News: IBEW Locals in 15 States and Provinces Have passed a Motion To Support The OMOV Proposal

  • October 24, 2020, 11:18:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length

*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2020, 11:18:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum  (Read 9345 times)

Offline serf

  • David Ammond
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2015, 09:57:11 PM »
Come on Majesky, we know you’re not an anonymous asshole. Of course you want to conceal your identity after encouraging discussion about corruption on this site and then suing for it. Unfortunately, that’s not the only problem with your lawfare vendetta.

Firstly, corruption has multiple definitions. Perry used one definition (unscrupulous behaviour - as he explicitly stated) but your nuisance suit attributes another (criminal behaviour).

Secondly, you allege harm from being called corrupt. Yet no real harm has been done. Obviously, since you repeatedly solicited such condemnation. Otherwise, you would have stopped posting to protect yourself and the integrity of the IBEW. Yet you persisted, posting frequently.

Hence, this claim about injuring the integrity of the IBEW is spurious unless you willfully participated in harming it to get at Perry. Looks like you’ve gone full “keystone” on this latest volley against Perry. Try to think things through a little better next time and stop wasting the member’s money on petty personal matters.
“Unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself.”
      Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Apparently, Majesky would never make an admission against interest?
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2015, 10:49:57 PM »
I know you're full of shit regarding GTU's secret identity, because Majesky would never make an admission against interest.

GoodTradeUnionist, you said, "Majesky would never make an admission against interest?"

So Majesky is one of the plaintiffs in the Libel suit against Speranza?
OK then...

Making an 'admission against interest' by admitting to Speranza that he is GoodTradeUnionist probably would not help the plaintiffs Libel suit. Hearsay is not admissible but a recording of the 'admission against interest' would be.
Majesky better hope that Speranza didn't record his confession of being GTU.

Speranza's main exhibits to file will be evidence to prove that the words the plaintiffs are complaining about are justifiable.
That the words are specifically tied to actions/inactions of IBEW 353 officers. That those specific actions/inactions can legally be described as being corrupt. Truth is a complete defense to a libel action.

Secondary exhibits would be a recording of an 'admission against interest' like Majesky admitting that he is GoodTradeUnionist. Secondary because Majesky's behaviour on ourlocal353.ca isn't what the Libel suit is about. Like you said Gary/GTU, stating "GTU made me do it." is not a defense against a Libel suit. But I can't see it helping the plaintiffs case.

Imagine if even one of the plaintiffs' complaints is tied to comments by you GoodTradeUnionist?  :o
...and Speranza called Majesky corrupt because of one of your derogatory posts GTU?
Regardless, the 'admission against interest' would still need to be forwarded as one of Speranza's exhibits.

Makes you wonder what a judge would think...  ::)
when discovering that the defendant was telling the truth  :)
whilst one of the plaintiffs was engaging in the very act that they are suing for.

If Speranza recorded Majesky's confession of being GoodTradeUnionist...
... well GTU... that means you have to go to these Court proceedings
and tell the Judge that Majesky was dishonest about being you GTU.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/admission-exception-hearsay-rule

Quote
Hearsay is an out of Court statement introduced at trial for the truth of its contents.  Generally hearsay evidence is not admissible in Court but there are several exceptions to this.

One well established exception to the hearsay rule is the rule of “admissions against interest“.  If a party to a lawsuit says something that hurts their interests that statement can generally be admitted in Court for its truth.  Reasons for judgement were released today discussing this important principle in a personal injury lawsuit.

In today’s case (Jones v. Ma) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC motor vehicle collision.   After the crash the Plaintiff approached the Defendant and the Defendant admitted fault.   The Plaintiff then asked the Defendant’s permission to record their discussion using her cell-phone.  The Defendant consented and repeated this admission of fault.

