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
97 Flashback
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="JonFrum" data-source="post: 268671"><p><strong>FOR THE RECORD - Part 3</strong></p><p></p><p>- -Continued- -</p><p><strong>Prosecution Problem No. 2: William Hamilton</strong> </p><p>William W. Hamilton, Jr., the Director of the IBT Governmental Affairs Department under the Carey administration, was in charge of disbursing funds for any political causes and could authorize expenditures from the IBT General Treasury or from its political action account (DRIVE). He wrote the formal requests for checks to be approved to the office of Ron Carey. </p><p></p><p>In early October 1996, according to his and Nash's testimony, Nash arranged the meeting with Hamilton mentioned above, to tell Hamilton about Nash's spending plan that involved the swap schemes and non-IBT contributions. Hamilton says Nash indicated no amounts and named no organizations but said the plan would aid Campaign fundraising and that Carey was on board. Hamilton said he agreed to cooperate as long as the contributions were consistent with IBT goals. In March 2000 Hamilton was sentenced to an 18-month prison term after his November 1999 conviction of fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with his role in the embezzlement of $885,000 from the IBT treasury and the swap schemes. Even though he had been called by the Prosecution, he turned out to be a hostile witness. </p><p></p><p><strong>He testified that he had never spoken with Ron Carey about his conversation with Nash, about the swap schemes, or about any of the specific contributions. Yet, assertions that Hamilton had discussed the swap schemes with Carey had served to justify the decisions of EO Conboy and the IRB against Carey.</strong> </p><p>Assertions attributed to him that Carey knew about the swap and other illegal contribution schemes were based on references to two conversations he allegedly had with Carey. One was a very brief ("30-40 second") conversation on his office phone when Carey was patched through to him from the field. It was allegedly in connection with a contribution to Citizen Action that was awaiting Carey's approval. The other was a one-sentence comment Carey allegedly made to Hamilton when Hamilton went up to greet Carey who was on the dais at an IBT banquet in Indianapolis on November 3, 1996. On examination, neither demonstrated that Carey was in on the scheme. </p><p></p><p>When testifying to his remarks to Carey during the brief office phone exchange, Hamilton claims he merely said something like "there is a request for a large contribution that needs action." He said that Ron replied; "'I'll take a look at it' or 'I'll deal with it later.'" Hamilton stated at the trial that he could not recall if he mentioned that the check in question was to Citizen Action. He did not believe he ever discussed thet it." </p><p></p><p>She [Monie Simpkins] had also testified that she had tried to speak with Ron about the contributions but he had brushed her off and gone on to other subjects. And she had told several others as cited above that Ron knew nothing about it. Defense argued convincingly that the deposition read into the transcript and quoted above, which Simpkins had signed and which was used as evidence against Ron Carey at the Conboy hearing and by the Prosecution was not what really happened but what the Prosecution had told her to say for them. The jurors, in requesting information, highlighted the fact that in addition, Nash had never instructed Simpkins to mention Nash's name. As Simpkins had told Theresa: the government "had twisted" the details to suit their needs. Her testimony against Ron Carey was not at all believable. </p><p></p><p><strong>"If the Time Line Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!"</strong> </p><p>An additional problem with the Prosecution's case was its time line. This, like the other key contradictions and fault-lines in the Prosecutions' case, was demonstrated to the jury by Defense Attorney Reid Weingarten in his brilliant summary remarks to the jury. Simpkins had testified that she met with Jere Nash and learned of the schemes after a staff meeting that took place October 21. But Nash claimed his mythical call to prod Carey to sign the Citizen Action check took place before that on "October 16 or 17;" and two of the four memoranda requesting contributions were marked approved before then, on October 17. "The Prosecution's time line doesn't fit," Defense Attorney Weingarten showed the jury. Pulling a line from Johnny Cochran at the O.J. Simpson trial, Weingarten admonished the jurors: "If the time line doesn't fit, you must acquit." </p><p></p><p><strong>According to jurors who spoke after the trial, eleven of the twelve jurors were for acquittal from the outset; one wanted to review Simpkins's testimony.