UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RICHARD M. BERMAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
90 Civ. 5722
Plaintiff,.
-v­
DIS1RICT COUNClL OF NEW YORK CITY,
AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND

U\\ OCT 08 2013
CHAMBERS OF
lliJ
JOINERS OF AMERICA, et al.,
U.S.O.J.
Defendants.
MEMO ENDORSED
(S
Preliminary Statement
This is in response to the courts invitation for candidates who were disqualified
from running for the position ofExecutive Secretary Treasurer to make submissions to
the court.
This Court has previously held that the Review Officers decision to disqualify a
candidate is non-reviewable, and that the Review Officer is not required to supply any
basis for his decision to disqualify a candidate. So, I am at a loss to as to why the court
is taking submissions in this.
I not appealing the Review Officers disqualification ofme, not because I believe
his allegations have merit, but because the previous Decision by this court in regards to
the Review Officers authority to disqualify candidates is unambiguous in that the
Court may not review the Review Officers decisions under 5.k.vi. So this submission
is simply to "create a record", (to steal a phrase) of what I view to be nothing more
than a mockery of the democratic process.
1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1410 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 3
The Record
While the Review Officer does attempt to portray his conclusions as creating a
record, that is a misnomer, the record is what shows the basis for the conclusion which
is reached, the conclusion itself cannot be deemed to constitute the record.
When a court enters a Decision, that is not the record in that matter, it is simply
the courts decision which is based on the record which is contained in the docket in
that matter. When someone appeals the Decision of a court, they attempt to
demonstrate that the record does not support the Decision which was entered. When a
court rules that a plaintiff is not allowed to cite from the docket of the matter which
they are appealing, I will concede that the Review Officers opinions constitute a
record.
Which is why I will not be addressing the Review Officers fmdings in relation to
me. I see no point in trying to prove that the Review Officer does not hold a particular
opinion, which would be what would be required under this courts previous decision.
Democratically Elected
What I would like to address is the Review Officers petition to the Court to start
the entire election cycle over because he is unhappy with the results. There is nothing
in the Stipulation or Consent Decree to the effect that elections must be contested. If
there is only one candidate nominated, that candidate is deemed to be democratically
elected.
This is the case for all elected positions at the District Council and its affiliated
Locals. During the last elections for Delegates to the District Council there were
several Locals in which the incumbents were unopposed and were deemed elected. In
one local where a candidate was found ineligible to run for office after nominations,
where this only left enough candidates to fill the vacant positions, those who remained
were deemed elected.
2
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1410 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 3
The Review Officer has held that the delegates must be democratically elected,
and if those delegates who ran unopposed are deemed to be democratically elected,
then Greg Kelty is now the democratically elected Executive Secretary Treasurer. The
Review Officer cannot take two completely polar positions as to what constitutes
democratically elected just because it resulted from his decision to disqualify all but
one of the four candidates.
Conclusion
Everything which occurred in this matter is a mockery of the democratic
process. Unless the laws which govern us are given consistent interpretations, they are
meaningless. If one can give different interpretations to the same law just to make it fit
what someone wants them to say at that moment, then the laws are of no value.
If one can be appointed to a position that can only be achieved through democratic
elections if one agrees to sign a "Commitment of Service to the Review Officer", then
the rule only exists to serve as leverage, and such rules benefit no one.
Patrick Nee 10/8/13
I,
I
6818 52
nd
Dr.
Maspeth NY 11378
1(718) 593 6414

3
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1410 Filed 10/08/13 Page 3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful