More Clint Babble?

   Yes, UTU's General Counsel, Clinton J. Miller, III, aka "Monty (let's make a deal) Hall"; "world's greatest labor attorney"; a "real" attorney; Clint "minor dispute" Miller; etc.,  is at it again with more "babble", this time in the form of a "Declaration" for tomorrow's (Monday - 9/17/01) Preliminary Injunction Hearing in front of the Honorable Judge Ann Aldrich in Cleveland.  Don't know what "babble" is or why this is entitled "More" then just click here (Clint Babble)!

    My index shows that article was placed on this site on 1 - 15 - 01! Monty's current "Declaration"  is a curious hodge-podge of partial facts that concludes only UTU (hiearachy) can determine what is "fair" and if such view is rejected by the Court, the only alternative is ". . . an extremely expensive and time-consuming process for the UTU, BLE, and NMB."????

Judge Aldrich:  Mr. Miller, if the current vote is not allowed, why would UTU "immediately file the application on KCS with the NMB"? 

Monty:  Ah . . . , cause that's what Byron told me to tell you!

Judge Aldrich:  Wouldn't it make more sense to address the member's concerns with the UAC and allow for an informed vote in the future?

Monty:  NO . . ., once the membership truly knows all the facts and realizes how detrimental this is to their rights for the next 10 or 15 years, we won't have a chance of passing it!  Your Honor, with all due respect, we've tricked them fair and square, denied them access to opposition ideas, and rushed the vote in order to prevent the BLE members from being able to exercise their rights under their Consitution; We shouldn't be penalized for that.  Ah . . ., did I mention we have full support from the Carrier's Conference and the Bush Administration?

Judge Aldrich: Why would this be "extremely expensive" for the NMB if they simply denied the dispute on KCS under the well established pricipals of the UP Panel?  

Monty:  Your Honor, 4 federal judges have ruled there is a likelihood . . (Rambo- pssst - Clint, wrong case!) Ah . . . , I meant to say your honor that NMB had already found in Tex Mex, Terminal RR of STL and

Judge Aldrich:  Aren't those what are referred to as "short lines"?   Yes or No, Mr. Miller or I will find you in contempt!

Monty: Yes, Your Honor!

Judge Aldrich:  And didn't the UP Panel decision make it clear there is little "cross utilization" on the nation's Class I Carrier's?

Monty: Yes Your Honor!

Judge Aldrich:  Move on then, Mr. Miller.

Monty: Ah . . ., did I tell you the National Carrier's Conference and the Bush administration both support "one strong voice in the Railroad Industry", i.e., the "POWER OF ONE"?

JA:  Yes, Mr. Miller, numerous times in chambers!

Sic em, Clint - kick'in some butt now?  Reminds me of when Judge Pratt gave you your lesson on Trust Law - "yes, your honor"! So tell me Monty, why did you put that quote in # 4.  concerning section 2, 11th, (c)?  You lost your senses or perhaps you're not a "real attorney"?

Judge Aldrich:  Mr. Miller, if you have one Union, would members still have an ability to change memberships from one organization to another organization consistent with federal law?

Monty:  No, Your Honor.

Judge Aldrich:  Mr. Miller, surely it isn't you position that the UTU and BLE can agree to something that negates current federal law? I thought only the Legislative Branch could change federal laws

Monty: Well no, Your Honor and of course the Legislative branch makes the laws . . . ah . . . but the Courts interpret them so that if you allow this vote and we have one union, I, well, I thinks that's OK then.  In fact, Your Honor, it would only be considered a "minor change" much like admitting you had no jurisdiction over . . . let's say a 153(q) case and of course the reason for that is that a minor change in the language and intent of federal law is similar to a "minor dispute" in the context of the RLA, wherein the parties are best suited to make those determinations without interference from the Courts!

Judge Aldrich:  Excuse me? Is that your answer!

Monty: Yes, Your Honor, other than to point out that this "minor change" in the RLA has the full support of the Carrier's Conference and the Bush Administration - did I mention that already?

Monty, Monty, Monty - similar to "USA", "USA", "USA" but not quite the same.  I like item #27 wherein the   Monty clarifies for the Judge that this not a dues increase but rather a $4.50 dues decrease for all BLE members!  Of course he adequately addresses the perceived problem, to wit: "Incident to the implementation of the merger a small minority of BLE members will be required to pay legislative dues to an intermediate body."

Judge Aldrich:  I am aware that dues are paid by dues deductions by the Carriers.   Is is true that the ultimate result on this vote will result in some members paying as much at $12.00 more per month to their Dues?

Monty:  Absolutely Your Honor, but they are a small minority of BLE members and let me give you the extensive case law on the majority's rights to take from the minority under RLA beginning with .

Judge Aldrich: I don't want to hear that . . . , you're talking about caselaw that involves the Unions negotiations of contracts as the exclusive bargaining agent. That's not what we talking about here.  I want to know if the majority has the right to take something from the minority and/or increase overall dues upon a minority inconsistent with federal statutes?

Monty:  Absolutely, Your Honor, and of course this is consistent with our "minor dispute" theory which also goes to the heart of our "minor law" change theory wherein the parties can agree what is best for them without interference from the courts and onerous "minor" federal laws.  Indeed, UTU has been a champion of "minorities" as evidenced by our substantial efforts in Diversity, which are widely reconginzed in union circles as second to none and can be found on our web page!

JA: Baliff, remove this man form my courtroom and get him an immediate mental exam!