NLRB Still Making the News

posted at 10:40 am on May 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

The White House may have hoped that the big news about bin Laden might have people forgetting about other “little matters” which had been in the news, but in the case of the National Labor Relations Board and their efforts to stop Boeing from bringing hundreds of new jobs to South Carolina, it’s not working. The Denver Post editorial board weighs in with some rather blunt questions.

With the economy still limping, and President Obama promising to create jobs, why on earth are his appointees killing jobs in South Carolina?

A common refrain among recession-weary Americans is that we don’t make anything in this country anymore. However, workers in South Carolina have a chance to make something — Boeing 787 Dreamliners that would be flown around the world — and yet Obama’s labor-cozy appointees to the National Labor Relations Board are intent on scuttling it.

Boeing, a vital U.S. company, wants to build a plant in South Carolina and bring good-paying manufacturing jobs to the state. They’ve already poured billions into the facilities and have hired 1,000 workers. But the NLRB filed a lawsuit last month to force Boeing back to Washington state, where workers would be represented by a union. The NLRB claims Boeing decided to open a non-union plant in South Carolina in retaliation for past strikes in Washington.

So what if it did?

The NLRB’s action is beyond unsettling. The lawsuit, in effect, is an effort to tell an American company how to operate its business and to intimidate its officers.

Over at The Hill, Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) casts the situation in a stark light.

This is the first time in history the NLRB has argued that a company is violating federal law simply based on where they choose to locate a factory.

Now keep in mind, Boeing wasn’t moving jobs to South Carolina and they weren’t laying off employees in Washington. Rather, they opted to build and operate a new factory in South Carolina.

Did the cost of labor play a role in their decision to open this factory in South Carolina? Of course it did. Just as, I’m sure, state tax rates and property value also played a role in their decision.

These are not radical questions. Nor are they partisan straw-men being set up to score cheap political points against the current administration. These are legitimate questions which the Obama administration needs to answer as soon as they finish cleaning up the champagne bottles from the bin Laden celebration. The NLRB is acting in a manner which not only seems entirely out of control and far beyond the boundaries of their charter, but in a way which depresses job growth. And wasn’t that supposed to be Job One for the White House?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Same here, at least most of the time in nature, parasites know enough not to kill their hosts.
Chip on May 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Where is the part about ‘American workers’?

Look, I can understand that when you’re losing the argument you have to resort to the cheap trick of putting words in someone’s month and pretending that this is the real issue somehow.

But you can do better than that, I think.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Here.

Same here, at least most of the time in nature, parasites know enough not to kill their hosts.
Chip on May 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 5:35 PM

WAIT! THERE IT IS! I SEE IT!
But I had to use my decoder ring first. And this is what I saw through the magic lens of my liberal decoder hate speech ring (which I got in a box free of Code Pinko cereal):

Same here, at least most of the time in nature, parasites AKA hard working innocent American Workers just trying to make a buck know enough not to kill their hosts. I’ll tell ya how I deal with parasites….
*locks & loads*
Chip on May 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I knew that ring would come in handy one day.
Thanks craap6!

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 5:43 PM

But you can do better than that, I think.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Must depend upon the day.
Maybe we’re experiencing a bad hair day or something.
Pretty bizarre $hit.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 5:44 PM

pretending that this is the real issue somehow.

But you can do better than that, I think.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM

This is very well put.
Bcs that’s the rub.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM

They are hiring union workers, crrr. If they were trying to curtail striking, they wouldn’t be hiring any workers in WA. In fact, they’d be cutting back.

Try again.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM

It is somewhat sad now for the “Liberals” like her, that they are now having to resort to lying in wait for someone to make some observation they can attack.

(Oh no! That could be considered violent rhetoric!)

Their Progressive agenda has been shown to be such a failure that they are needing to use Mao’s guerrilla warfare of sorts.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Their Progressive agenda has been shown to be such a failure that they are needing to use Mao’s guerrilla warfare of sorts.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I felt like I was at the zoo.
She just suddenly jumped on your a$$ for this imagined meaning conjured out of your post & ran with it like a $hit flinging monkey!
I was thinking to myself: WTF?!

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM

I think that’s the only thing she could attack – darn! There I go using that violent terminology again.

But I guess when you can’t go after someone’s beliefs you attac… go after what they say – or what you can pretend they said.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Because it’s attempting to “chill” protected activity by signaling that the WA plant will be “passed over” for new work if they continue to exercise their right to strike.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM

And this is a totally new invention of this NLRB. It has no similarity at all to the Darlington case, which was about a plant closing right after a union election which caused those newly unionized workers to lose their jobs. It was a clear retaliation against the union. The NLRB is going to have a damn hard time proving that some statements by Boeing execs at a board meeting constitute “chilling” of union activity, and that this should force Boeing to shutter a billion-dollar factory it has already built and hired workers for. Why can’t you admit that this is simply a far-fetched stretching of the NRLA? Just because some leftist union lawyer thinks he can invent a new rule out of whole cloth doesn’t mean you should agree with it, or insist that any court will agree with it.

Ifd this ridiculous legal theory were allowed to advance, no company in America that has a unionized facility would be allowed to make an economic decision to locate a new facility in a right-to-work state. As much as your liberal brain would love to see that outcome, no court in the country will allow it.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM

There are true parasites out there. Perfect example: personal injury lawyers. The don’t produce anything and they certainly don’t earn anything. They just take 1/3 from a suffering person.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Ifd this ridiculous legal theory were allowed to advance, no company in America that has a unionized facility would be allowed to make an economic decision to locate a new facility in a right-to-work state. As much as your liberal brain would love to see that outcome, no court in the country will allow it.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I do hope you are right rockmom.
But they are very relentless in eroding our liberty.