In the formal lawsuit the Defendant denied being at fault for the crash and instead sought to blame the Plaintiff.  At trial the Plaintiff introduced the the cell phone recording into evidence.  The Defendant objected arguing that this was inadmissible hearsay.  Mr. Justice Ehrcke disagreed and admitted the evidence finding that if fit the “admissions” exception to the hearsay rule.  In reaching this decision the Court provided the following useful summary and application of the law:

…the admissibility of an out of court admission by a party to a lawsuit….was specifically addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Foreman (2002), 62 O.R. (3d) 204 (C.A.). In that case Doherty J.A., delivering the judgment of the Court, said at pages 215 to 216:

Admissions, which in the broad sense refer to any statement made by a litigant and tendered as evidence at trial by the opposing party, are admitted without any necessity/reliability analysis. As Sopinka J. explained in R. v. Evans [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653, at page 664:

The rationale for admitting admissions has a different basis than other exceptions to the hearsay rule. Indeed, it is open to dispute whether the evidence is hearsay at all.The practical effect of this doctrinal distinction is that in lieu of seeking independent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, it is sufficient that the evidence is tendered against a party. Its admissibility rests on the theory of the adversary system that what a party has previously stated can be admitted against the party in whose mouth it does not lie to complain of the unreliability of his or her own statements. As stated by Morgan, “[a] party can hardly object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence save when speaking under sanction of oath” (Morgan, “Basic Problems of Evidence” (1963), pp. 265-6, quoted in McCormick on Evidence, ibid., p. 140). The rule is the same for both criminal and civil cases subject to the special rules governing confessions which apply in criminal cases.  [Emphasis in original].

[10]         I agree with that statement of the law. It was adopted by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Terrico, 2005 BCCA 361. Admissions made by one party to litigation are generally admissible if tendered by the opposing party, without resort to any necessity/reliability analysis.

[11]         The evidence tendered by the plaintiff in this case of her conversation with the defendant Ma at the scene of the accident is admissible in evidence.

[12]         The cell phone recording which was marked as Exhibit A on the voir dire and the transcript of the recording which was marked as Exhibit B may now both be marked as exhibits on the trial proper.

[13]         The fact that the defendant did not understand at the time of the conversation that what she said might be used in litigation is not a basis for excluding the evidence. This is a civil case. Unlike a criminal case, there is no issue here about voluntariness of a statement to a person in authority and no issue about compliance with the requirements of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Counsel for the defendant agrees that the plaintiff was not a person in authority and that she was not a state agent, as those terms are used in the context of confessions in criminal cases.

[14]         The defendant’s concern that only part of the conversation was recorded, that the defendant had hurt her head, that the defendant did not know the use to which the recording would be put, and that the statement might therefore not be reliable, are matters that can be explored in cross-examination and may go to the weight to be attached to this evidence. They do not form a basis for the exclusion of the evidence.

The maxim of Karl Marx, “Accuse others of what you do,” has always worked for would-be tyrants.

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2015, 01:55:52 AM »
Thanks Erik,

With this wealth of legal knowledge at your disposal, explain once again how is it you were removed from IBEW membership?

The fact Speranza runs a website that restricts peope fom editing statements is a form of retributive entrapment, but I digress.

If Gary is so reprehensible, the members seem positively inclined to him.

Remember, Majesky is but one plaintiff, so don't fall into the trap that GTU is on trial.

You're Majesky/GTU chatter reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in the movie Harvey. 

What you seem to ignore, or maybe unaware, is the multiplicity of persons who über share the GoodTradeUnionist account, with the password "Cohen" which was shared on this site 8-years ago.

Just remember your various references to Barry/Gary, and your clumsy accusations of his identity.

I personally detest bullies, whether in school yards, at work, bars or the Internet, becuse the lcal union needs a GTU to stand up to them.

The weak and faint of heart cower when confronted with capable character assassins, however I will always fight asshoes who are out to destroy the IBEW and about leaders I respect.

Your whole anti-IBEW ethos stinks, and I find it fitting that the noise meter spikes when Speraza gets zapped.

Hosever, GTU is in good company because you guys shit on Ed Hill, Phil Flemming (sorry Brother), Joe Fashion, Barry Stevens, Steve Martin, Jeff Irons...which only proves you are melcontents out to destroy the IBEW.

You can wrap-up your crusades in whatever delusion seems rational to you.

Because I believe, and this is borne out in the 353 world I inhabit, that you have zero credibility, no political stroke, and your only career highlight is that of political sore losers.

Good Trade Unionists live by the credo that you win graciously, and are magnanimous in defeat.

Klynn and Spernza behave reprehensibly because your whole life's purpose is to discredit the IBEW for selfish, absurd and idiotic reasons.

Your failure to fit-in as part of a union collective and instead draw battle lines and wage phony political wars renders you nifty to lead.

That's why, law suit aside, your faces are pressed up against the glass on the outside looking.

