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

  • December 01, 2020, 10:45:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length

*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 01, 2020, 10:45:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: Was the Criminal Code violated by an IBEW 353 officer?  (Read 1399 times)

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Was the Criminal Code violated by an IBEW 353 officer?
« on: June 16, 2015, 08:44:58 PM »
Did an IBEW 353 officer violate Section 265 of the Criminal Code?
- Common assault (level 1) includes pushing

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-265.html

Assault
      265. (1) A person commits an assault when
      (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11805-eng.pdf
Page 16, footnote 3.:
3. Level 1 assault is the least serious form of assault and includes pushing, slapping, punching and face-to-face verbal threats.

Page 52, footnote 4.:
4. Level 1 assault is the least serious form of assault and includes pushing, slapping, punching and face-to-face verbal threats.




I left the meeting and was in the dispatch area outside the meeting doors when I was confronted by Steven Martin who began pushing me and saying that I must leave the building. I asked him to keep his hands off me and he continued by pushing with his body and as I tried to move to where my bag was he blocked me and forcefully pushed me again. As this was happening several members were close by watching including business rep Les Carbonnaro and Greg Cullen, and two or three other members including at least two members that work at the hall.

So in my opinion unfairness and improper procedures are being allowed to go on in local 353 and not being expeditiously addressed by the IBEW international office despite charges being filed on numerous occasions. Intimidation is being allowed in union meetings and practiced by officers at the local 353 union hall, this is not the first incident regarding a member being pushed and abused by a local 353 Representative and is a disturbing trend that I hope will be addressed by someone in authority. It is hypocritical to read out a harassment policy at the beginning of union meetings and then allow political opponents or critics to be discriminated against by double standards and physical abuse.




This is not an isolated incident of assault(pushing) against Brother Perry Speranza.


Lowrise Residential Contract on Thursday May 23, 2013
http://ourlocal353.ca/forums/index.php?topic=6358.msg48782#msg48782



I attended the meeting and passed out an information newsletter that I wrote and printed the afternoon of May 23, 2013. As I read it today I see that there a few uncorrected spelling errors.

I wanted to take the opportunity to be sure to address some "unfinished business" as I choose to call it in my newsletter related to a couple of issues from the April 2010 Lowrise Ratification Meeting held at the Bellagio Banquet Hall.

Tony Chiappetta took issue with a comment that I made in that newsletter where I quoted him as saying "The contractors ain't gonna give you shit" He screamed at me and said "Get your facts straight, I said the arbitrator!" as he pushed me and ripped the flyers from my arms and then stomped on them as they lay on the ground. Business Manager Steven martin was about 5 feet away when this happened

If I have misquoted Tony then I apologize.

I think it's only fair that he apologize to me for his actions.

Very soon.

But the point is this, it was made very clear to everyone at the meeting that only members that work directly under the agreement would be allowed to comment on the agreement and Tony Chiappetta does not work under the lowrise agreement.

Also he shouldn't have been making statements that would sway the members to vote a certain way, especially a statement like..."The arbitrator ain't gonna give you shit"



Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Was the Criminal Code violated by an IBEW 353 officer?
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2015, 09:54:30 PM »

But his last bit of mischief making was at the June 2015 353 South Unit meeting.  This time Speranza got the jump on the officers, and called the cop’s to investigate a purported assault upon his person.

I’m sure we’ll soon learn that outcome of that saga, and whether Speranza was able to torque this into tit-for-tat grandstanding exercise against the very officers who filed the libel or defamation suit. 


Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,
From what I recall, the IBEW 353 has video cameras all over the place.
Given that the IBEW 353 Business Manager Steven Martin will deny assaulting Brother Perry Speranza, Steven Martin will submit all the videotapes with their various angles to the Courts for discovery to prove his innocence, in order to have the Crown dismiss the case.
Right Gary?
Unless of course the videos do show Steven Martin pushing Brother Speranza.
The process of discovery of documents in a civil action is central to the conduct of a fair trial and the destruction of relevant documents undermines the prospect of a fair trial.
But that wouldn't happen, right Gary?