They just take 1/3 from a suffering person.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I know. I had a settlement from a car accident of $20,000 & I received $5,000. My medical bills were only ~$7000.
Something is wrong with this system

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:28 PM

I have a friend who was nearly killed in a car accident. He had to wear a halo for 6 months and will never be able to work again. He has two minor children. He received a multi-million dollar settlement, and the foot-dragging attorney took 1/3, for doing nothing more than filing paperwork. There was no trial, there was no need for one. The driver that hit him was a corporate employee in a corporate car doing corporate work and admitted to the cops on the spot that he hit the guy.

My friend almost lost his house because the attorney was so slow to get things processed.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 6:19 PM

I’ve been following this thread all day, although I could only comment once or twice, and for what it’s worth, you two cleaned her clock.

The cheap shot she took at you is so typical of the intellectually dishonest left, and damned sleazy to boot. Either she intentionally misrepresented what you said, making her a bald-faced liar, or she is too effing stupid to be a lawyer anywhere, because no one with a brain and a clue about context would interpret the parasite comment that way.

Anyway, well done you two! :)

CantCureStupid on May 3, 2011 at 6:32 PM

My friend almost lost his house because the attorney was so slow to get things processed.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM

That is so sad.
I should have shopped around more for a lawyer, but they all seemed the same in what they charged.
I did have a custody lawyer who was still a newbie (now a biggie out in Seattle) & she worked with me bcs she wanted to actually do something worthwhile.
They are out there, but so hard to find.

CantCureStupid on May 3, 2011 at 6:32 PM

I tried to be nice.
But it’s so hard when people are so stuck on stupid. ;)

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 6:42 PM

CantCureStupid on May 3, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Thank you.

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Because it’s attempting to “chill” protected activity by signaling that the WA plant will be “passed over” for new work if they continue to exercise their right to strike.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM

That, again, is just stupid. By that logic, any time any business decides to locate a new plant somewhere that is not unioncentric – even a brand new business – is “chilling” protected activity by not giving unions everything they want.

Just grade a stupid.

This whole thing is about the O! admin doing the bidding of unions. And, it is punishing people for engaging in free speech. It is apparently now illegal to make the observation that unions drive up labor costs and such costs will effect business decisions.

Only a true marxist like our own 6th year law student at the people’s college of law could make such a silly argument.

Monkeytoe on May 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Ifd this ridiculous legal theory were allowed to advance, no company in America that has a unionized facility would be allowed to make an economic decision to locate a new facility in a right-to-work state. As much as your liberal brain would love to see that outcome, no court in the country will allow it.

Don’t be so sure of that. There are plenty of judges in America who think just like our 6th year law student and believe courts are teh perfect way to change legislation and enact new laws. Ruth Bader Ginsberg would look to Somalia’s laws to see whether the U.S. constitution should include a new “right” to have Boeing be forced to build the plant in Washington, for example.

think I’m kidding? she looked to foreign law to interpret teh U.S. constitution in other cases. That alone should be an impeachable offense and get her disbarred. But, our law schools are mostly run and staffed by far leftists like the idiot. So, all of these crazy theories gain credibility b/c other fellow travelers love them.

Even right now, at least 4 judges on teh supreme court would rule the way the NLRB wants. Which just goes to show you, there is no such thing as rule of law when liberals control any lever of power. the end justifies the means in their eyes and there is no respect for statutes, constitutions, or clear wording. they can intepret the word “no” to mean “yes” and vice versa to suit their whims.

Monkeytoe on May 3, 2011 at 7:04 PM

CRRR6: I am no lawyer but your citation of textile workers vs Darlington seems wholly inappropriate. There the issue was over the CLOSING of a plant after unionization where the management had threatened to do just that.

And wasn’t the eventual finding for the company anyway? If this IS a valid comparison, then it would seem that the case is almost frivolous since the precedent would favor the company?

OBQuiet on May 3, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Sorry I misstated the cause of action. Corporation that owned Darlington Corp chose to liquidate Darlington and sell teh assets. This did result in the plant closure but also in the dissolution of the company.

I also missed the fact that in this case the court did eventually find that that Parent Corp was the controlling entity and did find against the CO.

That doesn’t make this a decent example of a previous NLRB claiming the same scope of control.

OBQuiet on May 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Where is the part about ‘American workers’?

Chip on May 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM

What were we talking about, Chip? Cause I’m pretty sure we were talking about Boeing employees.

Look, you were caught, plain and simple. You probably thought I had left the thread and wouldn’t notice. And I’m sure you use that kind of terminology all the time in private. That’s fine. All I’m asking is that in the future, you use that same terminology in public, ok? Stand up for your beliefs. There’s no need to be ashamed, Chip.

By that logic, any time any business decides to locate a new plant somewhere that is not unioncentric – even a brand new business – is “chilling” protected activity by not giving unions everything they want.

Monkeytoe on May 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

What the hell are you talking about? If you have even a basic grasp of labor law (or law in general) you’d know that otherwise lawful conduct can become unlawful based upon the motive behind it, right? That’s the distinction between the stupid analogies you keep bringing up and the case at hand.

Of course it’s perfectly lawful under the NLRA for Boeing to relocate the work to a right-to-work state, for pretty much whatever reason it wants, unless the motive was anti-union animus. It can’t move the work to penalize/chill protected conduct. And from the complaint, it appears that’s exactly what they were doing. Why would they mention time and time again to the press that they were moving it due to the strikes, unless they wanted to discourage the WA employees from striking?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Ifd this ridiculous legal theory were allowed to advance, no company in America that has a unionized facility would be allowed to make an economic decision to locate a new facility in a right-to-work state.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Jesus Christ….no. Just no.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Ifd this ridiculous legal theory were allowed to advance, no company in America that has a unionized facility would be allowed to make an economic decision to locate a new facility in a right-to-work state.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Jesus Christ….no. Just no.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:43 PM

In case it wasn’t clear the first 3-4 times I said it….