Enjoy the show, because it's going to get better.
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2015, 04:14:31 AM »
Remember, Majesky is but one plaintiff, so don't fall into the trap that GTU is on trial.

Thanks for confirming that you are one of the plaintiffs.  ;D
I already clarified that stating "GTU made me do it." is not a defense against a Libel suit.
GTU/Majesky might not be on trial.
But as a plaintiff,
he might have to take the stand to explain how his posts as GoodTradeUnionist doesn't fit the defamatory words.
Could you list the other plaintiffs for us?
 
What you seem to ignore, or maybe unaware, is the multiplicity of persons who über share the GoodTradeUnionist account, with the password "Cohen" which was shared on this site 8-years ago.

Is that going to be your defense?
Is that what you're going to tell the Judge,
after the Judge hears an audio recording of Majesky admitting that he is GoodTradeUnionist?

Offline serf

  • David Ammond
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2015, 04:38:00 AM »
Dollar Club of Inverted Justice

... Hey Majesky, you can’t revert back to anonymity no matter how hard you try. Consequently, your claim of defamatory harm is self-evidently false because of it as already illustrated. As is this pretext of protecting IBEW integrity. You guys can’t protect the integrity of the IBEW by using an unjust law. That makes no sense. Even your very own Ontario Civil Liberties Association condemns the tort of defamation as inherently unjust, calling for it to be revoked because the defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent and harm is assumed without proof. The tort of defamation is an insiduous relic of the colonial past that was designed to permit nobility to squelch criticism by inverting the pre-eminent tenet of western law - innocence until proven guilty. The tort of defamation requires the defendant to pay up or shut up unless he’s able to spend lots of money to prove his innocence. Threatening an opponent with a legal mugging unless he zips his lips isn’t about protecting integrity. You keystone clowns so easily avail yourself of this draconian tort, at member’s expense no less, degrading the integrity of the IBEW and providing fodder for the media.
“Unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself.”
      Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2015, 09:15:55 AM »
Thanks for confirming that you guys share this gtu account because all plaintiffs now can be linked to this account, 

You see some of the information shared by gtu and other aliases could only come from Gary or Barry and even Steve or in the alternative Gary his shared private members information. So now that you have confirmed that you guys have shared an alias on here in the past with the Cohen as the password you have confirmed you have been on here for years attacking perry at the same time as throwing him in kangaroo court.

Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2015, 08:31:28 PM »
So how many aliases did you guys all share---harry twatter, john reid, building brotherhood, andy brennan to just name a few?

Is that the defense--that you cant pin it on one writer. To be perfectly honest it doesnt really matter because the information that has been shared on here by these aliases could only come from you guys in many cases.  So for the libel suit to be slam dunk for you all the stuff would have to be deleted and it cant. You cant change your words now can you and thats what bothers you.  You are trying to get Perry to shut this site down would be my guess and he wont.  The lawsuit isnt stopping him or scaring him nor is it scaring anyone else.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with the integrity of 353 members because if all 353 members were fully aware of all this stuff they might have a different opinion of  Perry and not what they are told or because he is stonewalled all the time at the union meetings and special called meetings. But there is 654 ibew 353 members that do pay attention and are not afraid to figure out on their own what a mess you guys have made this local. Remember GTU your own words in a private message of expensive mistakes needing to be covered up? Or have you forgotten that?
 are
I hear that one member was not aware that Perry went to the lowrise meeting because of the half hour unpaid time prior to work for loading the trucks and that he was thrown into kangaroo court for that and fined. You see when members truly get to hear the real story it changes things. Did you know that this half hour unpaid time can bring in a whole host of problems and perhaps if you look ahead to the future and what could happen it would never have been put in the contract. If you are smart enough you would be able to see the problems it can create for the members. I will leave you with that one to figure out on your own. I am sure the wsib rep could figure it out.

Also too reps are not elected but paid employees hired by the business manager so when they are incompetent 353 members cannot get rid of them now can then so then when reps who then go on to elected office screw up and members continually ask questions with no real good answers then they are accountable to the membership and you cannot sue these members for libel for asking those questions regardless of whether you have a vendetta or not . It doesnt work so therefore you are spending the hard earned dollars of the ibew 353 members on a frivoulous lawsuit because of your vendetta against Perry Speranza.