</strong> </p><p></p><p><strong>A jury of his peers—workers, students, union members—has ruled that Ron Carey did not know about or participate in the abuse of IBT funds. He did not cover up or fail to disclose information to the Prosecution; he did not violate his fiduciary duties as President of the union. The jury rejected and invalidated evidence used by EO Kenneth Conboy in November 1997 disqualifying Ron Carey as a candidate in the 1996 IBT elections. Conboy relied solely on the false testimony of Nash, Hamilton, and Simpkins that they had spoken to Ron about the Citizen Action contribution. Despite the fact that Monie Simpkins had already told at least two other versions of the events and that Nash had already been lying to the Prosecution, Conboy wrote in his ruling: "And I do not believe they testified falsely...Mr. Nash is a very credible witness...nor do I believe that Ms. Simpkins would fabricate conversations with Ron Carey...I do not believe Mr. Hamilton had a motive to fabricate a conversation with Mr. Carey about Citizen Action." But all three of these witnesses contradicted themselves, repudiated whatever they had—for whatever reason—said previously and, before the jury, stated they never mentioned Citizen Action contributions or any others to Ron Carey. Ron Carey was not lying when he testified. He alone had consistently told the truth. And in the end, the Prosecution witnesses substantiated him.</strong> </p><p></p><p>Now the decisions of Conboy and the IRB have been exposed as unfounded. Ron Carey's IBT membership and all his benefits and rights as a member of the IBT should be restored, and he should proudly resume his active participation in the reform movement in the IBT and the U.S. labor movement. As Defense attorney Reid Weingarten explained, the Prosecution testimony was "fabricated from whole cloth." </p><p></p><p><strong>The EO's Double Standards</strong> </p><p>The Carey Campaign raised $1.6 million for the 1996 IBT election campaign. The Hoffa slate raised more than double that: more than $3.6 million, according to the IRB official Michael Cherkasky. In the summer of 1996, the Carey Campaign charged the Hoffa Campaign had broken the EO's Election Rules on fundraising by raising more than $1.8 million from bosses and mobsters. EO Quindel refused to even investigate the charges, maintaining that since Hoffa lost the elections, his violations were "immaterial." Nevertheless, she invalidated the Carey election victory on the basis of allegedly illegal contributions totaling 1/70 of that amount! Subsequently, her replacement Kenneth Conboy, probably to give the impression of "evenhandedness," in the very ruling that disqualified Carey as a candidate in the reelection, agreed to investigate Hoffa Campaign finances. </p><p></p><p>In April 1998, Cherkasky found the Hoffa campaign had violated the EO Election Rules in a host of ways: filing fraudulent financial reports, failing to report contributions, and using IBT facilities for all sorts of Hoffa Campaign purposes. But Hoffa was not held responsible and no serious punishment was imposed. The EO limited the fines to around $44,000. The Hoffa campaign was also fined a little over $16,000 for accepting services of totaling nearly $177,000 from an employer. However, the EO accepted the Hoffa campaign's blatantly implausible claim that it had raised over $2 million in small donations of under $l00, the sources of which need not be officially reported! Thus, in this way too, the Consent Decree officials prepared the way for the Hoffa slate to take power. </p><p></p><p>I would propose that these workers committees [of rank-and-file Teamsters] also need to investigate the Consent Decree officials—EOs and the IRB members and their entire staffs—who squandered at a least a million in IBT funds to victimize Ron Carey. Then they need to investigate Judge Edelstein and all the investigators and prosecutors—including Andrew Dember, Deborah Landis, and the Prosecution team who headed up the New York trial against Carey—who squandered public funds to try to frame Carey up on false charges. In addition to abuse of public and union treasuries, these people bribed and coerced witnesses and sabotaged the rights of the IBT members to run their own affairs by unjustly overturning Ron Carey's 1996 election victory, denying him his union rights. </p><p></p><p>This does not even take into account the considerable personal costs such a frame-up campaign inflicts on the victim, which all the individuals involved in persecuting him should be held responsible for too. Putting these ideas into operation would go along way toward real justice in the Ron Carey case. Those reformers who abandoned Ron Carey were proven wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves for their opportunist behavior.