NO ONE IS SAYING IT’S UNLAWFUL TO RELOCATE A FACILITY TO A RIGHT TO WORK STATE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. BUT IT’S UNLAWFUL TO RELOCATE THE WORK BECAUSE OF ANTI-UNION ANIMUS.

Get it? Boeing could have said “were relocating the work because the plant will be more profitable in SC.” Heck, they could have said “we’re relocating the work because we feel like it.” But they indicated they’re moving it for the one reason that’s prohibited by the NLRA. Anti-union animus.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Cause I’m pretty sure we were talking about Boeing employees the union.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:40 PM

You are a rare kind of douchebag.
You just won’t quit attributing this $hit to him.

It can’t move the work to penalize/chill protected conduct. And from the complaint, it appears that’s exactly what they were doing. Why would they mention time and time again to the press that they were moving it due to the strikes, unless they wanted to discourage the WA employees from striking?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:40 PM

If Boeing is opening another plant to reroute work from the WA plant, & yet expanding the WA plant & hiring more workers, & even if they were doing that last bit, they aren’t firing or laying anyone from the WA plant off.
Why does this have to be continually brought to your attention?
The WA plant people are not in danger of losing their jobs.
If that was the case, then maybe we could agree.
But so far it isn’t.

Jesus Christ….no. Just no.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Here’s some words that I can put in your mouth, since you so love doing it to others:
You are advocating what rockmom said by perpetuating this fantasy analysis that Boeing is taking something away from the Union workers at the WA plant by building another plant that will help with the work load.
No one has said the WA plant employees are going to lose their jobs.
But if the UNION keeps at it with all of these unreasonable demands & strikes, Boeing may very well have to do such a thing in the future.
Bcs the UNION is killing its host, just like a parasite does.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Why would they mention time and time again to the press that they were moving it due to the strikes, unless they wanted to discourage the WA employees from striking?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:40 PM

So you really think that a company as large as Boeing, with a long history of union strife, doesn’t know the law? Or is it more likely that it has been blindsided by this novel and unprecedented interpretation of it? Get real.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Of course it’s perfectly lawful under the NLRA for Boeing to relocate the work to a right-to-work state, for pretty much whatever reason it wants, unless the motive was anti-union animus.

UNLESS the court ASSUMES that motive, which is not evident in the Boeing case…. ANYWHERE.
THAT is what you refuse to see.

pambi on May 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM

NO ONE IS SAYING IT’S UNLAWFUL TO RELOCATE A FACILITY TO A RIGHT TO WORK STATE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. BUT IT’S UNLAWFUL TO RELOCATE THE WORK BECAUSE OF ANTI-UNION ANIMUS.

Get it? Boeing could have said “were relocating the work because the plant will be more profitable in SC.” Heck, they could have said “we’re relocating the work because we feel like it.” But they indicated they’re moving it for the one reason that’s prohibited by the NLRA. Anti-union animus.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:49 PM

THEY ARE NOT MOVING ALL OF THE WORK TO THE SC PLANT.
BOEING IS NOT SHUTTING DOWN THE WA PLANT OR LAYING OFF ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
I can yell, too.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Get it? Boeing could have said “were relocating the work because the plant will be more profitable in SC.” Heck, they could have said “we’re relocating the work because we feel like it.” But they indicated they’re moving it for the one reason that’s prohibited by the NLRA. Anti-union animus.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 7:49 PM

And now you know why everyone hates lawyers. So if the CEO had spokjen diferently he would be just fine? Or would Solomon have just made some other shit up to go after Boeing?

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM

So you really think that a company as large as Boeing, with a long history of union strife, doesn’t know the law?
rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM

That’s actually a good question. There are a few possibilities.
1) They knew they were breaking the law, but they didn’t think the GC would have the guts to file a complaint.
2) They knew they were breaking the law, but they made an economic calculation that (given weakness of NLRB remedies) the economic benefit of intimidating the WA union from striking again outweighed the any possible costs imposed by the NLRB for committing a ULP.
3) They knew they were breaking the law but they didn’t care because they hate the union, or
4) They didn’t know they were breaking the law.

I think it’s probably 2), but you’d be surprised at how often it’s 3).

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM

So if the CEO had spokjen diferently he would be just fine?

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Yep.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM

By the way, this isn’t the only nonsensical anti-business garbage to come out of this NLRB. It also reversed a 2007 ruling that had been requested by the mortgage banking industry clarifying that loan officers are not subject to overtime rules. With no prior warning or notice and comment period, the NLRB simply reversed itself. Now almost every bank and mortgage company in America has been hit with class-action lawsuits demanding millions of dollars in back overtime pay.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 8:01 PM

UNLESS the court ASSUMES that motive, which is not evident in the Boeing case…. ANYWHERE.

pambi on May 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Are you kidding me? They said over and over again that they’re doing it because of the strikes.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I think it’s probably 2), but you’d be surprised at how often it’s 3).

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM

You forgot (5) They thought they were following the law, but didn’t anticipate that after they spent a billion dollars and hired 1000 workers the NLRB would get taken over by union lawyers who would do anything to punish them, including suing them for saying the wrong words in a corporate meeting.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 8:04 PM

They said over and over again that they’re doing it because of the strikes.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM

So? That’s going to stop this union back in Washington from striking?

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 8:07 PM

So? That’s going to stop this union back in Washington from striking?

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Yeah. It’s the oldest trick in the book.

“Well, you guys can strike just remember that there’s a really warm country down South we could move your jobs to…”

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Yeah. It’s the oldest trick in the book.

