It's now precedent, company management and union officers can now interpret statutory law without bargaining in nonjudicial tribunals and determine guilt upon American Workers without trials, without defense council, without juries.

Welcome to the the new world, full of conservative appointments throughout the government and judiciary where high-profile, high-powered Republican lobbyist firms are now impacting government and judicial decisions, siphoning off millions away from American Workers and away from the Democratic Party that was a voice for millions of American Workers. (This coming from the writer who has been a life-long conservative and Republican teamster member).

Discharged at an Unlawful, Non-judicial Tribunal
Discharged, but never arrested or charged in the state of Maryland - yet was found "guilty" of committing a violation of a Maryland state law by a panel committe of corporate/union officers held in the separate state of Virginia who were not prosecutors (attorneys) and admittedly did not know Maryland law.

The Denial of the Constitutional Right to Due Process
This unlawful, non-judicial tribunal was upheld by a federal court that interpreted Maryland statutory law that held no Federal Question, exceeding any and all authority that court held and acting under the "color of law". A federal court holds no jurisdiction to determine whether an individual violated a state law and when it does, and brands that individual as a criminal, it is, what it is, illegal and an abuse of power.

Through the U.S. Maryland District Court, to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, Dan O'Shea was denied the 6th Amendment right to due process -

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Case
On May 13, 2003, Dan O'Shea was discharged from UPS after a 24-year career for using a tape recorder to note delays and verify management instructions. For 15 years he was allowed, with UPS' knowledge, to walk in, and walk out through the security gate with the recorder. Only after a work-related injury did UPS decide he was violating a UPS policy.

What ensued was the usual pattern by UPS targeting an employee who filed a workers compensation injury claim and that employee who attempts to protect his job. It is also the usual pattern by the Teamsters targeting a union member who publicly declares his local union officers aren't representing their members as Dan O'Shea had done for 15 years, repeatedly watching coworkers harassed, intimidated and abused and aided a number of those drivers.

In the discharge, Dan O'Shea was subjected to the normal UPS company policy, which for many UPSers know, is that to UPS, the only policy they truly have is that "there is no permanent policy" only temporal policy that changes daily, even hourly, many times policy is different for some than for the majority. You'll find that Dan O'Shea was subjected to policy that was discriminatory, altered or non-existent (unwritten and unknown until the time he was notified of such 'policy' at the time of his discharge). One could say it is the DAN policy (discriminatory, altered and non-existent).

A three-year chase for a phantom policy ensued by Dan O'Shea. Since UPS never presented a policy at the UPS/Panel hearing and the Teamsters refused to investigate and acquire an alleged policy, Dan O'Shea filed charges with the NLRB. The NLRB stated that after a careful investigation, there was no violation of the "purposes and policies" of the Act (National Labor Relations Act).

The NLRB still refused to show Dan O'Shea the "phantom policy". After a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request and subsequent lawsuit because the NLRB violated law in refusing to reply to O'Shea, it was uncovered that the NLRB had performed no investigation and received no existence of a policy O'Shea was accused of violating. With such disclosure, UPS and the Teamsters finally admitted there was "no policy" even though UPS management committed perjury by declaring in sworn affidavits at the initial panel hearing that Dan O'Shea "violated company policy".

So both UPS and the Teamsters Union then defended their actions by alleging that Dan O'Shea was discharged for violating the "law". UPS' attorney, Richard Hafets of DLA Piper-Rudnick alleged time and again in motions that O'Shea "violated law" despite all absence of due process. (Richard Hafets bio - coincidentally he formerly worked for...the NLRB.)

Maryland never charged Dan O'Shea with a violation of it's laws. Attorney's, neither prosecutors or defense lawyers argued nor defended Dan O'Shea in a finding of guilt in a courtroom "proscribed by law". Corporate management and Teamster officials declared O'Shea guilty by interpreting the law of a state (Maryland) in an unlawful non-judicial tribunal (in Virginia) held far from the district where a violation of law was allegedly committed and that disallowed any attorney representation in their "Rules of Procedure".

