response to berman

8/11/2019 Response to Berman

1/9

MI

N

TZ

EV

I

N

Bridge

t

M

ohd

e

212 692

688

3

bm

rohde

@mint

z.com

A

ugus

t

25

,

2014

B

y hand

and EC

F

T

he

Hon

orabl

e Ric

hard

M

er

man

Uni

ted

S

tates

D

istric

t

Ju

dge

Sou

thern

Dist

rict o

fNewY

ork

Da

niel Pa

trick

Moyn

ihan Cou

rthou

se

5

00

ear

l

S

treet

New

Y

ork,

New

York

1

0007

C

hrysle

r Cen

ter

666

Thir

d

Avenu

e

N

ew

York,

Y

1

0017

212-9

35-300

0

21

2-983-

3115fax

w

ww.min

tz.co

m

Re

:Un

ited St

ates v.

D

istric

t

Co

uncil

,

et a

l. 9

Civ. 5

722

RNIB

)

De

ar Jud

ge

Berm

an:

We write

in

res

ponse

to

th

e Co

urt's

Ord

er da

ted

J

uly

2

5, 2

014,

i

ssuedf

ollow

ing

t

he

S

econd

Circ

uit's

Sum

mary

O

rder

d

ated

Ju

ly

23,

2014

i

n thi

s

m

atter.

Th

e

Ci

rcuit

va

cated

the

Co

urt's

deci

sion

of

O

ctobe

r23,

2

012

upho

lding

th

e Revie

w

O

ffice

r's

veto

o

f

a

trick

Ne

eand

Lev

y Me

ssinet

ti as

offic

ers a

nd

deleg

ates o

f Local

157

and

re

mande

d th

e

matt

er

f

orf

urthe

r

proceedings.

We

write

specifically

to

address

the issues

identified

by

the

Court

in

it s

July

25

Orde

r,i.

e.

w

heth

er

the i

ssues ra

ised

b

y Mess

rs. N

eeand

M

essin

etti in

th

eir Ju

ly

2

012

appli

catio

ns rema

in

ripe

for

con

sidera

tion and

whe

ther

th

e

RO'

s June

26,

20

12 N

otice

of

Vet

o

was

wi

thin his auth

ority

unde

r

the

J

une

2010

St

ipulat

ion

a

nd

Orde

r,

ith cit

ationt

o a

ppropr

iate

bac

kgrou

nd,

ont

ext,and a

uthor

ity w

hich

may hel

p tor

esolv

e

an

y

'a m

bigui

ty' p

ercei

ved by

the

Seco

ndCi

rcuit

.

We

espec

tfully

submi

t

t

hat

in

veto

ing Messr

s.Ne

e

a

nd

Mes

sinett

i asLoc

al

157

elect

ed

o

fficia

ls

th

e

Re

view

Offi

cer

exerci

sed

a

uthor

ity

gr

anted

b

y

the

te

rms

of

para

graph

5.

b of

the

Stipu

lation

and

Ord

eran

d cons

istent

w

ith

the inte

nt o

fh

e

partie

sto

the Stip

ulatio

n

an

d

Orde

r.

R

egard

ing

ripene

ss,

w

enotethat

ther

eha

ve

b

een

Loca

l 15

7

electi

ons in

the

two

-yea

rss

ince

M

intz,

ev

in,

Cohn

,er

ris, Gl

ovsky

an

d

Pope

o,

.C.

B

OSTON

WASHI

NGTON

N

EW

Y

ORK

S

T MFOR

D Los

A

NGELES

PA

LO

ALTO

SAN D

IEGO LOND

ON I

SRAEL


2/9


3/9

M

intz,

evin

,

C

ohn,

erris,

G

lovsk

y a

nd

P

opeo

, .

C.

Augus

t 25,

2014

Page

In

t

he

ti

me sin

ce

the Revi

ewOf

ficer

veto

ed them

fro

m

the

pos

itions

the

y

held

on

June

26,2012,

Local

157

has

conducted

a number

of

lections.

t

held

a

February

20,

2013

election

to

fi

ll

theirpositi

ons,

a

lthou

gh Messr

s.Ne

e

a

nd

Mess

inett

i di

d

not

run

in

t

hat

el

ection

.Mes

srs. N

ee

a

nd

Mesine

tti d

id run in

sub

seque

nt

elect

ions.

n J

une 1

9, 20

13,

Loc

al 157

h

eld

a

r

egula

r

el

ection

fo

r de

legat

es and

M

essrs

. Ne

e

an

d

Mes

sinet

ti r

an

and

won.

