Obama pick for NLRB was top lawyer for union tainted by mob ties, history of corruption
By Doug McKelway
Published June 22, 2012


The rap sheet for members of the International Union of Operating Engineers reads like something out of "Goodfellas."

Embezzlement. Wire fraud. Bribery. That's just scratching the surface of crimes committed by the IUOE ranks. And it is from this union that President Obama earlier this year picked one of his latest appointees to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency tasked with resolving labor disputes between unions and management.

That recess appointee, Richard Griffin, was former general counsel for the 400,000-member union of heavy equipment operators -- a union tainted over the years by mob connections and a history of corruption.

Public documents obtained by Fox News show that more than 60 IUOE members have been arrested, indicted or jailed in the last decade on charges that include labor racketeering, extortion, criminal enterprise, bodily harm and workplace sabotage.

In some of the more egregious examples, federal prosecutors alleged in February 2003 that the Genovese and Colombo crime families wrested control of two IUOE locals, and stole $3.6 million from major New York area construction projects -- including the Museum of Modern Art and minor league baseball stadiums for the Yankees and Mets in Staten and Coney Islands.

Congress and the American public may never know whether Griffin's fiduciary responsibilities as general counsel were compromised by the avalanche of arrests, indictments and prosecutions of IUOE members. Griffin did not respond to Fox News' request for an interview. Before joining the NLRB, he served in various positions at the IUOE dating back to 1983.

But records indicate he did not take an active role in representing any of the accused union members in criminal matters while he was general counsel for the union.

In at least one case during Griffin's tenure, the IUOE national headquarters placed a local that had run afoul of the law into trusteeship. But it remains unclear what other firewalls, if any, Griffin erected to separate the national union from its corrupt locals, or how he dealt with individual local union members who were in legal trouble.

On April 9, 2008, a dozen high-ranking members of an IUOE local in Buffalo, N.Y., were arrested for damaging more than 40 pieces of heavy machinery at construction sites where non-union workers were hired. They poured sand into oil systems, and cut tires and fuel lines. They also ran the license plate numbers of victims through a state database to get personal information including the names and addresses of victims' wives.

Among the individual union members and associates prosecuted in various investigations were:

Andrew Merola, a high-ranking member of the Gambino crime family who, in 2010, admitted to committing nine different acts of racketeering, including wire fraud involving a no-show/low-show job he got as an operating engineer for local 825 of the IUOE.

James Roemer, a former treasurer of Operating Engineers local 14, who was sentenced in September 2003 to 41 months imprisonment and ordered to pay $2.7 million in restitution for conspiracy to fraudulently receive unlawful labor payments.

Joel Waverly Cacace, Sr. The imprisoned acting boss of the Colombo crime family conspired with IUOE members to get a paid no-show construction job for his son, Jo-Jo Cacace, Jr. The senior Cacace was sent to prison in February 2003 for 20 years. The three-year investigation that sent him to jail also produced more than 24 other convictions.

Former U.S. Attorney and present New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie prosecuted some of the IUOE criminal cases. In one of Christie's prosecutions, Kenneth Campbell, the former business manager of local 825 of the IUOE, pleaded guilty to embezzling $200,000 from his union and taking bribes from contractors to buy high-end electronics and a Lincoln Town Car for his father, a retired IUOE member.

Then-U.S. Attorney Christie, said, "Campbell and his cronies were simply corrupt. They treated local 825 like a piggy bank at will to treat themselves to luxuries at the expense of dues-paying members they ripped off."

Because he was recess appointed, Richard Griffin, Jr., underwent no congressional scrutiny before he was sworn in on Jan. 9 of this year.

At the time of his recess appointment, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told the Wall Street Journal he was, "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision to "avoid the constitutionally mandated Senate confirmation process." He said that two of three nominees for the NLRB, including Griffin, were submitted to the Senate on Dec. 15, just before the Senate was to adjourn, allowing only a day to review the nominees.

Griffin has been an advocate for enhanced NLRB power for decades.

In 1988 testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Employer/Employee relations, Griffin, who was then serving on the Board of Trustees of IUOE's Central Pension Fund, argued for more power for the NLRB to fine companies without a court order to enforce its rulings. He also argued against legislation that would have forced the NLRB and the Department of Labor to pay the legal costs for small businesses who won in court against unions.

Griffin's tenure on the NLRB will be longer than most recess appointees. The president delayed his appointment by one day until the start of a new congressional session -- effectively doubling to two years his stay. Recess appointments last until the end of the Senate's next session -- meaning Griffin will sit on the NLRB until December 2013.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/...-criminal-past/

Great article by the NYTImes on the Generation Gap, I HIGHLY suggest you read it. Here is a snippet:

Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, younger and older adults voted in largely similar ways, with a majority of each supporting the winner in every presidential election. Sometime around 2004, though, older voters began moving right, while younger voters shifted left.

Beyond political parties, the two have different views on many of the biggest questions before the country. The young not only favor gay marriage and school funding more strongly; they are also notably less religious, more positive toward immigrants, less hostile to Social Security cuts and military cuts and more optimistic about the country’s future. They are both more open to change and more confident that life in the United States will remain good.

Their optimism is especially striking in the context of their economic troubles. Older Americans have obviously suffered in recent years, with many now fearing a significantly diminished retirement. But the economic slump of the last decade — a mediocre expansion, followed by a terrible downturn — has still taken a much higher toll on the young. Less established in their working lives, they have struggled to get hired and to hold on to jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/the-generation-gap-is-back.html

You can chalk much of that up to the naivete of youth. And people wonder why things are going to crap.

I previously mentioned that the Pennsylvania GOP State House reps passed legislation requiring all voters to show a driver's license or other state-issued photo IDs in order to vote. They claimed it was to prevent voter fraud although there've been no substantiated complaints of voter fraud in decades.

Well, a GOP rep, Mike Turzai addressed a local county Republican meeting of committeepersons and listed the GOP accomplishments, including the ID requirement, which he boasted, "will ensure that Mitt Romney will be the next president of the US-done."

The thin, transparent curtain has been pulled wide open.

My 98 year old grandmother has not had a driver's license for more than a decade. She's been told that in order to vote she has to apply and purchase an original birth certificate from the Dept. of Vital Statistics, schedule a photo date at PennDOT, and then go there and purchase an ID card. She won't do it because been voting at the same place, twice a year for the past 75+ years. She says there's no way in hell they're going to stop her.

Good for her! I hope she makes headlines, Klyd!

Looks like the Republicans REALLY want to win Pennsylvania.

PA has been a Blue State since 1988. The PA House first gerrymandered the Congressional districts to protect Republican congressmen and jeopardize the Democrats. My present congressional district is a selection of several contiguous counties, connected by a thin strip stretching 85 miles northeast to another block. Then they tried to change our electoral apportionment, so that the electoral votes would be divided by determining which candidate won which district. If Obama would garner the same votes he received in '08, he'd win a solid majority of the votes, but he'd lose a majority of the electoral votes.

Fortunately this was shot down.

Also, our Governor Tom Corbett, who as Attorney General refused to investigate Jerry Sandusky's organization, Second Mile, told his State GOP committees that to win his 2010 election, he needed to keep voter turnout down at 50% to insure victory. They see this as the master plan for a possible Romney victory in November.

PA's unemployment rate edged up to 7.4%. It could be tough to go Democratic.

Obama's leads here have been pretty steady, but as you know, that can change. We've been getting a solid stream of Romney tv and radio ads over the past month. Only a few so far for Obama.

Latest stats I've heard is that, thanks to Citizens United and Monday's Montana case, Romney is projected to outspend Barry by ten to one.

Ten... to... one.

I was pretty confident until I saw that. I can't imagine Mitt making a good impression on anyone during the debates. Barry'll eat his lunch for him there. But if you're talking about outspending your opponent by ten to one, it's tough to feel good about the outcome.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed Obama and the Republican presidential candidate in a dead heat nationally.

Obama was pulling 47 percent, to Romney's 44 percent -- the president's lead fell well within the poll's 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

Still, the poll showed Obama leading 50-42 percent among swing-state residents. The survey interviewed residents in Ohio, Florida and 10 other swing states.