</p><p>[End of article. And that was the short version!]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JonFrum, post: 268671"] [b]FOR THE RECORD - Part 3[/b] - -Continued- - [b]Prosecution Problem No. 2: William Hamilton[/b] William W. Hamilton, Jr., the Director of the IBT Governmental Affairs Department under the Carey administration, was in charge of disbursing funds for any political causes and could authorize expenditures from the IBT General Treasury or from its political action account (DRIVE). He wrote the formal requests for checks to be approved to the office of Ron Carey. In early October 1996, according to his and Nash's testimony, Nash arranged the meeting with Hamilton mentioned above, to tell Hamilton about Nash's spending plan that involved the swap schemes and non-IBT contributions. Hamilton says Nash indicated no amounts and named no organizations but said the plan would aid Campaign fundraising and that Carey was on board. Hamilton said he agreed to cooperate as long as the contributions were consistent with IBT goals. In March 2000 Hamilton was sentenced to an 18-month prison term after his November 1999 conviction of fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with his role in the embezzlement of $885,000 from the IBT treasury and the swap schemes. Even though he had been called by the Prosecution, he turned out to be a hostile witness. [b]He testified that he had never spoken with Ron Carey about his conversation with Nash, about the swap schemes, or about any of the specific contributions. Yet, assertions that Hamilton had discussed the swap schemes with Carey had served to justify the decisions of EO Conboy and the IRB against Carey.[/b] Assertions attributed to him that Carey knew about the swap and other illegal contribution schemes were based on references to two conversations he allegedly had with Carey. One was a very brief ("30-40 second") conversation on his office phone when Carey was patched through to him from the field. It was allegedly in connection with a contribution to Citizen Action that was awaiting Carey's approval. The other was a one-sentence comment Carey allegedly made to Hamilton when Hamilton went up to greet Carey who was on the dais at an IBT banquet in Indianapolis on November 3, 1996. On examination, neither demonstrated that Carey was in on the scheme. When testifying to his remarks to Carey during the brief office phone exchange, Hamilton claims he merely said something like "there is a request for a large contribution that needs action." He said that Ron replied; "'I'll take a look at it' or 'I'll deal with it later.'" Hamilton stated at the trial that he could not recall if he mentioned that the check in question was to Citizen Action. He did not believe he ever discussed thet it." She [Monie Simpkins] had also testified that she had tried to speak with Ron about the contributions but he had brushed her off and gone on to other subjects. And she had told several others as cited above that Ron knew nothing about it. Defense argued convincingly that the deposition read into the transcript and quoted above, which Simpkins had signed and which was used as evidence against Ron Carey at the Conboy hearing and by the Prosecution was not what really happened but what the Prosecution had told her to say for them. The jurors, in requesting information, highlighted the fact that in addition, Nash had never instructed Simpkins to mention Nash's name. As Simpkins had told Theresa: the government "had twisted" the details to suit their needs. Her testimony against Ron Carey was not at all believable. [b]"If the Time Line Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit!"[/b] An additional problem with the Prosecution's case was its time line. This, like the other key contradictions and fault-lines in the Prosecutions' case, was demonstrated to the jury by Defense Attorney Reid Weingarten in his brilliant summary remarks to the jury. Simpkins had testified that she met with Jere Nash and learned of the schemes after a staff meeting that took place October 21. But Nash claimed his mythical call to prod Carey to sign the Citizen Action check took place before that on "October 16 or 17;" and two of the four memoranda requesting contributions were marked approved before then, on October 17. "The Prosecution's time line doesn't fit," Defense Attorney Weingarten showed the jury. Pulling a line from Johnny Cochran at the O.J. Simpson trial, Weingarten admonished the jurors: "If the time line doesn't fit, you must acquit." [b]According to jurors who spoke after the trial, eleven of the twelve jurors were for acquittal from the outset; one wanted to review Simpkins's testimony.