“Well, you guys can strike just remember that there’s a really warm country down South we could move your jobs to…”

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:15 PM

But there’s no evidence that’s what happened here. This was a decision made by Boeing about where to build a new plane it is trying to sell into a very competitive market. One way it loses that competition is to have a lot of strikes at that new plant that stop production and keep it from delivering the planes to the customers on time. Remember, this is a plane that will be sold to airlines, not the government. The government may be tolerant of a strike that delays the delivery of some new fighters and bombers. Air France won’t.

So, by saying that Boeing cannot afford strikes at a new plant, the CEO is merely stating facts! FACTS. Not “anti-union animus.” There is ZERO proof that those comments were intended to intimidate the existing union back in Washington in order to prevent strikes there.

Just like the ridiculous ruling reversing the previous order on overtime for mortgage loan officers, this NLRB is acting in a capricious manner to intimidate business and make work for trial lawyers.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 8:26 PM

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 8:26 PM

It’s really too bad you have to waste your knowledge on children.
Good job.
And unfortunately, wasted upon stupidity.
But I hope someone perhaps that needed this knowledge has read your responses.
As always, they are always well thought out.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM

But there’s no evidence that’s what happened here.

Well those statements look pretty bad. And it seems odd to repeat that justification over and over again, unless they were trying to send a message to the WA workers, right?

But whatever, you might be right and Boeing might win. We’re at a very early procedural stage in the case, and it’s tough to say what’ll happen either way. All I’m saying is that right now, those statements look pretty incriminating, and under the NLRA, it appears to be a ULP.

You might not like the NLRA, but that’s a whole different matter.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM

But I hope someone perhaps that needed this knowledge has read your responses.
As always, they are always well thought out.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM

I think you and rockmom’s biggest mistake in this thread is confusing 1) the normative question of whether this conduct should be a ULP, with 2) the descriptive question as to whether this conduct actually is a ULP under existing law.

Obviously you both agree that normatively, this shouldn’t be illegal. And so everything rockmom says will be music to your ears. But you need to understand that what she’s saying is not the law. She’s saying how she thinks the law should be. Don’t confuse the two.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:52 PM

They said over and over again that they’re doing it because of the strikes.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM

If Boeing loses this case, then it should shut down all its US plants and open plants in India, China and/or Mexico, and take away ALL USA jobs.

It’s what I would do.

Guess what, crr? It’s what Boeing will do.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Obviously you both agree that normatively, this shouldn’t be illegal. And so everything rockmom says will be music to your ears. But you need to understand that what she’s saying is not the law. She’s saying how she thinks the law should be. Don’t confuse the two.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:52 PM

For example, take a look at this post:

Second of all, an Unfair Labor Practice has heretofore been defined as a company action that is unfair TO EXISTING WORKERS and violates their collective bargaining agreement with the company.

rockmom on May 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I’m sure rockmom wishes that were the law. But as I pointed out…it’s an objectively incorrect statement of the law (violating a CBA in and of itself is not and has never been a ULP ).

So it’s fine to agree with what she says, but just keep in mind she’s saying how she wishes the law worked, rather than how the law actually works.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:59 PM

If Boeing loses this case, then it should shut down all its US plants and open plants in India, China and/or Mexico, and take away ALL USA jobs.

It’s what I would do.

Guess what, crr? It’s what Boeing will do.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Yeah, probably not. Boeing would barely be able to exist w/o government contracts. They won’t be getting too many of those if they build all of their plants overseas.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:02 PM

But you need to understand that what she’s saying is not the law. She’s saying how she thinks the law should be. Don’t confuse the two.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:52 PM

As are you, troll.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Yeah, probably not. Boeing would barely be able to exist w/o government contracts. They won’t be getting too many of those if they build all of their plants overseas.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Which is exactly why this suit by the US Government should be thrown out due to conflict of interest.

Let the “agrieved” employees file suit if they feel the need.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:06 PM

As are you, troll.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:04 PM

No, I’m really not.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Which is exactly why this suit by the US Government should be thrown out due to conflict of interest.

…what?

Let the “agrieved” employees file suit if they feel the need.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Employees can’t bring suits themselves under the NLRA. They’re publicly, rather than privately enforced rights.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:09 PM

No, I’m really not.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Yeah, really you are.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:14 PM

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:09 PM

You don’t consider the US Government filing suit against a defense contractor in order to protect union jobs (this is what this is all about, btw) to be a conflict of interest?

I do.

Screw the unions. No wonder there is so much fraud in the defense budget. We, the taxpayers, have to pay union salaries, benefits, and dues!

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Yeah, really you are.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Well no offense ladyingray, but I’m pretty sure you don’t know too much about the NLRA since you just said implied there’s a private right of action under it.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM

just said implied

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:19 PM

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM

LOL

You’re a troll, and pretty much everyone here at HA knows this.

And I agree with those who say you are not a law school student at a tier 1 law school. I know two such attorneys, and neither would never spew the crap you do (despite the fact that they are both libs).

I doubt you are even a law school student at a tier 3 school. A wannabe, is what you are.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:26 PM

LOL

I’m glad you can take a step back and laugh at yourself.

You’re a troll, and pretty much everyone here at HA knows this.

And I agree with those who say you are not a law school student at a tier 1 law school. I know two such attorneys, and neither would never spew the crap you do (despite the fact that they are both libs).

I doubt you are even a law school student at a tier 3 school.

That’s nice.

A wannabe, is what you are.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Hm. Well you seem to be the one purporting to know about the NLRA while making very, very basic mistakes about it. So who’s the wannabe?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I never claimed to be a law student. I am not a wannabe lawyer. You claim to be a law student, but refuse to give any proof.

Seriously, who is the wannabe, troll?