You can come on here with legal gobble gobble but it doesnt hide the truth. This alias is not concerned whether we can delete stuff on here so why are you worried about it GTU?  Are you one of the plaintiffs as you have pretty much admitted to? Perhaps you shouldnt write while your tired or had a few too many. You might not write what you wish you didnt.
















Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Gary Majesky Alleged GoodTradeUnionist
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2015, 01:16:04 PM »
I do not believe Majesky has ever used his name on this website, nor is there direct evidence except for you folk who immortalize him with screen credits.  That's your call.

GTU is a good brand, and one that deserves to be promoted in every corner of the IBEW. 

As for evidence that Majesky is GTU, you're free to embrace whatever suits your fancy which is right up there with portraying Ed Hill as Adolf Hitler, in a comedy satire regarding One Man/One Vote. 

I for one don't have a problem with free speech, as long as it's fair speech, but your brand of unionism truly borders on dysfunctional.

If you brought your internet shenanigans into the realm of labour relations, God forbid, the members (and industry) would be the true losers. 

Look at Speranza's maniacal behavior at union meetings, foaming at the mouth and barking at the Officers because the union minutes do not record the details like Hansard, his tendency to wail away at nuisance issues, while generally misbehaving as he increases the volume on the shrill meter for dramatic effect.   :(

This is the man whom you imbue with credibility that has knowledge of Majesky's "not so" secret identity? 

In my opinion, Speranza has a right to foam at the mouth and shout incendiary comments at the union leadership regarding way-out conspiracies.  Just as the Chairman has a right to shut him down, censor, and eject him from meetings if he persists in his contemptuous actions. 

Maybe it's time to resurrect the "play fair fund" which failed to provide detailed accounting to the members who ponied up for that legal challenge?

Speranza knows a lot of things, that's for sure, but very little about union democracy and how to win at the ballot box.  He knows zilch except for spectacle politics, and when confronted with his sad legacy of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour regarding Local Union Officers, Canadian Office (1st District), or International Office (Washington), he pisses on everyone's reputation with broad brush statements that the union and its officials are wrong, corrupt, and wantonly reckless for failing to abide by the IBEW Constitution, a document which he is a professed expert and authority regarding matters of its interpretation and application.

Here we see Speranza, the union scholar on display, armed with innuendo, but little facts.  Take for instance Speranza's allegations that he was improperly, in fact illegally prevented from attending and participating in a low-rise ratification meeting in 2013.  He bellowed that the IBEW Constitution is supreme, and the Basic Laws & Policies booklet is a subordinate document that he doesn't recognize, nor which is recognized as IBEW Law.

Speranza argued at trial:

Now this is where the policy books come in; what's the law?  The IBEW makes up stuff and puts it into policy books.  Some people quote it as being passed; they're not passed.  The only thing that's passed by the membership is our bylaws and I think the Constitution.  These recommendations, these policy books, are just interpretations and recommendations, which is why, when you get to the law, the law is the law.  This is the law.  It's not in here.  Some guy say it and this is how you should do it...writs a little booklet.  So what?  I'm saying this is the law".

Somewhere in the ether of the internet, IVP Daniel's concluded, contrary to Speranza's view, that the:

IBEW publication titled Basic Laws and Policies, International President Edwin D. Hill in his opening letter states in part: The IBEW Constitution describes the purpose, philosophies, and structure of the union.  Adopted through our union's democratic process, this forms the basic law by which we bind ourselves together and by which we are governed...the document goes on further to state in part: "Although the Constitution is the supreme law of the Brotherhood, it is certainly not the only guidelines available to our members.  Law in the form of a Constitution cannot foresee all future events."  In the case of the IBEW, these policies must be consistent with the aims and laws set forth in the Constitution.  Thus policy provides the Brotherhood with a meaningful and efficient means of arriving at decisions and actions...This is necessary because, even though a member agrees to abide by the rules of an organization, each person may interpret the rules differently.

While you [Speranza] disagree, which of course is your right to do so, the above clearly defines the Basic Laws and Policies publication as just that, Laws and Policies to help Local Unions administer their affairs.
...
The practical reasons for the above are painfully obvious, if any member(s) in good standing could attend any Ratification meeting as you assert, the true wishes of the members employed under said agreement could potentially, and quite easily, be manipulated.  In other words members without any skin the game [Speranza] so to speak could affect the outcome"


These passages address the substance of Brother Speranza's political argument, because he showed up at a ratification meeting he is not entitled to attend, brings and distributes flyers meant to sow the seeds of dissent, and ultimately halts the meeting because of uncontrollable outbursts and asked to remove himself, refuses, until the police remove him. 