Corporate management and Teamsters officials never negotiated policy, but interpreted state statutory law they admitted they did not know during the panel hearing.

A federal court in Maryland allowed these "non-lawyers" to charge, try and convict Dan O'Shea in violation of all due process rights. Not only did the federal court allow it, they interpreted the Maryland law in their decision and in the public decision branded Dan O'Shea a criminal - with no trial, no defense and no jury. (As O'Shea's 4th Circuit briefs and Supreme Court brief will verify, there was no violation of law. The Maryland wiretapping law applies only to "private communications" and the Supreme Court has already determined that work-related communications are not "private communications". But even that is moot, only a criminal trial and jury should make that decision, a trial and jury Dan O'Shea was denied.)

The 4th Circuit ignored Dan O'Shea's pro se appeal and simply found "no reversible error".

The Supreme Court simply denied Dan O'Shea's petition for certiorari - "Petition Denied".

The Assault Upon the American Worker
But the true events are not just about Dan O'Shea. The contents are about how UPS and corporations retaliate not only against individual American workers and their families but of the current conservative assault on common workers rights and how far the government and judicial system is now leaning to benefit big business.

No longer do American workers have the right to due process in state courts, it is now precedent throughout the 4th Circuit, allowed by the Supreme Court, that corporations and unions can hold non-judicial tribunals and without due process, without counsel, without juries and without judges, find American workers guilty of state statutes and terminate them..

There is a violent assault occuring upon the common worker today and their families that is deeply disturbing -

"While terrorists are claiming rights to due process and receiving trials in our country,
while illegal aliens are claiming and receiving medical and social benefits in our country,
the common American worker is being denied government agency and judicial court remedy, and branded as criminals for exercising their due process rights in pursuit of such remedy."

This is only one story of many common everyday workers who are being denied constitutional civil due process rights, government agency remedy, losing their well-earned pension, health and retirement benefits to the interests of big business and union survival as long as the union is under the control of the corporate entity.

Dan O'Shea and his wife Anne were less than 2 years from an earned 25-year and out retirement paid by the Teamsters Union. While UPS saved themselves from a disability claim, the Teamsters saved themselves almost $1 milllion dollars in twenty years of retirement benefits - it was a transaction of convenience with new permission and precedence from government agencies and the federal courts.

Dan O'Shea and his family are not the only ones who have encountered this darker side of Brown and the current climate of the corporate assault upon the common worker, UPS employees live and experience UPS' retaliation every day as do workers from many corporations facing the same assault.

This site receives emails throughout the year of American workers who have workers compensation claims or close to retirement who are told "don't come back until you're fully healed" or are simply and unlawfully terminated.

Even UPS' own internal documents acknowldege they "target" employees who were injured on the job. (UPS' Armegeddon Letter). Note UPS' established "cutback conference calls" especially the final sentence - "Having too many drivers can be more costly than not enough, especially in the area of benefits." Those that are targeted with termination who can even afford an attorney or proceed pro se are stifled with judgments consistently in favor of the large corporations.

It used to be the unions worked for their members who for years faithfully paid their dues. But the unions and NLRB now side against those American workers they for so long shielded from harm and in doing so further weakening the laws and precedents that for a period of time protected them.

This site is not about just one man's, one family's experience of the darker side of Brown, but how the discharge and subsequent court decisions affects not only UPSers, but all workers and their families. Of how it has become a precedent case - that common American workers can be subject to unlawful, non-judicial tribunals, denied the right to counsel and a jury in that tribunal, and declared a criminal by a federal court that has no jurisdiction involving a state law.

Some ask, "Why was there such an attack on Dan O'Shea in this case?"...

...because the ensuing assault was not only on this family.

For UPS' high-paid corporate lobbyists, it was the perfect case. Spend at all costs to set such precedent throughout every level (the internal panel system, the government agency called the NLRB and the judicial system) to establish new precedent against American workers.

In our opinion, Corporate money was no object, many "favors" called in as the case continiued to rise at each level.

Below are the briefs filed by Dan O'Shea with extensive case law supporting his legal position.