I

n

Feb

ruary

2

014,

th

at

elect

ion was

re

-run fo

r a

reaso

n havi

ng to

do

with

the

eligi

bility

of

ano

ther me

mber

) and

Mess

rs. N

eeand

M

essin

etti ag

ain

ran for

,

a

nd

wer

eele

cted as

, dele

gates

.

nJun

e 19,

2014,

Lo

cal 1

57

he

ld

a

re

gular

el

ection

fo

r o

fficer

s, the

trialcom

mitt

eeand

one

vac

ant

del

egate

spot

.

Mr.

Mes

sinet

ti r

an to

b

e

a

truste

e and wo

a

nd M

r. N

ee

ran to

be

fi

nancia

l

se

creta

ry and

lost

B

oth

Messr

s.Ne

e and

Mes

sinet

ti

cu

rrentl

y

re

main

in

place

as

de

legat

es.

See

Wal

sh De

clarat

ion

at

t 9

.

In

short,

not on

ly

hasLoc

al

157

hel

d electi

ons for

t

he

pos

itions

in

qu

estio

n

sin

ce th

e

Review

Officer s vetoes,

but Messrs.

Nee

and

Messinetti

have

participated

in the

election

proc

ess and w

o

elect

ive

offic

e. The

y have

n

o

benef

it to

gai

n

by lit

igatin

gthe Revi

ew

Office

r s

ve

to a

uthor

ity

a

nd

thus have

no leg

ally c

ogniz

able cl

aim.

We

hus

r

espect

fully su

bmit

tha

t

th

ere

is

no

u

sticia

ble

contro

versy

for

the Cour

to

dec

ide.

B.

T

he

Vet

o

Aut

horit

y

u

ndert

he St

ipulat

ion and

Orde

r

The

Rev

iew O

ffice

r,

of

ourse

,

is

n

ota p

arty

to

th

e Sti

pulat

ion

a

nd

Or

der.

How

ever,

s

th

e

Cour

t-app

ointe

d offi

cer e

xercis

ing

th

e

a

uthor

ity provi

ded by

the

St

ipulat

ion and

Order

sin

ce

it sin

cepti

on,he

is

full

y

fa

miliar

w

ith

i

ts

ter

ms; belie

ves h

e

u

nders

tands

the p

arties

i

ntent

wit

h

respec

t

to

th

ose

term

s, based

o

nh

is

int

eract

ions

with

th

em

a

nd

th

eir react

ion

or

lack

th

ereof

)

to


4/9

Mint

z,

evin,

Cohn

, err

is Glo

vsky

and

P

opeo

,

.C

.

Au

gust

2

5,

2014

Pa

ge

h

is

exe

rcise

o

fh

e

ve

to

autho

rityi

n pa

rticu

lar;an

d

str

ives

to

ser

vein fa

ithfu

l c

onfor

mity

to

the

le tter

and

the

spirit

of

he

Stipulation

and

Order.

SeeWalsh

Declaration.

1.

The

Four

C

orne

rs of

heStipu

latio

n

and

O

rder

In

the

R

evie

w Offic

er s

vi

ew,

t

is clea

r f

rom

th

e

S

tipul

ation

a

nd

Orde

r that

the

veto

a

uthor

ity

of

the

Re

vie

w Off

icer

incl

udes remo

vin

g

Dist

rict C

ounc

il

(inc

ludi

ng loca

l

u

nion

)

offi

cers

fr

om off

ice whe

n

t

hey ha

ve a

cted in

a

w

ay that

the

Re

vie

w Of

ficer

fin

ds to

vi

olate

th

e

stric

tures

of p

aragr

aph 5.

b. S

ee

Wa

lsh D

ecla

rati

on at

4.

Th

is is b

orne

of

a

num

ber

of

provi

sion

s wi

thin

the Stipu

lati

on an

d

Orde

rit s

el f begi

nnin

g wit

h th

e nume

rou

s wher

eas

cl

auses

at

pages

1

th

roug

h

3.

Se

e

id.at

.

T

hose

clau

ses se

t fo

rth

the rel

evant

his

tory

of

he

Dis

tric

t C

ounc

ilf

rom

the

t

ime

of ntr

y o

fhe

C

ons

ent

D

ecre

e i

n

1

994,

n

clud

ing t

he app

oint

ment

o

fInde

pend

ent

Inv

estig

ators

in De

cemb

er200

2 an

dA

ugus

t 20

05

wi t

h t

he

po

wer

toi

nvest

igate

wr

ongd

oing

. See

St

ipul

ation

and

O

rder

at 1.

