O. Walsh failed to achieve the minimum 2/3'rds vote
required to sustain their collective illegal actions. Two-thirds voting by basic math would require
55 votes in favor; thus, the Illegal Voting were it deemed legal by this Court would fall9 votes shy
of 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 the Court at B, page 20- the Supreme Court stated:
The point of a non-self executing treaty is that it "addresses itself to the political, not the judicial
department; and the legislature must exeeute the contract before it can become a rule for the
Court." 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 Board
or the Review Officer and District Council attorney Murphy and the WC & C Contractor
Association 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
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 10 of 14
Sec. 157 and U.S. C. Sec. 158(a)(l) & (2) and U.S.C. Sec. 158-8(b)(l)(A) for Employer and Labor
organization 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 notwithstanding
By-law Section 21 violations to extort $165-$200 million dollars in members' pay raises (wages) in
an illegal quid pro quo exchange wherein the Contractor Associations and the District Council
Benefit Trust Funds, Fiduciaries/Trustees and their separate entity, at will employees and respective
corporate counsel illegally conspire to mis-appropriate and convert, exact and extort to its own
use/benefit, the guaranteed member wage increases for approximately 18-million man-hours of
labor over the 4.33 year remaining life of the contracts; and, wherein the Contractor Association in
consummation of the deal with said parties is awarded 100% control of all hiring; or, reversion of
all control of the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (the Union) in exchange
for the $165-$200 million reallocation of wages to the Welfare Fund.
This illegal quid pro quo exchange is the very core and essence of criminal racketeering the 1994
Civil RICO Consent Decree was designed to cure and it cannot be sustained under any rationale or
legal basis.
Prayer for Relief:
We pray this honorable Court:
1) Direct the Court appointed Review Officer to veto NYCDCC EST Bilello & Counselor
Murphy'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 States
D.O.J. and U.S. Attorney's Office.
2) Direct the Review Officer to file charges with the State Bar Association of New York following
indictment 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 and
WC & 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 or
amendment of constitution, rules or policies of the duly organized 100-member Council
Delegate Body of the NYCDCC in direct contravention to the Court approved NYCDCC By-
laws 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 a
Special Convention. Written notice describing the purpose of a Special Convention must be
given to all Delegates and the principal office of each Local Union at least thirty (30) days prior
to such Convention. The delegates of any Special Convention of this Council shall consist
exclusively of the Delegates to this Council" ... noting that said Executive Committee failed to
provide for the required 30-day Written Notice for a called/desired "Special Convention" to
10
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 11 of 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. 37
through votes denying "every member" the right to ratify the contract as required by
Federal law under the normal construction, clear & plain meaning of the by-laws and the
words and phrases used therein; or, in the alternative;
> Issue an Order directing the District Council that any and all By-Law Amendments and
Referendums to adopt Rule & Procedures for Contract (CBA) ratification must follow
Roberts Rules of Order which demand a 2/3'rds Majority Vote of the quorum present, after
compliance is had by following the mandated requirements of By-law Section 37(D) and
35(A), the condition precedent to application of By-laws Sections 35(A-C) which follow
with respect to and prior to Section 20 application
We respectfully pray this honorable Court take these and other actions deemed appropriate in light
of the serious nature of the continued criminal activity.
Respectfully,
/JJirriMv /J
Demian D. Schroeder
Member Local 45
Enclosure
cc: BYE-MAIL
Benjamin H. Torrance
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
Office of the United States Attorney
for the Southern District ofNew York
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
1.1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 12 of 14
Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
Review Officer
The Law Office of Dennis M. Walsh
415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Bridget M. Rhode, Esq.
Counsel to the Review Officer
Mintz, Levitz, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C.
666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters
Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello
395 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
James M. Murphy, Esq.
Counsel for the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters
Spivak Lipton, LLP
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
John DeLollis
Executive Director
Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc.
125 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 301
Jericho, NY 11753-1022
Mark A. Rosen, Esq.