BTW, personal injury lawyers, of which your profess to want to be, are nothing but parasites. You produce nothing, you earn nothing. You only steal from hurting people.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM

crrr6: Just what statements are being used to show aminus?

The only ones I see in the complaint are statements that they want to provide diversification from the frequent labor disruptions they have seen in the past.

That seems like a sound economic choice to lower production risk. Clearly a valid business concern not animus.

I may have missed the big one. Could you provide it or point me to it?

OBQuiet on May 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM

That should have started:

crr6,

Just what …

OBQuiet on May 3, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I never claimed to be a law student. I am not a wannabe lawyer. You claim to be a law student, but refuse to give any proof.

I’m not sure how I would “give proof” and I’m not sure why I’d want to anyway.

Seriously, who is the wannabe, troll?

You. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing about the NLRA, but you shouldn’t have acted like you do. You made yourself look silly very, very quickly.

BTW, personal injury lawyers, of which your profess to want to be,

haha, what? I’ve never said I want to be a personal injury lawyer.

BTW, personal injury lawyers, of which your profess to want to be, are nothing but parasites. You produce nothing, you earn nothing. You only steal from hurting people.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I actually agree, to a certain extent. Which is why I’d never want to be one.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:41 PM

The only ones I see in the complaint are statements that they want to provide diversification from the frequent labor disruptions they have seen in the past.

That seems like a sound economic choice to lower production risk. Clearly a valid business concern not animus.

I may have missed the big one. Could you provide it or point me to it?

OBQuiet on May 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM

There is nothing of course to point out.
crr6 you have stated that a filed complaint is proof of Boeing’s wrongdoing.
Which is a ridiculous statement to make.
Then you claimed Chip called hard working individual Americans parasites & you baited him to say how he should take care of parasites.
And you knew full well everyone here is talking about how the union has done this & that, not the individual American worker.
You’re a damned shill & it’s tiresome.
If Boeing closes down the WA plant, then obviously there is a problem.
But that hasn’t happened, isn’t even being discussed by anyone, & no one’s job is being threatened as a result of union activities.
I do not have to be versed at all in law to see you don’t make any sense.
You have made no sense today.
Your interpretation is a huge reach & I still find it amazing you feel perfectly fine with using an allegation from a filed complaint as the God’s honest truth & proof of wrongdoing.
Why the hell even go to court on it when someone filed a complaint! Bcs it has to be true!
No one is taking you seriously.
You’re ridiculous.
Now go & have the last word to make yourself feel better.
Good night.

Badger40 on May 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM

I actually agree, to a certain extent. Which is why I’d never want to be one.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Excuse me. Exactly what type of practice do you want?

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 10:13 PM

crrr6: Just what statements are being used to show aminus?

Well it’s very early in the case, but as of now, the statements in the complaint.

The only ones I see in the complaint are statements that they want to provide diversification from the frequent labor disruptions they have seen in the past. That seems like a sound economic choice to lower production risk. Clearly a valid business concern not animus.

I may have missed the big one. Could you provide it or point me to it?

OBQuiet on May 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM.

Sure.

March 2, 2010, by Albaugh in a video-taped interview with a Seattle Times reporter, stated that Respondent decided to locate its 787 Dreamliner second line in South Carolina because of past Unit strikes, and threatened the loss of future Unit work opportunities because of such strikes.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Excuse me. Exactly what type of practice do you want?

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I’m not sure yet. I’ll be working for a big general practice firm this summer, so I hope to sample some different practice areas to see which I like best.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM

I’m not sure yet. I’ll be working for a big general practice firm this summer, so I hope to sample some different practice areas to see which I like best.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Unlike your past claims of following John Edwards’ claim to fame?

How about a firm like Proskauer Rose?

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Unlike your past claims of following John Edwards’ claim to fame?

Never said that, either. I’ve never been much of a fan of him.

You’d do well to distinguish what other people here say I’ve said, from what I’ve actually said. There’s often a pretty large gap between the two.

How about a firm like Proskauer Rose?

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 10:23 PM

In general I’m not a huge fan of them (they’ve had some hefty layoffs, and they’ve deferred start dates for first-year associates), plus I’m not particularly interested in their major practice areas (sports law and labor law). Obviously they’re a solid firm overall though. If I remember correctly, you have a friend there, right?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Never said that, either. I’ve never been much of a fan of him.

Thanks, for the tip. I will capture all your wonderful thoughts.

If I remember correctly, you have a friend there, right?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I have a friend who made partner after she brought on Donna Karan as a client. Proskauer Rose is a very solid, international law firm, but you should wish for lawyers r us. It is the best you will obtaihn. You are a wannabe….

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Ugh, no. They originally planned to locate the work in WA, but after negotiating with the union, they chose to transfer it to SC (and the quotes indicate they did so based on anti-union animus).

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

They made a business decision to expand in a cheaper right 2 work state. That is not illegal, it is called the free market, and the union complaint is not proof of any wrong doing by Boeing. At least it shouldn’t be proof to any fair minded person.

Daemonocracy on May 3, 2011 at 10:53 PM

I have a friend who made partner after she brought on Donna Karan as a client. Proskauer Rose is a very solid, international law firm

Yep.

, but you should wish for lawyers r us. It is the best you will obtaihn. You are a wannabe….

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Lol, ok.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Nicely done, ladyingray.

For instance, as any real lawyer or individual who actually understands labor law will tell you, crr6′s claim that companies and individuals cannot file unfair labor practices is patently false and uninformed. Both Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin make it possible for companies to enforce rules and file ULPs against corrupt unions which threaten businesses with sabotage and destruction of equipment, such as the ones threatening Boeing, and for employees to resist the demands of union management to fund their corrupt and destructive behavior by also filing ULPs.