A

ddit

iona

l claus

es r

ecou

nt

th

at de

spit

e

th

e

presence

of an

Independent

Investigator

with

the

noted

powe

r,

p

erson

s

eng

aged

in

crim

inal

a

cts

re

latin

gt

o t

he

Di

stric

t

Cou

nciland

ts

Bene

fit

F

unds

,

ulmi

nati

ng

in the

A

ugus

t 2009

i

ndict

ment

of

he

high

est elec

ted offici

al o

fhe

Distr

ict C

ounc

il

an

d

a trus

tee

of

ts

Be

nefit

Fun

ds, n

amel

y

E

xecu

tive

S

ecret

ary-

Trea

surer

M

ich

ael

For

de,

as w

ella

s oth

ers

inv

olve

d wi

th

the D

istri

ct

C

ounci

l

a

nd

Fu

nds,

or

va

rious

ac

ts

of

a

cket

eerin

g.

Se

e

id.at

2; e

e

alsoWa

lsh

D

ecla

ratio

n

a

t

2.

o

addr

essthi

s

co

ntin

uing

co

rrup

tion,

the

St

ipula

tionan

dOr

der

a

ppoi

nteda

Revi

ew

Off

icer,

exp

licit

ly

st

ating

t

hat

t was

pro

vidi

ng t

he

Re

view

Off

icer w

ith

gr

eate

r pow

er

than

that

affor

ded to

the

prev

ious

court

-app

oint

edoffic

er: th

e

pres

ence

an

d

acti

vity

of

an

inde

pend

ent

co

urt

-

appo

inte

d offi

cer grant

ed

p

ower

sbe

yon

d

thos

e pro

vide

d to

the

In

depe

nden

t

I

nvest

igat

or

in


5/9

M

intz

,

ev i

n,

Cohn

, erri

s,Glovs

kyand

Pop

eo,

.C.

Aug

ust2

5,

2014

Pa

ge 5

th

e Decem

ber

200

2 Stipu

latio

n

an

dOr

der an

d

th

e

Aug

ust

20

05

Or d

er, as set

for

th below

,are

essential

to theeradication

of

corruption

and

racketeering

as

they

affect

union

carpenters

and

un

ion emp

loyer

s. Se

eS

tipul

ationand

O

rder

at

3; see

als

oWal

sh Dec

larat

ion

a

t

.

T

he fi

rs t sp

ecific

po

werse

t

fo

rth

belo

w t

hesewher

eas

cla

usesand

the app

ointm

ent of

D

ennis

Wal

sh as

the Revie

wOf

ficer

was

th

e

Rev

iew an

d

Over

sight

Author

ity.

s sp

ecifie

d by

par

agrap

h

5.b,

the

R

O

may

revie

w

an

d

v

eto per

sons curr

ently

h

oldin

g

of

fice

oremp

loyme

nt

w

henhe

d

eterm

ines the

re has

been

an ac

tof

racke

teerin

g,asso

ciatio

n

witha

barr

ed per

son,

violat

ion

of law

or

a Cou

rt

or

der in

the

ca

se, b

reach

o

f

f

iduci

ary

du

ty or c

onduc

t

inc

onsist

ent

w

ith th

e Stip

ulatio

n

an

d

Ord

er.

See

S

tipula

tion and

Ord

er at TT

5.b.

i(3) a

nd 5 b

iii;

se

e al

so

W

alsh

Decla

ratio

n

at

4. Not

ably,

th

e

R

eview

O

ffice

r s au

thori

ty

wi

th respe

ct to

Dist

rict

Co

uncil

office

rs and e

mplo

yees

dif

fers

fromhis a

uthori

ty w

ith

resp

ect to

Be

nefit

F

unds

' ru

stees

and

pers

onnel

. See

W

alsh

D

eclara

tion at

. Whil

e

th

e

Rev

iew

Offic

er was

gi

ven

the auth

ority

to

review

and

veto

District

Council

officers

and

employees,

he

was

given

the

authority

to

review

an

d

prov

ide

writ

ten

notic

e of

fin

dings

to

the

Benef

itFunds

r

egard

ing

Fun

ds'

trus

tees and

pers

onnel,

pre

sumab

ly s

ot

hat

the F

unds

coul

d

t

ake a

ction

it

deem

ed m

erite

d. Comp

are

Sti

pulati

on a

nd

O

rder

at

5.b.

i(3) a

nd 5 b

iii

with

.b.ii(

3)

and

5 b iii

;

see

also

Wal

sh

decl

aratio

n

at an

d

5.

