Another Legal Theory?

   Yep, everyone's favorite "World's Greatest Labor Attorney" is at it again, creating "theories" to disenfrancise the membership and make it easier for the UTU Hierachy to disavow any responsibility and/or accountability for virtually anything that happens! Everybody . . . .,  and I do   mean "everybody" is familar with the theory "shit happens"; particularly those of us on the railroad or those of us with prior "military" experience.

    But few, if any, are familar with the theory that WHEN "shit happens" and someone wants to fess up and make restitution, YOU may not be allowed to admit your guilt or . . ., OR be "allowed" to make restitution!  YOU may learn as I have in the past, and now currently, that admissions of "guilt" are not conducive to the UTU, to the Carrier, and to the "unified defense" these politically and financially powerful entities have always used to destroy the members attempts under normal "Duty of Fair Representation" cases!

    With over 100 hits within the last 24 hours on this normally docile web page (averages 10 hits a day), it is apparent maybe the Purdy site or the UPRR site have posted something?  I don't know as I have lost contact with both those sites for the last 4 or 5 months (anybody send me a link to leruck@elp.rr.com would be appreciated?), but apparently somebody is now interested in what I have to say?   Unfortunate that I had to be sued to get somebody's attention and unfortunate that I couldn't rectify the matter "in house" as I desired, but that's life; suffice to say I didn't do it deliberately to make a point, I just went through a period of despondency wherein I had no faith in the system and no desire to participate anymore!   My mistake was that I hurt the ones I represented and when I realized it and tried to correct it, I was rebuffed by the alleged "conscious" of BNSF (haha).  Now, I am apparently to be rebuffed by the ingenious "legal theory" of Clinton J. Miller, III (aka Monty Hall)? 

As I have yet to get the scanner to work (cheaper to buy another one and try again than get a computer nerd in here for a "home" visit), here is my response to Monty's latest legal theory, to wit:

"Please find enclosed a copy of subject action served this date on the United Transportation Union ("UTU"). While my office (with local counsel) will be representing UTU in this action, and will assert defenses indicating no liability to UTU, it appears from the action (and its exhibits) that you are not aligned in interest with UTU in that regard. Therefore, my office will not be representing you in this action." (obviously taken from News)

My response, mailed to the esteemed General Counsel this date, with copy to Mssgrs. Rose and Crosby was:

February 18, 2003

Mr. Clinton J. Miller, III

General Counsel, UTU

14600 Detroit Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44107-4250

Re: Harris, et al. v Ruck, et al.  W.D. Tex., El Paso Div., No. EP03CA0041

Certified Mail - RRR - 7000 0600 0024 6529 2351

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am in receipt of your February 7, 2003 which contained a copy of the above referenced action that had previously been served on me on February 8, 2003. Suffice to say that while your "theory" of asserting defenses indicating no liability to UTU is interesting, the clear and unambiguous language of 29 U.S.C. § 185(b) indicates a waste of the members money, to wit:

"(b) Responsibility for acts of agent; entity for purposes of suit; enforcement of money judgments

Any labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter and any employer whose activities affect commerce as defined in this chapter shall be bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment against a labor organization in a district court of the United States shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual member or his assets." (Emphasis Mine)

By copy of this letter to the appropriate BNSF Officers, this matter could easily be concluded with a Letter of Understanding between the highest designated officer of the Carrier and General Chairperson Huston to handle these claims in the "usual manner" waiving any time limit violations. If such were to occur immediately, I would be willing to pay the Plaintiff’s legal fees upon dismissal of the case, leaving the BNSF to ultimately pay those claims determined to be valid through the usual claims handling procedures.

As mentioned before, I have nothing but contempt for your theories that seek to nullify well established legal precedent at the expense of the members.

Sincerely yours,

Lance E. Ruck

cc: Mr. Mathew K. Rose

Mr. Gary L. Crosby

El Paso Express

   Suffice to say that those addressed and copied won't even receive their written copies until probably Thursday?  I know they don't read the "Express" on a day to day basis!  I'll probably file my "pro se" response with the Court this Friday, the same day I place the entire record of this matter here ! I am working on the final portions of advice to "all concerned" about how you avoid this in the future  or push the issue to conclusion, as the case may require!