You did well to draw out crr6′s unfamiliarity with actual labor law. Crr6 is following the ubiquitous talking points of union organizers, who chant “NLRA, NLRA, NLRA” over and over again, without acknowledging the rights given to employers and employees against corrupt unions, such as those who employ shills like crr6, by subsequent laws. For some reason, hustlers like crr6 don’t seem to want businesses and employees to know that they don’t have to take abuse, theft, and sabotage by corrupt union heads.

Meanwhile, it’s entertaining to watch crr6 support drunks and child rapists, such as those protected by the New York and Los Angeles teachers unions, as “honest, hardworking Americans”. It shows you the immense stupidity of parasites like crr6, that they can support teachers who rape and molest children while insisting that the business-owning parents of said students be forced out of business.

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Also, one should point out the basic mistake made by the wannabe: the NLRA does not, as crr6 claims, waive the right of the individual to file a lawsuit at any time. Again, this is a union shill argument, one commonly made and repeated in talking points by union leaders and organizers to convince employees that they have no choice but to allow a union to steal their money and harm their employer. Union thugs regularly attack and brutalize employees who speak out against corrupt unions, and union shills like crr6 repeatedly lie to hardworking and honest union members to make said members think that they have waived their rights to sue and act as individuals.

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:11 PM

For instance, as any real lawyer or individual who actually understands labor law will tell you, crr6′s claim that companies and individuals cannot file unfair labor practices is patently false and uninformed. Both Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin make it possible for companies to enforce rules and file ULPs against corrupt unions which threaten businesses with sabotage and destruction of equipment, such as the ones threatening Boeing, and for employees to resist the demands of union management to fund their corrupt and destructive behavior by also filing ULPs.

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Uh….no, that’s incorrect. Obviously a private party can file a charge, but the GC will choose whether to file a complaint and the lawyer prosecuting the ULP will be a staff attorney for the GC from the regional office where the complaint is filed. Like I said, these are publicly enforced rights.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:11 PM

plus I’m not particularly interested in their major practice areas (sports law and labor law). Obviously they’re a solid firm overall though. If I remember correctly, you have a friend there, right?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM

LOL!!! OMG, but OMG, LOL!!!!!!!

I have a friend who is a partner, wannabe!

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM

LOL!!! OMG, but OMG, LOL!!!!!!!

I have a friend who is a partner, wannabe!

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM

So you’re bragging about having a friend who’s a partner at a large firm, whereas I’m actually working at a large firm this summer.

And yet I’m the wannabe.

LOL.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:11 PM

You can join ladyingray in the dunce corner.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

plus I’m not particularly interested in their major practice areas (sports law and labor law). Obviously they’re a solid firm overall though. If I remember correctly, you have a friend there, right?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I have a friend that is a partner. (Mouth water, much?)

You, being a ‘tier 1′ law school student understands the impact that the affect that his/her actons brings to all the other international partners, correct?

LOL!!!

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Uh….no, that’s incorrect. Obviously a private party can file a charge

Which you previously claimed COULD NOT HAPPEN.

Lie number one exposed. Wannabe has obviously never been involved in or exposed to actual labor law in any capacity other than as a union shill.

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:19 PM

So you’re bragging about having a friend who’s a partner at a large firm, whereas I’m actually working at a large firm this summer.

And yet I’m the wannabe.

LOL.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Yeah, you’re working as a damn secretary.

Too bad you can’t prove anything more.

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Which you previously claimed COULD NOT HAPPEN.

…where?

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:22 PM

I wouldn’t even go that far, ladyingray. Does anything Wannabe write indicate that it’s anything more than a liar? A law firm can’t afford people like Wannabe who make things up and then tries to lie about it. With Wannabe’s background and obvious lack of people skills and honesty, who would want it anywhere near their sensitive papers, or to be dependent on it to make sure things are correctly copied and delivered?

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Right up above, dearie. Why? Aren’t you proud of what you’ve written previously? Won’t you stand up for what you say?

Face it, little wannabe, you were caught and called out. Why not learn from the experience and acknowledge that you were wrong, rather than stamping your feet like a stubborn child.

Perhaps if you bother to actually get an education, you might be able to begin to understand law. Unfortunately for you, though, you’ll have to overcome the ideology that has left you essentially functionally retarded, given that you believe that the law supports and endorses sabotage and brutalization of employees and businesses by corrupt unions.

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:27 PM

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Excellent point!

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:29 PM

So you’re bragging about having a friend who’s a partner at a large firm, whereas I’m actually working at a large firm this summer.

And yet I’m the wannabe.

LOL.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

My friend who is a partner at Proskaur Rose is a labor attorney….

Yeah….

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Oh, it gets better, ladyingray.

For example, we can see another one of Wannabe’s friends talking about how unions and union organizers deliberately file false charges to drive companies out of business.

Isn’t that interesting? Wannabe insists that all charges are true, but then this union organizer, clearly someone from whom Wannabe takes direction, admits that unions file false charges, such as the one against Boeing, all the time to punish and harm businesses.

Wannabe supports destruction and sabotage of businesses. This couldn’t be clearer. Worse, Wannabe lies to employees of these businesses, supporting the union thugs who brutalize and attack them and try to destroy their jobs.

northdallasthirty on May 3, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Oh, it gets better, ladyingray.

Yeah, I have bookmarked this thread for proof that crrr is nothing more than a wannabe

*snicker*

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Right up above, dearie. Why? Aren’t you proud of what you’ve written previously? Won’t you stand up for what you say?

Of course I’ll stand by it, it was completely accurate. There’s no private right of action for ULP’s in the NLRA. The GC office decides whether to file a complaint, and has total control over the prosecution.

Face it, little wannabe, you were caught and called out.

Caught with what? Seriously, where was I wrong?