Thi

s

di

stinc

tion

is additi

onal

p

roof

wit

hin the f

our

corn

ers

of the

Sti

pulati

on a

nd

O

rder

regard

ing th

e

s

eparat

e

an

d

dist

inct auth

ority

of

he

Revi

ew

O

ffice

r

to

veto

or

r

emov

efrom

off

ice

Distr

ict Cou

ncil

off

icials

vio

lating

p

aragr

aph 5.b.

Apart

f

rom

the

p

lain

l

angua

ge o

f para

graph

5.b

,

it

is

impor

tant to

note t

hat

the

Rev

iew

and

Over

sight

Aut

horit

y set

for

th

there

in

is st

ructur

ally and con

ceptu

ally disti

nctf

rom

the

Discip

linar

y

Au

thori

ty set

fort

h in

pa r

agrap

h

5.

f as

well

as

the

a

uthori

ty

to

deter

mine

w

hethe

r


6/9

Mintz

, ev

in,

Cohn

, err

is,Glov

sky

and

Pop

eo,

.C.

Aug

ust

25,20

14

P

age

mem

bers

are

qualif

ied t

o

r

un f

or

elect

ive of

fice un

der

pa

ragra

ph

5.

k). Se

e

Wal

sh Dec

larat

ion at

6.

The

language

of

paragraph

5.f further

de monstrates

that

separate

and

distinct

Reviewand

Ov e

rsigh

t

Au

thori

tyand

Disc

iplin

ary

Auth

ority

were

given

to

the

Re

view

Offi

cer. Pu

rsuan

t to

parag

raph 5

.f, th

e Dist

rict Cou

ncil wa

s

requi

red to s

ubmi

t

t

o

the Rev

iew

Offic

er fo

r

appr

oval

prop

osed

pr oc

edure

s to disc

ipline

of

ficers

,

em

ploy

ees,

age

nts,repres

entat

ives

and

me

mbers

o

f

the Di

strict

Counc

il for

mis

condu

ct

incl

udingv

iolat

ion

of eder

al, state

or

locallaw

;un

ion

rules

,

byla

ws o

r consti

tutio

nalpr

ovisi

ons;

the

Co

nsent

Decr

ee o

r othe

r co

urt orde

r; o

r

an

y ac

tion

furthe

ring

or

t

hreate

ning

to

fu

rther

the in

fluenc

e of

rgani

zed c

rime.

A

lso

unde

r this p

aragr

aph,

t

heRev

iew Offi

cerreta

ins

the

cont

inuin

g abilit

y

to

asse

ss t

he p

rocedu

res.

s he

Cour

ti

s awa

re,

the m

ost

recent

Dis

trict

C

ounci

l of

ew

York

and

Vicini

ty

Trial

Pro

cedur

es ( T

rial

Proce

dures

)

wentinto

effe

cti

n

A

ugust

2

013.

See

E

xhibi

t

15

to

the Seve

nth In

terim

Repo

rt

of

the

Revi

ew Office

r dat

ed De

cemb

er 3

,

2

013.

2.

Extrinsic

Evidence

of

he

Parties' Intent

Nonet

heless

, t

he

S

econd

Ci

rcuit

has fou

nd am

bigui

ty w

ith res

pectto

the ve

to

au

thorit

y.

The

Circ

uit

stated

th

at

wh

ile it ac

knowl

edge[

s]

th

e

gover

nment

h

as adva

nced

w

hat

may

b

e

a

va

lid ar

gumen

t

th

at

the

R

Ooul

d

vet

o

an ind

ividu

al's

ap

point

mentt

o orc

ontin

uation

inD

istric

t

Counc

il of

fice],

based

ona

readi

ng

of

he

text

of

t

he

Sti

pulati

on we

also

c

annot

f

oreclo

se

the

pos

sibili

ty

th

at

t

heplai

ntiffs

inte

rpret

ation

[

that

the

RO c

ould

veto

o

nly action

sand

had t

o

rem

ove t

hem un

der the

disci

plinar

y

autho

rity]

is

corre

ct. S

umma

ryOrd

er at

7.

t is

in thi

s

con

nectio

n that

th

e

Ci

rcuit s

tated

that

ex

trinsi

c

e

viden

ce

may

be

cons

idere

d

to

ascer

tain

the

p

arties

'

inte

nt, i

nclud

ing t

hecircu

mstanc

es s

urrou

nding

the

form

ation

of he de

cree.'