He [Speranza] say's the IBEW makes things up, but thinks that Majesky is an oracle of truth regarding secret identities.  For the sake of consistency, he doesn't give Majesky the same deference of “making things up.”

The way I see it, and I'm not alone, Speranza has disrespected the very union he claims he is trying to reform. 

He see's conspiracy lurking in every corner of the IBEW.  He vilifies the union leadership at all levels of the IBEW as uncaring and negligent of their constitutional responsibilities. 

He boasts about secret tape recordings of Majesky implicating himself as an internet troll.

Wonderful theatre, which reminds me of the expression "when perception becomes reality in the insane asylum."

You folks are not Good Trade Unionists, but muck rakers' whose sole purpose is to tarnish the IBEW and any member who believes our union is a good organization.  Not perfect, but definitely a great one.
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline serf

  • David Ammond
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #53 on: August 03, 2015, 03:28:05 PM »
You’re off topic Majesky! So, how do you justify attacking a member with an unjust law? Legal scholars and civil liberties associations have denounced it nationwide, issuing a clarion call for reform you prefer to ignore.   
“Unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself.”
      Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2015, 04:16:03 PM »
So your saying GTU that Perry is lying that Gary stated  he is GTU . To smart people that is a little far fetched that Perry would say that unless he was sure because then he would be stooping to the same level as all the aliases on this forum that attack ibew members.

Remember you guys freely use ibew 353 members monies for lawsuits so I would think Perry is very well aware that 353 officials would do what they have done in the past. Sue using members monies and the member is on his own to defend himself. Isn't that what an intelligent person reading woukd surmise?


Well here it is in a nutshell. Libel suit is without merit. You guys freely attack ibew members including Perry under aliases. You admitted under an alias in a message that you covered up expensive errors and did not think it was corruption but as the judge in the del maestro case states  it was the cover up that was the most serious aspect to the election tampering so therefore cover up is corruption so Perry's use of the word corruption is not unfounded. It is a legitimate use of the word and its meaning and you were worried about a member having insider information of the market recovery monies so the question is why? What were you doing with the market recovery monies---using them to cover up the expensive errors ? So if you were did that mean you were taking monies that was for the members benefit to cover up your errors?  All good questions you refuse to answer.


Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
uite
« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2015, 06:42:19 PM »
I do not believe Majesky has ever used his name on this website, nor is there direct evidence except for you folk who immortalize him with screen credits.  That's your call.

GTU is a good brand, and one that deserves to be promoted in every corner of the IBEW. 

As for evidence that Majesky is GTU, you're free to embrace whatever suits your fancy which is right up there with portraying Ed Hill as Adolf Hitler, in a comedy satire regarding One Man/One Vote. 

I for one don't have a problem with free speech, as long as it's fair speech, but your brand of unionism truly borders on dysfunctional.

If you brought your internet shenanigans into the realm of labour relations, God forbid, the members (and industry) would be the true losers. 

Look at Speranza's maniacal behavior at union meetings, foaming at the mouth and barking at the Officers because the union minutes do not record the details like Hansard, his tendency to wail away at nuisance issues, while generally misbehaving as he increases the volume on the shrill meter for dramatic effect.   :(

This is the man whom you imbue with credibility that has knowledge of Majesky's "not so" secret identity? 

In my opinion, Speranza has a right to foam at the mouth and shout incendiary comments at the union leadership regarding way-out conspiracies.  Just as the Chairman has a right to shut him down, censor, and eject him from meetings if he persists in his contemptuous actions. 

Maybe it's time to resurrect the "play fair fund" which failed to provide detailed accounting to the members who ponied up for that legal challenge?

Speranza knows a lot of things, that's for sure, but very little about union democracy and how to win at the ballot box.  He knows zilch except for spectacle politics, and when confronted with his sad legacy of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour regarding Local Union Officers, Canadian Office (1st District), or International Office (Washington), he pisses on everyone's reputation with broad brush statements that the union and its officials are wrong, corrupt, and wantonly reckless for failing to abide by the IBEW Constitution, a document which he is a professed expert and authority regarding matters of its interpretation and application.