My friend who is a partner at Proskaur Rose is a labor attorney….

That’s special.

Yeah….

ladyingray on May 3, 2011 at 11:31 PM

…yeah. What’s your point?

crr6 on May 4, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Of course I’ll stand by it, it was completely accurate. There’s no private right of action for ULP’s in the NLRA. The GC office decides whether to file a complaint, and has total control over the prosecution.

Wow, that’s not true at all. You really know nothing about the law, do you?

I’m amazed at how little you know but how much you claim to know. It’s sad.

Monkeytoe on May 4, 2011 at 6:14 AM

So you’re bragging about having a friend who’s a partner at a large firm, whereas I’m actually working at a large firm this summer.

And yet I’m the wannabe.

LOL.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Being a file clerk really doesn’t count for much. I’m not sure which “large firm” hires law school students for the summer between their 5th and 6th year.

Your constant claim to be some kind of scholar as evidence of you knowing what your are talking about is laughable. Particularly when it is belied by what you say, which demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.

I like how you claim to be an expert on every area of law by virtue of being a law student. I honestly didn’t know anyone at law school who was that ridiculous. Everyone thought they were pretty big stuff on the constitution or maybe 1 other area, but you seem to believe your regurgitating what your professors told you makes you an expert on every area of law. You really are pathetic.

And again, I don’t believe you actually go to law school. You likely work for some liberal outfit funded by soros, are a graduate of a 3rd tier school, and your job is to troll all day and make stupid arguments in favor of everything marxist.

Your comments certainly don’t indicate a first rate legal education or a first rate legal mind, so you cannot be what you claim.

Monkeytoe on May 4, 2011 at 6:19 AM

crr6,

I guess I would need to see a transcript of the interview referenced since

March 2, 2010, by Albaugh in a video-taped interview with a Seattle Times reporter, stated that Respondent decided to locate its 787 Dreamliner second line in South Carolina because of past Unit strikes, and threatened the loss of future Unit work opportunities because of such strikes.

doesn’t sound like something anyone sane would have said knowing anything about how things work. It is also a statement about what was said, not what was actually said or even a quote of what was said. So we still have no evidence that there was any animus only the assertion of it.

Of course if what he said was,”production time lost to those mother-xxxxxxx union bastiles cost us billions” I would have another opinion.

OBQuiet on May 4, 2011 at 9:08 AM

…yeah. What’s your point?

crr6 on May 4, 2011 at 12:24 AM

That you’re an idiot…and a wannabe…and I have never claimed to be a lawyer because I’m not one. I have several friends who are, including a JAG, but I’m not one.

And neither are you, wannabe…and you won’t ever be one.

ladyingray on May 4, 2011 at 9:16 AM

I have to say I think the level of discourse is dropping rapidly.

I also disagree with crr6′s views on most everything. And do not put much stock in most of the arguments she(?) presents. But there really is no reason to attack on the basis of professional qualification. Even at some legal sites, there seems to be reasonable disagreement about the exact state of the law on this.

I and probably most here feel that there SHOULD be no issue, that doesn’t mean that the courts and Congress haven’t managed to create one. This may just be another example of out of control government and a case where, as Mr Bumble put it, “The law is a ass — a idiot.”

I would add that a former head of the NLRB has also said, rightly or wrongly, that this is without precedent. So while an appeal to authority is no substitute for an actual argument, it does explain most of the lists doubts about the existence of one where none has been presented.

OBQuiet on May 4, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Wow, that’s not true at all.

Monkeytoe on May 4, 2011 at 6:14 AM

Yes…it is.

A second element contributing to the Board’s autonomy and
isolation stems from the absence of a private right of action under the NLRA. Virtually every major employee rights statute enacted by Congress accords workers a right of access to federal court on their own behalf. Employees generally are given the right to sue without serious restriction, although in some instances this right may be eclipsed when the agency brings an appropriate action in court. By contrast, the NLRA places enforcement authority entirely in the hands of the Board: adjudication is administrative rather than judicial, and the aggrieved party has very little ability to alter or contest the General Counsel’s prosecutorial discretion.

soooo…you were saying?

crr6 on May 4, 2011 at 11:03 AM

NLRB is a government oxymoron. What are Labor Relations anyway? Is it a tryst that causes divorce between union members or a group of grown adults that think their union is better than all the others.

Or are they the group of Union experts that know who works best with each other the best.

Basically, they are nothing more than the latter. So why is there so much infighting between unions in government jobs?

MSGTAS on May 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I and probably most here feel that there SHOULD be no issue, that doesn’t mean that the courts and Congress haven’t managed to create one. This may just be another example of out of control government and a case where, as Mr Bumble put it, “The law is a ass — a idiot.”

OBQuiet on May 4, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Right, as I said above, I think that’s the root of the problem in this thread (confusing the question of what the law should be with the question of what the law is).

crr6 on May 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Being a file clerk really doesn’t count for much. I’m not sure which “large firm” hires law school students for the summer between their 5th and 6th year.

Moneytoe,

You’ve repeatedly asserted I’m in my 5th or 6th year of law school. I’m really curious as to where you’ve gotten that idea from. I started in the fall of 2009, and I never claimed to be a law student prior to then. In fact, here’s the first post where I mentioned I’m a law student:

I wouldn’t claim to be an expert but I am a law student.

crr6 on October 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I suggest that you find a post prior to the fall of 2009 where I claim to be a law student (a google search should suffice) or you admit that you’re wrong and/or lying.

Thanks in advance.

Your constant claim to be some kind of scholar as evidence of you knowing what your are talking about is laughable. Particularly when it is belied by what you say, which demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.

What have I said that’s incorrect in this thread? Your claims that I’m ignorant are belied by your failure to point out a single incorrect statement.