That state of play was echoed in a Quinnipiac University poll of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The poll showed Obama leading 47 percent to Romney's 38 percent in Ohio, and 45-39 percent in Pennsylvania. Obama was holding onto a narrower lead in Florida, edging out Romney 45 percent to 41 percent


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/.../#ixzz1z2fSkbKA

It is estimated that there are presently 750,000 Pennsylvanians, who are registered to vote, but lack a state-issued photo ID needed to vote in the upcoming election under the new voter ID law.

Kly, that seems so unfair. Since most people are not political "geeks", there's a good chance many don't know of this new law. Were these people at least sent anything notifying them of the new procedure? Plus, I wonder how many vote by mail (as I do). They simply won't send a ballot or what? Lots of potential trouble if you ask me. Like the 90 something old lady in Tennessee that had been voting all her life and was told she needed a birth certificate.

TIS

Those fundraising numbers are troubling, any idea how many debates there will be and when they will air?

While I imagine most on here would already have their personal opinion of the results in hand well before the debate even aired, why are you so sure Obama would eat Romney for lunch in them?

I'm not from the us but you're elections always make me interested. So Romney or Obama?

October 3,16,27.

Well im going by Romney's previous debate performances. I cant even begin to count all the articles, debate coverage that I watched which lamented his performance(s).

I was so used to all these GOP debates, I am dissapointed we have to wait until October to see these guys go at it. I enjoy the back and forth shots candidates throw at each other.

This time, it's personal....
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ys-skin/259596/

OK, which one of you did it?

http://wtvr.com/2012/07/09/alternator-belt-cut-on-romney-bus-at-henrico-gun-show/

The Pep Boys.

Havent passed these on here in a while, enjoy:

While the overall hypocritical and contradictive point stands, I don't know how you can post that, Dapper. Considering the lashings Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton gave each other during the Democratic primaries. Only to later have Obama make one his VP and the other his Secretary of State; and them accept the positions despite the reservations they said they had about him being President. Or did you just forget about that?

Although Clinton went a bit dirty (the 3 a.m. clip), I don't think you will find anything from Obama's side against her. He continually praised her for everything she had done. When he had lost the primaries in New Hampshire, he started his "Yes we can"-speech with the following words:
"Well, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard-fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job. Give her a big round of applause."

I find his campaign this year much more aggressive than 4 years ago.

I posted it because it has some valid points, obcourse I didnt forget the Democratic primaries. It was common knowledge that Biden didnt have a real shot and he just stayed in as an "audition" for a spot in the administration. Hillary swallowed her pride (she didnt really want to be in the admin) to accept a position cause the Obama people wanted to unify the entire party and bring over the Clinton backers to his side.

I dont know about you, but I just dont see Santorum being Secretary of _______ or Gingrich being in the cabinet even if Romney wins. The attacks and things these guys said to each other was much worse than anything the Dems ever said to each other during that primary.

Let the revelations begin...

Republican candidate Mitt Romney was listed as the chairman and CEO of Bain Capital on certain government documents years after 1999, when he ostensibly left the private equity firm, The Boston Globe reports.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election...ticle-1.1112875

The point still stand that, if Clinton had such reservations about Obama being President during the primaries, why then hitch her wagon to his star afterward? Where did those reservations go?



My point, like I mentioned above, is that these politicians (from whatever party) look foolish when they express all these reservations about their opponent during a primary, only then to do a total 180 and fully support their previous opponent. And they do it simply to support "the party."

And that's what this is really all about. The same old partisanship as usual. Which I see A LOT of on this board. Which is why I'll continue to hold people's feet to the fire when I see it.

Your absolutely right Wiseguy, we are all pretty intelligent to notice the same old partisanship at work. I was just sharing that funny pic.

Just saw Romney on CNN interviewed by Joe Acosta. Romney said he released his 2010 tax return and an estimate for 2011, but that was it. He won't release any other year's returns.

Bill Clinton was criticizing Romney for this. Presidential candidates have always released several tax returns for successive years. His failure to do so invites an inference that he's hiding something. I think Romney will have to release his returns, especially for 1999 through 2002 when he claims he was no longer with Bain. The sooner he can address this, the sooner he might be able to get past this.