Here we see Speranza, the union scholar on display, armed with innuendo, but little facts.  Take for instance Speranza's allegations that he was improperly, in fact illegally prevented from attending and participating in a low-rise ratification meeting in 2013.  He bellowed that the IBEW Constitution is supreme, and the Basic Laws & Policies booklet is a subordinate document that he doesn't recognize, nor which is recognized as IBEW Law.

Speranza argued at trial:

Now this is where the policy books come in; what's the law?  The IBEW makes up stuff and puts it into policy books.  Some people quote it as being passed; they're not passed.  The only thing that's passed by the membership is our bylaws and I think the Constitution.  These recommendations, these policy books, are just interpretations and recommendations, which is why, when you get to the law, the law is the law.  This is the law.  It's not in here.  Some guy say it and this is how you should do it...writs a little booklet.  So what?  I'm saying this is the law".

Somewhere in the ether of the internet, IVP Daniel's concluded, contrary to Speranza's view, that the:

IBEW publication titled Basic Laws and Policies, International President Edwin D. Hill in his opening letter states in part: The IBEW Constitution describes the purpose, philosophies, and structure of the union.  Adopted through our union's democratic process, this forms the basic law by which we bind ourselves together and by which we are governed...the document goes on further to state in part: "Although the Constitution is the supreme law of the Brotherhood, it is certainly not the only guidelines available to our members.  Law in the form of a Constitution cannot foresee all future events."  In the case of the IBEW, these policies must be consistent with the aims and laws set forth in the Constitution.  Thus policy provides the Brotherhood with a meaningful and efficient means of arriving at decisions and actions...This is necessary because, even though a member agrees to abide by the rules of an organization, each person may interpret the rules differently.

While you [Speranza] disagree, which of course is your right to do so, the above clearly defines the Basic Laws and Policies publication as just that, Laws and Policies to help Local Unions administer their affairs.
...
The practical reasons for the above are painfully obvious, if any member(s) in good standing could attend any Ratification meeting as you assert, the true wishes of the members employed under said agreement could potentially, and quite easily, be manipulated.  In other words members without any skin the game [Speranza] so to speak could affect the outcome"


These passages address the substance of Brother Speranza's political argument, because he showed up at a ratification meeting he is not entitled to attend, brings and distributes flyers meant to sow the seeds of dissent, and ultimately halts the meeting because of uncontrollable outbursts and asked to remove himself, refuses, until the police remove him. 

He [Speranza] say's the IBEW makes things up, but thinks that Majesky is an oracle of truth regarding secret identities.  For the sake of consistency, he doesn't give Majesky the same deference of “making things up.”

The way I see it, and I'm not alone, Speranza has disrespected the very union he claims he is trying to reform. 

He see's conspiracy lurking in every corner of the IBEW.  He vilifies the union leadership at all levels of the IBEW as uncaring and negligent of their constitutional responsibilities. 

He boasts about secret tape recordings of Majesky implicating himself as an internet troll.

Wonderful theatre, which reminds me of the expression "when perception becomes reality in the insane asylum."

You folks are not Good Trade Unionists, but muck rakers' whose sole purpose is to tarnish the IBEW and any member who believes our union is a good organization.  Not perfect, but definitely a great one.

By the way GTU why were the lowrise members invited to the ICI special called meeting in April as they do not work under that agreement and why is it that you make changes on purpose when it has to do with Perry Speranza and what is important to him if you did not have an ulterior motive.

You knew he would att
I do not believe Majesky has ever used his name on this website, nor is there direct evidence except for you folk who immortalize him with screen credits.  That's your call.

GTU is a good brand, and one that deserves to be promoted in every corner of the IBEW. 

As for evidence that Majesky is GTU, you're free to embrace whatever suits your fancy which is right up there with portraying Ed Hill as Adolf Hitler, in a comedy satire regarding One Man/One Vote. 

I for one don't have a problem with free speech, as long as it's fair speech, but your brand of unionism truly borders on dysfunctional.

If you brought your internet shenanigans into the realm of labour relations, God forbid, the members (and industry) would be the true losers. 

Look at Speranza's maniacal behavior at union meetings, foaming at the mouth and barking at the Officers because the union minutes do not record the details like Hansard, his tendency to wail away at nuisance issues, while generally misbehaving as he increases the volume on the shrill meter for dramatic effect.   :(

This is the man whom you imbue with credibility that has knowledge of Majesky's "not so" secret identity? 

