IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?

[Conversationalist]

There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

The Officers on behalf of IBEW LU 353 are the paintiff's, and the defendant is accused of various libelous conduct in the public realm. 

The crux of this dispute seems to relate to a persistent course of vexatious and unwanted commentary in the public realm that besmirches the reputation of the lock union Officers, and by extension the local union.

When you knock on the door of government seeking regulatory or legislative changes, as well as funding, the reputation of the Officers who represent the local union are substantially prejudiced by the libelous commentary, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the local union.

The libelous commentary is not fair speech, and serves to harm the local unions organizing efforts, and provides ammunition to enemies of organized labour, and in particular LU 353.

You wouldn't understand that because you were removed from IBEW membership for conduct that was inimical with your obligations as a union member, which was an extraordinary feat.

I'll be watching how this unfolds, but would rather see an apology and a measure of contrition for commentary that maligned the local union Officers who are functioning not as mere members, but as stewards of the local union.

People can shit on me any day they want and do, however, if I am an Officer, than I'm functioning in a different capacity, which distinguishable for the purposes of Article XVIII, Section 6..

e lo

I guess somebody better send Prime Minister Harper copies of the local union newsletters where our elected officials write about his government and the need to toss him out and  Harper better then put a libel suit against these local union officials on behalf of all Canadians that support his government --this libel lawsuit against Perry  is no different than if Harper chose to try and put forth an unmerited lawsuit on behalf of Canadians. Same logic and same line of reasoning.

[Conversationalist]

This libel lawsuit is unmerited as they are elected local union officials and as such are subjected to questions that demand answers and the 654 who voted for Perry are dues paying members and as such are part of the local union and they are happy that Perry demands answers to his questions and to throw aside their opinions as union members is not democratic
and a judge if he is a good judge will throw this lawsuit out immediately on the first day as it does not have a leg to stand on.
 
But thats my opinion and I think we all look forward to this court case where it cant be hidden any longer.

So when is the court date?

This libel suit is just an intimidation tactic and it follows the same line as the personal lawsuit of Barry Stevens approved by the E Board against Perry Speranza in 2007 where they had a personal lawsuit paid from local union funds to protect the office of the President. Totally illegitimate expenditure indicating that this local union by means of its various entities does whatever they please and I hope the judge will enjoy reading the email from Barry Stevens in Court.

654 who voted for Perry want an answer to why they are funding this lawsuit from union funds of which they pay into. Their voices are just as important as the 1100 who voted for Jeff Irons.

[Eric Klyne]

There is an important factual distinction.

My understanding is the LU 353 Officers must take the libel action forward because a union organizational entity cannot.  Therefore its Executive Officers must take the action forward, on behalf of the local union, in order to protect the integrity of the local union.

WRONG!
Where did you get this understanding?
Just Google "union files libel"… and you will find  "union organizational entities" that have brought libel actions forward.
You are referring to the LMRDA provisions that does NOT allow unions to charge members for libel/slander.

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

You are against legislation that empowers union members.
You're against the American LMRDA.
Union discipline for libel is invalid per se as an infringement of the union member's right of free speech, guaranteed by the LMRDA.
Gary,
why would YOU suddenly adhere to the American LMRDA, when allegedly conducting IBEW business?

Gary,
you keep insisting that the Libel suit has been filed to protect the integrity of IBEW 353.
But the IBEW 353 is not listed as the plaintiff(s), so you're WRONG.

I can see how you wish to misinform the IBEW membership.
Because members cannot use union funds to file personal lawsuits,
you're attempting to convince IBEW 353 members that the IBEW can sue members indirectly.
That individuals can sue members on behalf of the IBEW?
A sadly weak attempt to argue that this doesn't violate Article XVIII, Section 6 of the IBEW Constitution.

In order for your BS to be true Gary/GoodTradeUnionist, the plaintiffs would have to argue that Perry libelled the IBEW.

Gary/GoodTradeUnionist
Gary/GTU says the IBEW was libelled but the IBEW did not file the libel suit?
Gary/GTU says the IBEW can't file for libel suits…but they can and Gary/GTU didn't say why?

Gary/GTU says members can file libel suits for the IBEW?
Gary/GTU says the members can violate Article XVIII, Section 6 because the members are officers?

The IBEW 1st District can't defend this BS Gary.
The plaintiffs would have to argue that the IBEW was libelled.
The Judge would throw the case out because the IBEW is NOT the plaintiff.
You end up chasing your tail when defending a LIE with a LIE .

[GoodTradeUnionist]

I see you're another alumnist of the University of Google.

The law surrounding the tort of defamation is straightforward.

It remains to be seen whether the imputation that 353 officers are corrupt is protected by qualified privilege or opinion, particularly when rebroadcast using different social media nd public mediums, accessible beyond the mere confines of the local union.

Invoking the fair or free speech defense to shield one self from accusations of libelous defamation is the impulse defense of the wanton charlatans whose preoccupation is to distract and subvert the union from its more nobler purposes and goals.

Intellectual rigor, and some rancor is healthy for democracy, however what you preach and practice is "hard-on" politics because of perceived injustices in the past.

Being amongst serial malcontents bothers me not, because every 3 years 353 activists line up, run when the starters pistol fires, and see who the members support.

It the Darwin of Democracy principle that the strongest and fittest survive.

You Erik are the 3-billed Dodo that went extinct, never to share your DNA in the IBEW gene pool.  Political road kill is an apt description.

But your lament regarding Speranza's numerous salvation stories of vainglorious vindications on appeal is suspect and qualified.

You make him out as some poor black soul that was lynched by the union KKK.

The fact is Perry Spernza is a serial charger who has filed more charges against IBEW officers and reps than anyone in Canada.  And his win/loss track record is abysmal and a total waste of union resources.

Although you impute that GTU is Gary Majesky and vice versa, prove it!

You can wish identities upon anonymous fictions, but in the end you're chasing an internet ghost.  And don't put much stock in the defense "GTU made me do it."

At the end of the day the following is 100% accurate:

1.  Majesky never charged Speranza.
2.  Majesky never sat on any Speranza trial boards
3.  Majesky never ran against Speranza

The only thing he did, and this was totally legal, Majesky participated in the democratic traditions of LU 353, as did his father before him.

Simply, Majesky's reputation is clean except for the scourge of corruption imputed upon his good name by none other than your soap box champion of all that ails the IBEW.

I believe in the principle that Union Leaders serve the members, even the lunatic fringe.  But there are limits to that core philosophy of brotherhood, which one people are learning the hard way.









.

[serf]

More of the usual camouflaging eloquence from Majesky, masking lawfare with contrived legitimacy. Because the libel suit is based on a lie! It redefines Perry's use of the word corruption to mean criminal behaviour rather than unscrupulous behaviour as he defined it, according to the dictionary definition. Throwing a straw-man into a libel suit is a desperate maneuver, which belies the real intention to muzzle dissidence.

[Conversationalist]

Yes sociopath GTU can't ever accept responsibility for his actions. He has such  confidence in his protection So who is protecting him?

The court can decide if the tape of Gary stating he is GTU is authentic or not.

I much rather watch the trial then see Perry apologize for anything. He doesn't need to.

[Conversationalist]

The law of defamation is very  clear as well. Very hard time for elected officials to sue someone for libel especially officials paid by union members hard working dollars.

So let's take the rose colored glasses off GTU you guys are  embarking on a very hard case at the expense of union members money all because of your attempt to muzzle free speech regarding incompretence etc.of your own doing,.

So that is what ibew 353 me beds need to be protected from.  Incompetent officials who cover up their mistakes and use others to protect them and their incompetence.