In fact, you’re the one who seems unable to understand basic concepts of labor law (for e.g. how anti-union animus can make otherwise lawful conduct unlawful). Whenever we have these debates you make more and more basic mistakes and I find it harder and harder to believe you’re an attorney.

I like how you claim to be an expert on every area of law by virtue of being a law student.

I’ve never claimed to be an expert (look at my post from 2009). That’s another lie from you.

And again, I don’t believe you actually go to law school. You likely work for some liberal outfit funded by soros, are a graduate of a 3rd tier school, and your job is to troll all day and make stupid arguments in favor of everything marxist.

Your comments certainly don’t indicate a first rate legal education or a first rate legal mind, so you cannot be what you claim.

Monkeytoe on May 4, 2011 at 6:19 AM

Hey, that’s fine if you think that. I think you’re pretty stupid too. I guess the difference is, I wouldn’t expect you to have a first-rate legal mind, since you attended a toilet “law center” for your legal education.

crr6 on May 4, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Law students, attorneys, well, they are like anything else.
Some are good at what they do , some mediocre, & some are bad at it.
If the measure of success of an attorney is how much they obfuscate the issue to destroy whatever is in their path, I do not consider that a good attorney.
If a measure of success of an attorney is to nitpick & look for technicalities & twist things in the wind to make an argument, I do not consider that a good attorney, unlesxs, of course, I committed murder & it gets me off.
But they still are not good.
Now I would imagine that this oath is probably pretty similar in the US, or is it THE oath all lawyers take?

Attorneys Oath of Office

“I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; that I will do no falsehood, or consent that any be done in court and if I know of any I will give knowledge thereof of the judges of the court, or some one of them, that it may be reformed; I will not wittingly, willingly or knowingly promote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no person for lucre or malice, but will act in the office of attorney according to my best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to my client, so help me God.”

Of course words mean so little any more in this day & age.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM

And I would also add that if you are good or even decent in your field of expertise, whatever it may be, it is usually pretty easy to spot an idiot a mile away.
I’ve had this experience many times over.
For instance, someone telling me I don’t know anything about horses bcs I don’t call a piece of tack by its certain correct name.
Therefore I know nothing about horses.
Or someone who spouts book knowledge about the calving out of heifers vs cows, certain range management techniques etc.
It’s easy to spot a poser when you are familiar with the field.
I am no lawyer.
But based on the quality of your arguments crr6, I do not have to be one to know you are full of it.
I smell the cow $hit in the wind.
It’s coming from you.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Right, as I said above, I think that’s the root of the problem in this thread (confusing the question of what the law should be with the question of what the law is).

crr6 on May 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM

No, the root of the problem in this thread is that you stated that Boeing was guilty of ULP because of the complaint.

You said the complaint prooved guilt.

Vince on May 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Are you kidding me? They said over and over again that they’re doing it because of the strikes.

crr6 on May 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Thought crimes coming to CORP. law now. The facts do not matter, reality does not matter, what they were thinking matters! CORP hate crimes based on how we interrupt what CEO’s say.

IowaWoman on May 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Since we’re talking government corruption:

Friction Grows Between Lawmakers and DOJ Over ‘Project Gunrunner’ Probe

Friction is growing over the probe into the failed “Project Gunrunner” program — run by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms that intended to stop the flow of guns to criminals in Mexico. Whistleblowers claim the bureau actually encouraged the illegal sale of firearms to known criminals, then allowed those guns to be smuggled to Mexico and tracked.

On Tuesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) went after Attorney General Eric Holder for refusing to answer questions and subpoenas for documents that implicate who approved the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives project that allowed guns purchased illegally in U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico on behalf of the drug cartels with the knowledge and consent of the ATF.

Insert witty screen name here on May 4, 2011 at 9:21 PM

More on ‘Gunwalker’:

Author of study quoted by anti-gun groups changes story, implicates ‘Gunwalker’

By Kurt Hofmann St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

And now, Goodman’s new study (pdf file) is available.

In some cases, ATF has received information on the same firearm up to five times as Mexican police, a crime lab, the military, and the Attorney General’s office all write down information on the same firearm, and the individual in the Attorney General’s office in Mexico City submits trace requests on all of them.

That’s just one of the many problems cited in Goodman’s new report, with the credibility of the numbers of recovered Mexican “crime guns.”

Goodman also talks about all the firepower coming from south of Mexico (something we most recently discussed here):

Finally, Goodman also refers to “Project Gunwalker,” describing it as “perhaps the most worrying” problem:

Perhaps the most worrying from the Mexican government’s point of view, however, is ATF’s Fast and Furious Operation based out of Phoenix, Arizona, which reportedly allowed hundreds of firearms to be sold to potentially known traffickers as a way to build more attractive cases for U.S. Attorneys and ATF did not notify Mexican authorities.

Insert witty screen name here on May 4, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Finally, the Result of the corruption:

(Outdoorlife.com)
Rifle Sale Reporting Requirement Reintroduced for Border States

The Obama administration on April 29 announced it will seek another round of comments on its proposal to require gun dealers in four states on the U.S.-Mexico border to report the sale of multiple rifles.

The reporting requirement is a bid to curb the flow of guns into Mexico, where drug cartels are at war. The ATF maintains guns purchased in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California are fueling the violence.

Second Amendment advocates see the requirement as a ruse by the Obama administration to use the violence in Mexico as a pretext to clamp down on gun sales — especially in the wake of revelations that the agency itself was orchestrating illegal gun sales as part of its ‘Project Gunrunner’ fiasco.

Insert witty screen name here on May 4, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Lets’ see, the Union sues Boeing through the good offices of a bought and paid for government.

Nice to have friends in high places, huh?

Galt2009 on May 4, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4