And it's not tit-tat Gary, in that Brother Speranza has evidence to prove his claims that certain IBEW officers have conducted themselves in a disgracefully corrupt manner. One of the defining qualities of the IBEW 353 officers' Libel suit is the lawsuit’s lack of merit.  The threat of this Libel suit is politically motivated and may, in some members eyes,  work to discredit Brother Speranza temporarily  — but in fact, it may well be the IBEW 353 who ends up owing money for bringing the meritless claim.

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Was the Criminal Code violated by an IBEW 353 officer?
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2015, 02:26:22 AM »
Dear Brother Reid,

As we discussed this morning I want to document by this email my request to you to ask Steven Martin (the local 353 privacy officer) to not allow the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area from Thursday June 11 to be erased. I would like to request that someone from the IBEW First District view it and allow me to be there.

This request is in relation to to an incident that happened between myself and BM/FS Steven Martin after I was asked to leave the union meeting by chairman Robert White. Steve Martin attempted to push me out of the dispatch area first by using his hands and then by pushing against me with his body.

I hope you will address this immediately as I was told by Steven Martin on Friday June 12, 2015 that the security tape will erase itself or tape over itself in 7 days.

      . . .
      . . .

FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer
Reid, Thomas  Edit contact    18/06/2015   
To: Perry Speranza

Perry:
As the Privacy Officer of Local 353, Business Manager Martin has decided not to release the security video from the evening of June 11, 2015.  Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that requires Brother Martin to allow you to view it.
     

Hypocritical that these crybaby IBEW 353 officers decide to use an unjust law and file a frivolous Libel suit,
especially when they are guilty of continually charging Speranza with false charges.
Worse that the 353 officers bully Speranza by assaulting him.

With all the focus on the Libel suit, I was wondering what happened with this?
Why have IBEW 353 L.U. video security cameras, when the tapes are withheld to hide violations by IBEW 353 officers?

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Was the Criminal Code violated by an IBEW 353 officer?
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2015, 03:24:59 AM »
Erik,

Back at your desk at the Google Legal Clinic.

I think the pertinent question to ask is, what did the police do and say when they investigated the matter, reviewed the evidence, and spoke to Brother Martin.

The police after all have jurisdiction and authority in these matters.

Since they didn't see the merit in Perry's accusation that he was assaulted, it pretty much end's the debate on this matter.

The members present witnessed this event, you didn't.  It's eyeballs versus goofballs.

I feel privileged, because I witnessed your sorry spectacle at the March 2007 LU 353 meeting when you were ejected.  A tactic the soon led to your ouster as an IBEW member.

Man you revel in that Jesus persona.

Time prove the IBEW right, you could never holster your cowboy tendencies. 

Dance Tin Pan, because Stockwood's deputies are about to strike up the band.
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Martin withholds evidence to maintain innocence
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2015, 10:37:44 PM »
I think the pertinent question to ask is, what did the police do and say when they investigated the matter, reviewed the evidence, and spoke to Brother Martin.

The police after all have jurisdiction and authority in these matters.

Since they didn't see the merit in Perry's accusation that he was assaulted, it pretty much end's the debate on this matter.

The members present witnessed this event, you didn't.  It's eyeballs versus goofballs.


Oh come on Majesky/GTU,
you're avoiding the fact that Martin is withholding the video tape evidence. (doesn't want to "make an admission against interest"::)
IBEW 353 officers fear video & audio recording evidence. Except recording evidence that they . . . tamper with.  >:(

Did Martin allow the police to see ALL the videos?
Courts have jurisdiction too.
ALL the videos should be preserved and sent to a Court to determine if an assault was committed.

Quote
Many crimes are prosecuted on the basis of eyewitness testimony. But how accurate are eyewitness accounts? The misinformation effect and source monitoring are two psychological principles that explain how sometimes witnesses can be mistaken.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-misinformation-effect-and-eyewitness-accounts.html