In my opinion, Speranza has a right to foam at the mouth and shout incendiary comments at the union leadership regarding way-out conspiracies.  Just as the Chairman has a right to shut him down, censor, and eject him from meetings if he persists in his contemptuous actions. 

Maybe it's time to resurrect the "play fair fund" which failed to provide detailed accounting to the members who ponied up for that legal challenge?

Speranza knows a lot of things, that's for sure, but very little about union democracy and how to win at the ballot box.  He knows zilch except for spectacle politics, and when confronted with his sad legacy of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour regarding Local Union Officers, Canadian Office (1st District), or International Office (Washington), he pisses on everyone's reputation with broad brush statements that the union and its officials are wrong, corrupt, and wantonly reckless for failing to abide by the IBEW Constitution, a document which he is a professed expert and authority regarding matters of its interpretation and application.

Here we see Speranza, the union scholar on display, armed with innuendo, but little facts.  Take for instance Speranza's allegations that he was improperly, in fact illegally prevented from attending and participating in a low-rise ratification meeting in 2013.  He bellowed that the IBEW Constitution is supreme, and the Basic Laws & Policies booklet is a subordinate document that he doesn't recognize, nor which is recognized as IBEW Law.

Speranza argued at trial:

Now this is where the policy books come in; what's the law?  The IBEW makes up stuff and puts it into policy books.  Some people quote it as being passed; they're not passed.  The only thing that's passed by the membership is our bylaws and I think the Constitution.  These recommendations, these policy books, are just interpretations and recommendations, which is why, when you get to the law, the law is the law.  This is the law.  It's not in here.  Some guy say it and this is how you should do it...writs a little booklet.  So what?  I'm saying this is the law".

Somewhere in the ether of the internet, IVP Daniel's concluded, contrary to Speranza's view, that the:

IBEW publication titled Basic Laws and Policies, International President Edwin D. Hill in his opening letter states in part: The IBEW Constitution describes the purpose, philosophies, and structure of the union.  Adopted through our union's democratic process, this forms the basic law by which we bind ourselves together and by which we are governed...the document goes on further to state in part: "Although the Constitution is the supreme law of the Brotherhood, it is certainly not the only guidelines available to our members.  Law in the form of a Constitution cannot foresee all future events."  In the case of the IBEW, these policies must be consistent with the aims and laws set forth in the Constitution.  Thus policy provides the Brotherhood with a meaningful and efficient means of arriving at decisions and actions...This is necessary because, even though a member agrees to abide by the rules of an organization, each person may interpret the rules differently.

While you [Speranza] disagree, which of course is your right to do so, the above clearly defines the Basic Laws and Policies publication as just that, Laws and Policies to help Local Unions administer their affairs.
...
The practical reasons for the above are painfully obvious, if any member(s) in good standing could attend any Ratification meeting as you assert, the true wishes of the members employed under said agreement could potentially, and quite easily, be manipulated.  In other words members without any skin the game [Speranza] so to speak could affect the outcome"


These passages address the substance of Brother Speranza's political argument, because he showed up at a ratification meeting he is not entitled to attend, brings and distributes flyers meant to sow the seeds of dissent, and ultimately halts the meeting because of uncontrollable outbursts and asked to remove himself, refuses, until the police remove him. 

He [Speranza] say's the IBEW makes things up, but thinks that Majesky is an oracle of truth regarding secret identities.  For the sake of consistency, he doesn't give Majesky the same deference of “making things up.”

The way I see it, and I'm not alone, Speranza has disrespected the very union he claims he is trying to reform. 

He see's conspiracy lurking in every corner of the IBEW.  He vilifies the union leadership at all levels of the IBEW as uncaring and negligent of their constitutional responsibilities. 

He boasts about secret tape recordings of Majesky implicating himself as an internet troll.

Wonderful theatre, which reminds me of the expression "when perception becomes reality in the insane asylum."

You folks are not Good Trade Unionists, but muck rakers' whose sole purpose is to tarnish the IBEW and any member who believes our union is a good organization.  Not perfect, but definitely a great one.