Id. a

t 7-

8


7/9

Mintz,

evin,

Co

hn, er

ris,Glovs

kyand

Po

peo,

.C

.

Aug

ust 25

,2014

Page

(quo

ting

U.S.

v Bro

ad.

Music,

Inc

., 275

F.

3d168

, 17

5

(2d

Ci

r. 2001)

interna

l

quota

tion

marks

omitted)).

From

the mont

hs prec

eding his

ap

pointm

ent through

t

he

pr

esent,

t

here h

ave bee

n

a

nu

mber

of

examp

les ofextrin

sic

evi

dence

of the

part

ies inten

t wi

th respe

ct to

the

Stipul

ation

and

Ord

er as

a

w

hole an

d

t

o pa

ragrap

h 5.b in

pa

rticula

r.

First in

terms

of

back

ground

a

nd

cont

ext

reques

ted by

the Cour

t,

the

Review

Off

icerwas

pr

esent at

time

s w

ith the

partie

s

du

ring

the

p

eriod in

whic

hthe Stipu

lation

was

be

ing drafte

d. S

ee Wa

lsh Dec

larati

on

at

.

It was

the

RO s

under

standi

ng fr

om these

m

eeting

s

that

an

im

petus

to

the

June

2010

St

ipulati

on and

Orde

r

was

he

indi

ctment o

f ndividu

als

involv

ed wit

h

the Dis

trict Co

uncil,

nclud

ing its hi

ghest

ele

cted

official

then

Execu

tive

Secre

tary-T

reasure

r

Fo

rde.

See

id.

It

was

al

so his

unde

rstand

ingthat

t

hegover

nment s

oughtto

provid

e

expa

nded

a

uthorit

y to

th

e

Cour

t-app

ointed

office

r, in

cluding

the

ability

to v

eto

Distric

tC

ouncil

of

ficers

and

em

ployee

s, i

n o

rder

to eli

minate ong

oing

corruption.

See

id.

The

District

Council

ultimately

agreed

to

this

authority, stated

in

paragraph

5

.b. See

id. The

Be

nefit

Funds

did not

, and

the revi

ew a

nd

writ

ten

notice

langu

age flag

ged

above

was

thusi

ncluded

in

paragr

aph

5.

b. iii

with

r

espect t

o th

e Fund

s

tru

stees

and

personn

el.

See

id.

F

ollowi

ng his

appoin

tment in Ju

ne

201

0,

the R

eview Offi

cer ha

s exer

cised his

ve

to

author

ity wi

th

respect

to Di

strict Cou

ncil

inclu

ding

loc

al uni

on) ff

icers o

nnu

merous

occas

ions.

Heirst

e

xercise

d his veto

aut

hority

shortly

into h

is

tenure,

wi

th

the vetoes

o

f

Willo

ughby,

Ho

lt

and Da

ly. Se

e Docke

t

N

o.

1022

C

ourt s Dec

ision

an

d

Or

der);

see a

lso Un

ited States

v Dist

rict

Cou

ncil

et

a

l. 2010

U.S.

Dist

. L XIS

137

163 (S

.D.N.Y

. Dece

mber21,

2

010). The R

ast

exercis

ed

that

author

ity

in

May

2013

wi t

h

r

espect

t

o th

en Exec

utive Se

cretary

-Treasu

rer Mi

chael


8/9

Mintz

,

evin

,

Cohn, e

rris,Glo

vskyand

Popeo

,

.

C.

Au

gust25,

2014

P

age

Bilello.

See Dock

et No.

136

2Court

s Ord

er). s

he

Co

urt

is

a

ware,

h

e

ind

ividual

s subj

ect

to

those

vetoes,

and

a number

of

vetoes

in the intervening period including the

ones

at issue here,

sough

t to

overtu

rn the

RO

's

vetoes.

The

R

eview

Offic

er is

not a

ware of

the par

ties to

the

St

ipulati

on

and

Orde

r

the gov

ernmen

t and

the

Distr

ict Counc

il) ver

object

ing to

the exerci

se

of

his veto

po

wer

to

remo

ve

of

ficehol

ders.

See W

alsh D

eclarat

ion

at

. During

F

rank

Spence

r s

tenure as UB

C

upervis

or

f

or

the Dis

trict Co

uncil,

the

RO

w

ouldf

orward

Notic

es of

Vet

o to Mr

.

S

pencer

, never

recei

ving an

object

ion to

th

e

exerc

ise

of

he

vet

o autho

rity.