[/b] [b]A jury of his peers—workers, students, union members—has ruled that Ron Carey did not know about or participate in the abuse of IBT funds. He did not cover up or fail to disclose information to the Prosecution; he did not violate his fiduciary duties as President of the union. The jury rejected and invalidated evidence used by EO Kenneth Conboy in November 1997 disqualifying Ron Carey as a candidate in the 1996 IBT elections. Conboy relied solely on the false testimony of Nash, Hamilton, and Simpkins that they had spoken to Ron about the Citizen Action contribution. Despite the fact that Monie Simpkins had already told at least two other versions of the events and that Nash had already been lying to the Prosecution, Conboy wrote in his ruling: "And I do not believe they testified falsely...Mr. Nash is a very credible witness...nor do I believe that Ms. Simpkins would fabricate conversations with Ron Carey...I do not believe Mr. Hamilton had a motive to fabricate a conversation with Mr. Carey about Citizen Action." But all three of these witnesses contradicted themselves, repudiated whatever they had—for whatever reason—said previously and, before the jury, stated they never mentioned Citizen Action contributions or any others to Ron Carey. Ron Carey was not lying when he testified. He alone had consistently told the truth. And in the end, the Prosecution witnesses substantiated him.[/b] Now the decisions of Conboy and the IRB have been exposed as unfounded. Ron Carey's IBT membership and all his benefits and rights as a member of the IBT should be restored, and he should proudly resume his active participation in the reform movement in the IBT and the U.S. labor movement. As Defense attorney Reid Weingarten explained, the Prosecution testimony was "fabricated from whole cloth." [b]The EO's Double Standards[/b] The Carey Campaign raised $1.6 million for the 1996 IBT election campaign. The Hoffa slate raised more than double that: more than $3.6 million, according to the IRB official Michael Cherkasky. In the summer of 1996, the Carey Campaign charged the Hoffa Campaign had broken the EO's Election Rules on fundraising by raising more than $1.8 million from bosses and mobsters. EO Quindel refused to even investigate the charges, maintaining that since Hoffa lost the elections, his violations were "immaterial." Nevertheless, she invalidated the Carey election victory on the basis of allegedly illegal contributions totaling 1/70 of that amount! Subsequently, her replacement Kenneth Conboy, probably to give the impression of "evenhandedness," in the very ruling that disqualified Carey as a candidate in the reelection, agreed to investigate Hoffa Campaign finances. In April 1998, Cherkasky found the Hoffa campaign had violated the EO Election Rules in a host of ways: filing fraudulent financial reports, failing to report contributions, and using IBT facilities for all sorts of Hoffa Campaign purposes. But Hoffa was not held responsible and no serious punishment was imposed. The EO limited the fines to around $44,000. The Hoffa campaign was also fined a little over $16,000 for accepting services of totaling nearly $177,000 from an employer. However, the EO accepted the Hoffa campaign's blatantly implausible claim that it had raised over $2 million in small donations of under $l00, the sources of which need not be officially reported! Thus, in this way too, the Consent Decree officials prepared the way for the Hoffa slate to take power. I would propose that these workers committees [of rank-and-file Teamsters] also need to investigate the Consent Decree officials—EOs and the IRB members and their entire staffs—who squandered at a least a million in IBT funds to victimize Ron Carey. Then they need to investigate Judge Edelstein and all the investigators and prosecutors—including Andrew Dember, Deborah Landis, and the Prosecution team who headed up the New York trial against Carey—who squandered public funds to try to frame Carey up on false charges. In addition to abuse of public and union treasuries, these people bribed and coerced witnesses and sabotaged the rights of the IBT members to run their own affairs by unjustly overturning Ron Carey's 1996 election victory, denying him his union rights. This does not even take into account the considerable personal costs such a frame-up campaign inflicts on the victim, which all the individuals involved in persecuting him should be held responsible for too. Putting these ideas into operation would go along way toward real justice in the Ron Carey case. Those reformers who abandoned Ron Carey were proven wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves for their opportunist behavior. [End of article. And that was the short version!] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
97 Flashback
Top