So why were low rise members invited to the special called meeting for ICI members this past April as they are not working under the agreement and why do you guys change stuff when it relates to anything Perry is interested in-re: the low rise agreement of which he helped organize? You were fully aware he would show up at that meeting so you had a plan in place to deal with him-re: banquet owner and police escort-then kangaroo court charges of $2000 ? thats called setting up. That fine of $2000 can be construed as extortion because you knew  he would be there and were intent on charging him. Dont like that opinion of extortion too bad because thats my opinion based on setting up and when money is involved then extortion comes into play.  Good thing the IO overturned the $2000 penalty before the libel court case as it would have been a great issue in court for Perry.

If we every brought our expose to the Ontario Labour Relations Board then I guess the government would need to rethink the two to three percent success rate for duty of fair representation and come up with a more successful route for union members to take when their union reps/officials are incompetent.  Perhaps if the OLRB was put into the hot seat then they would be forced to come up with a better solution.

As for Perry foaming at the mouth I would hardly think that. Its more like pure frustration Im sure. Lets see I hear the former recording secretary had a hard time remembering stuff  based on a prior medical history -certainly not a true suitable candidate for recording secretary without the aid of a recording device now wouldnt you say. But he remained on for years as a recording secretary with no recording device to help his memory of the meetings. That alone proves that Perry was right about the Minutes etc.

No need to deny his medical history as I hear he told lots of 353 members prior to the 2008 elections about it and no one from the hall stopped him from running as recording secretary again or purchased him a recording device in 2008.

Wow a recording secretary that cant remember stuff. Very incompetent for the job without a recording device. A perfect candidate if you want the true Minutes hidden.

Lets see what the judge says to that in the libel suit. Should be quite interesting. Remember these are the things that Perry Speranza harps on so its very relevant to the court case in his defence.  The Del Maestro charges is a great case study as well to use for reference.

By the way for all readers GTU in a private message stated that in 2008 he was running in the election along with Joe. If you go back to 2008 look at who was running in the election. You can read it on this forum. In  my opinion the one writing the personal message at the time as GTU was no other than Barry Sevens as Gary wasnt running for eboard until yey nars later. So since Barry was on the same slate as Joe Fashion then it could be no one other than Barry. Why Gary stated he is GTU and only GTU could be that he was trying to cover write ups that were clearly Barry. Thus trying to hide their identities. Then with the lawsuit they need to now try and come up with a different plan to weasel out of accountability.

Regardless whatever comes out of their mouths obviously cant be trusted. And smart people can see through it. What these guys have in store using ibew 353 members hardworking dollars to fund a personal vendetta one can only guess but should be quite interesting.

By the way this alias is not dysfunctional. Typical way to try and diffuse blame. Rather amusing though. 













 

Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2015, 07:27:22 PM »
 I wonder what these guys have in store because in private messages to this alias GTU makes  reference to the girl he likes to attack on here and professes his love for her and that she did not get good representation and that she has such fire and guts and he was trying to arrange a meeting with this girl who is the love of his life- but it was so easy to see through his little con game-he was trying to find out who the writer of this alias really is-so since they played this little con game with this alias I cant wait till their next con. It should be a dandy.

But regardless of their con games the libel suit is unsubstantiated and they refuse to hold out the olive branch to Perry Speranza even though they have been told thats the only way to solve stuff. They refuse to accept accountability for their actions and put the blame all on Perry.

GTU being a good brand. A good brand of con artist and if he was promoted in every corner of the ibew then I guess it would be easier to detect.  Like that one GTU

Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist on ourlocal353.ca Forum
« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2015, 11:24:01 PM »
Another point to consider is that the comment is made that Perry atending the low rise ratification meeting of which he is not a member can cause a potential problem for those who do work under the agreement because they could be manipulated but isnt it true at the low rise ratification meeting that Perry attended that the vote was very close. So are you trying to say that all the members who voted no were affected by Perrys attendance and his handouts and that they are not thinking members with brains to decide if they like the contract or not?  Are you putting the low rise members down as if they are second class citizens who cannot figure out if they think a contract is in their best interests or not and as free agents can decide what way to vote? Because if you continue down this path with these types of words you are in essence stating that about the low rise members.

As well in a union everyone is supposed to be equal. That is the mentality of which unions are based on so this line of reasoning to attack Perry for attending a lowrise agreement goes against the very fabric of the union foundation. And you call yourself a good trade unionist. Baloney