Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
About time they got caught!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mugarolla" data-source="post: 2448209" data-attributes="member: 8481"><p>The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has already ruled on this issue. United States v. Remini, 967 friend.2d 754, 757-58 (2d. Cir. 1992)</p><p></p><p>It does not look good for H.</p><p></p><p><em>IV. IT IS NO DEFENSE TO HALL’S INTERFERENCE WITH THE IIO’S WORK IF HE RELIED ON ADVICE OF HIS LAWYER AGENTS TO DO SO</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Hall and his agents were bound by the terms of the Final Agreement and Order. (Ex. 1 at 5) That Order enjoined Hall and his lawyers from obstructing and interfering with the IIO’s work. (Ex. 1 at 3) As shown above, there was no ambiguity in the IIO’s right to examine union records to the extent he deemed them necessary to examine. Despite that, Hall and his agents improperly blocked the IIO from doing so and refused to comply as required.<strong> Even “good faith reliance on advice of counsel” is not a defense to the “willful disobedience” of a court order.” United States v. Remini, 967 friend.2d 754, 757-58 (2d. Cir. 1992)</strong> <strong>Conspiring with counsel to improperly defy an individual’s legal obligations, as evidenced here, is certainly not a defense.</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Under the Order, the IBT, its officers and agents were bound by the injunction. (Ex. 1 at 3) A lawyer is the quintessential agent. Throughout his obstruction of the IIO’s efforts, Hall was bound by the acts and words of his lawyers. E.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><strong>U.S. 380, 396-97 (1993); United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 986 friend. 2d 15, 20-21 (2d Cir. 1993) (lawyer client relationship one of agent principal). Hall was chargeable with all facts known and notices given to his attorneys</strong>. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., supra, 507 U.S. at 396-397; Polanco v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., 132 friend. Supp. 3d 567, 584-85 (S.D.N.Y 2015). In refusing to follow his explicit unambiguous obligation under the Order and Rule to provide all documents that the IIO noticed to be examined, <strong>Hall violated the injunction prohibiting him from interfering with the work of the IIO.</strong></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mugarolla, post: 2448209, member: 8481"] The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has already ruled on this issue. United States v. Remini, 967 friend.2d 754, 757-58 (2d. Cir. 1992) It does not look good for H. [I]IV. IT IS NO DEFENSE TO HALL’S INTERFERENCE WITH THE IIO’S WORK IF HE RELIED ON ADVICE OF HIS LAWYER AGENTS TO DO SO Hall and his agents were bound by the terms of the Final Agreement and Order. (Ex. 1 at 5) That Order enjoined Hall and his lawyers from obstructing and interfering with the IIO’s work. (Ex. 1 at 3) As shown above, there was no ambiguity in the IIO’s right to examine union records to the extent he deemed them necessary to examine. Despite that, Hall and his agents improperly blocked the IIO from doing so and refused to comply as required.[B] Even “good faith reliance on advice of counsel” is not a defense to the “willful disobedience” of a court order.” United States v. Remini, 967 friend.2d 754, 757-58 (2d. Cir. 1992)[/B] [B]Conspiring with counsel to improperly defy an individual’s legal obligations, as evidenced here, is certainly not a defense.[/B] Under the Order, the IBT, its officers and agents were bound by the injunction. (Ex. 1 at 3) A lawyer is the quintessential agent. Throughout his obstruction of the IIO’s efforts, Hall was bound by the acts and words of his lawyers. E.g., Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 [B]U.S. 380, 396-97 (1993); United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 986 friend. 2d 15, 20-21 (2d Cir. 1993) (lawyer client relationship one of agent principal). Hall was chargeable with all facts known and notices given to his attorneys[/B]. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., supra, 507 U.S. at 396-397; Polanco v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., 132 friend. Supp. 3d 567, 584-85 (S.D.N.Y 2015). In refusing to follow his explicit unambiguous obligation under the Order and Rule to provide all documents that the IIO noticed to be examined, [B]Hall violated the injunction prohibiting him from interfering with the work of the IIO.[/B][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
About time they got caught!
Top