See

id

By

w

ay o

f

ex

ample,

in

April

2011

wh

en

the

Rev

iew

Off

icer

veto

ed Lawren

ce

D Erri

co as t

he Distr

ict

Counc

il sD

irector

of pera

tions,

Mr.

S

pencer

did not o

bject(nor

did

Loca

l

157)

. See

Exhibi

t

t

o

th

e Secon

d Interim

Repo

rt

of

he

Rev

iew Off

icer

dat

ed

June

3,

2011.

In

th

e

Bilel

lo mat

ter,

the

go

vernme

nt

spec

ifically

wr

ote to

expres

s

ts c

oncurr

ence

w

ith

the

R

O's

acti

on. S

ee Docke

t

No

.

136

2

(

Court

s

Dec

ision

a

nd

O

rder u

pholdi

ng RO's

veto of Bilel

lo

quotes

g

overnm

ent's

tt r

stating

that

t

is

of

the

view

that the

Review

Officerproperlyexercised

his

authority to veto

Mic

hael Bile

llo's

te

nure a

sthe

Di

strict

Cou

ncil

Execu

tive Secre

tary

-Tr

easurer

);

see also

Wals

h

D

eclarat

ion

at

. This

histo

ry of

ac

ceptan

ce of

he

RO

's ex

ercise

o

fhe v

eto

autho

rity

und

er

parag

raph

5.b

of

he

Stipu

lation

and

Order

plain

ly confir

ms

the par

ties' inten

t that

the

RO

oul

d

exerc

ise his aut

hority

under

5.

b

t

o veto off

icials

by

remov

ing

t

hem

fro

m office.

See

id

Ext

rinsic

eviden

ce

of

he

disti

nction

betwe

en

the Revie

w and

Over

sight

Autho

rity and

the

Disci

plinary

Auth

ority

inc

ludes

theTrial Proc

edures

refe

rred to

above.

A

ccordi

ng

to th

e

Tri

al

Proced

ures,

and as

cl

ear f

rom the

ir ope

ration in prac

tice,

cha

rges for

the

miscon

duct

spec

ifiedin

par

agraph

5.

f are

lodge

d by

a m

ember

again

st

anothe

r

me

mber

or b

y the

Distric

t

C

ouncil'

s

I

nspecto

r

Gene

ral (

IG )ag

ainst a

me

mber;

the ROhas

utili

zed

this

proc

ess on only a

fe

w


9/9

Min

tz

e

vin

,

Co

hn

e

rris

,Gl

ovs

kya

nd

Po

peo

.

C.

A

ugu

st

25 2

014

P

ag

e

9

o

cca

sio

ns

inwh

ich

hewa

s

s

eek

ing

toha

ve

r

an

k and

f

il e m

em

be

rs an

d

a

bus

ine

ss re

pre

sen

tat

ive

fined

and bannedfrom

theunion.

See

id.

at

7.

Discipline

under

the

Trial Procedu res

is

pr

ima

ril

y

de

sig

ned

a

s an

ong

oi

ng

o

uti

niz

ed

int

ra-

uni

on

pro

ces

s t

o ad

jud

ica

te

c

har

ges

b

y

uni

on

m

em

ber

s

or

th

e un

io

n s

I

G a

gai

nst

u

ni

on

me

mb

ers

. Se

e

T

ria

l

Pro

ced

ure

s

a

nd

Wal

sh

De

cla

rat

ion

at

.

t

i

squi

te

dif

fer

ent

tha

n t

he ve

toau

tho

rit

y

e

mpl

oy

ed by

the

R

evi

ew

Of

fic

er

whe

n i

n h

isd

isc

ret

ion,

con

du

ct

by

an

el

ect

ed

off

ice

r

r

equ

ire

sh

is

re

mov

al.

C

om

par

e

Tri

al

Pr

oce

dur

es

wit

h

S

tip

ula

tio

n an

d

Ord

er

at.b

; s

ee W

als

h

De

cla

rat

ion

a

t

.

Res

pec

tfu

lly

sub

mi

tte

d,

B

rid

get

M

o

hde

E

ncl

osu

re

cc:

A

US

As

en

jam

in

To

rra

nce

a

nd

Ta

ra

LaM

or

te

J

am

es M

ur

phy

sq.

Bar

bar

a S.

Jo

nes

,

E

sq.

R

ay

mo

nd

M

cG

uir

e E

sq.

Patr

ick

Ne

e

Le

vy

M

ess

ine

tti

response to berman

Documents