Counsel for the Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc.
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter, LLP
1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
ADDmONAL SERVICE via E-Mail:
Robert F. Makowski,
Sterling Dadone,
Norman Saul,
Raynier Gamboa,
Veronica Session
12
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 13 of 14
Reference Material:
NYCDCC By-laws dated August 5, 2011
SECTION 35: AMENDMENTS
(A) Any amendments and changes to these Bylaws may be put into effect by the action of the
Delegates at a Special Convention of the Council.
(B) A proposed change must be submitted in writing by at least one third of the Local Unions
affiliated with the District Council, with the seal affixed provided that the Resolutions Committee
consisting of three (3) or more members has reviewed and approved the resolution as to its legality
in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood and the applicable
Collective 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 the
Local Unions shall be first referred to the Executive Committee for consideration and
recommendation, 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 approved
by the Council and in accordance with Section liB of the Constitution and Laws of the United
Brotherhood (the "UBC Constitution"), the proposed change or changes must be submitted to the
General Vice President for approval after review of, among other things, whether such change or
changes are in conformity with the UBC Constitution, are in the best interests of the District
Council, and will further the objectives of the Consent Decree or Stipulation and Order.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall change or limit the authority of the General
Vice President pursuant to the UBC Constitution to approve or disapprove changes to these
Bylaws. All proposed changes to the Bylaws shall be subject to the approval of the United States
Attorney and, during the term of the Review Officer, the Review Officer.
SECTION 36: SEVERABILITY
If any Section or part of these Bylaws shall be held invalid by operation oflaw or by any tribunal
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining Sections of these By laws shall not be affected thereby and
shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 37: MISCELLANEOUS
(A)The Council Delegate Body, by majority vote of the Delegates present, either in regular or
special session, shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures consistent with these
Bylaws to govern the Council and all Local Unions, and to enact all measures, resolutions, trade
rules, instruction to members and Local Unions and all other actions that may be necessary to
further the objectives and purposes of the CounciL Provided further that the foregoing shall be in
conformity with the Consent Decree, Stipulation and Order of June 3, 2010, and any other Order
entered, in United States v. District Council, 90 Civ. 5722 (CSH), and subject to the approval of the
United States Attorney and, during the term of the Review Officer, the Review Officer.
(B)These Bylaws, Trade Rules and any other rules, resolutions and directives adopted by the
Council shall govern and be binding on each Local Union.
13
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1311 Filed 04/29/13 Page 14 of 14
(C)Any subject not covered by these Bylaws and Trade Rules shall be governed by the Constitution
of the United Brotherhood and nothing in these Bylaws shall in any way be construed to conflict
with 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 and
the principal office of each Local Union at least thirty (30) days prior to such Convention. The
delegates of any Special Convention of this Council shall consist exclusively of the Delegates to
this Council.
(E) All current Bylaws of Local Unions must be submitted to the Council for approval. All Bylaws
of Local Unions that are inconsistent with these Bylaws are superseded.
SECTION 38: IDRING HALL OR JOB REFERRAL SYSTEM
The 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 entered
in United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722, for the registration and/or referral to
employment of unemployed workers. Workers shall have the right to seek work and be employed
throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the Council. The referral of all workers to jobs shall be
performed by the Executive Secretary-Treasurer. Representatives, organizers and agents of the
District Council may not otherwise refer members to jobs or in any way inform an employer that a
member is available for employment. The Executive Secretary-Treasurer shall maintain records of
all worker registration and referrals, which shall be reviewed regularly by the Executive Committee
and which may be reviewed by any member upon reasonable request.
New York State Labor Code:
704. Unfair labor practices. It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer:
3. To dominate or interfere with the formation, existence, or administration of any
employee organization or association, agency or plan which exists in whole or in part for the
purpose of dealing with employers concerning terms or conditions of employment, labor
disputes or grievances, or to contribute financial or other support to any such organization, by
any 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 or
policies, of any such employee organization or association.
###
14