Note the decision by the U.S. District Court of Maryland that cited no authority that O'Shea was properly charged, tried and found guilty of a crime in a court of law in Maryland.

Note the brief decision by the 4th Circuit that failed to address Dan O'Shea's legal support. Dan O'Shea then requested a "rehearing en banc", submitted to all of the 4th Circuit judges and each, by refusing to respond, denied due process and allowed the lower court's branding of O'Shea as a criminal absent the fundamental right to respond to criminal charges at a trial or the ability to determine innocence.

There was no "innocent until proven guilty", just simply..."guilty", without trial.

Note, finally, the Supreme Court's Docket Denial (Type in case No. 06-9912). The Supreme Court does remand cases back to an Appeals Court to explain to them how they reached such a decision. In this case, the now-conservative Supreme Court decided to allow precedent that common workers can be branded as a criminal in federal courts without Constitutional due process - the right to be charged, the right to counsel, the right to a trial in a manner proscribed by law and in the district wherein the alleged crime was to have ocurred, and the right to a jury in our land.

Dan O'Shea received stamped copies of his informal brief with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court required him to file a formal brief. Dan O'Shea and his wife reformatted and submitted the formal brief (below) but did not receive stamped copies of the brief. Dan O'Shea requested stamped copies of his formal Supreme Court brief from a Supreme Court clerk, who responded, "We threw them out." Parties always receive stamped copies of their briefs. Why did the Supreme Court believe they needed to destroy Dan O'Shea's formal briefs?

From the firm that represented the Teamsters Union, the officers of the Teamsters Union, the arbitrator in the decision, to the Regional Director of the NLRB, to the General Counsel of the NLRB (appointed by President Bush) and Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa, to the Maryland District Judge on up to his wife who sits on the 4th Circuit, link by link can be made and how they had an association with each other. The link will be shown, the decision will be yours alone to make of how the case worked its way up to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and denied by the Supreme Court that has now set precedent affecting American workers.

Follow the Money and Political Trails
The trail began with Dan O'Shea's discharge in a non-judicial tribunal of UPS and Teamster officials interpreting statutory law against union members called "The Panel", on to a tampered ballot box in the Washington, D.C. Teamster Local 639 union election involving 8,000 members shortly afterwards, leading on to Jimmy Hoffa overturning that same local Teamster election to protect "his own".

After Dan O'Shea's discharge, the local teamster election of officers for the largest union in the Washington D.C. area was just several months away. A new candidate slate was running against the 20-plus year incumbent officers who refused to acquire any so-called policies Dan O'Shea was discharged for. The new slate of officers (Members United Slate) printed up thousands of a 4-page campaign-piece on O'Shea's discharge, informing the 8,000 members of the utter failure of the incumbent officers to represent him.

It was the largest political campaign piece for the MUS slate.

Once the incumbent officers were voted out, the recount involved a tampered box. The incumbents were the ones in control of the ballot box. Hoffa, knowing he was about to lose an International Trustee (John Steger) on the Teamster Board put the local in "trust" and vaulted John Steger back to his position with the local union.

After a rerun election that again defeated the incumbents, the new officers did an about face and decided to fight Dan O'Shea's lawsuit and fully contradicted to the courts what they had told the 8,000 members during their campaign.

The only question that remains in the contradiction is which story was the lie, 1 - the story they published in their campaign material to 8,000 members acknowledging the unjust discharge, or, 2 - the story they told in the courts, that there was no unjust discharge?

The intrigue does not end there.

After any sham panel hearing, no union member has a venue to appeal to any ethics board of the IBT due to the actions of Hoffa. Hoffa "fired" the Teamsters own independent investigating team using members' dues money for his PR campaign to "dirty" the head of that team, Edward Stiers, despite spending over $15 million dollars, by their own accounting, of the members dues money.

Meanwhile, the Government's IRB investigation, continuing now for over more than a decade, allowing the American government to siphon off millions of members' dues money without restraint, further weakening the Teamsters under Hoffa. A NY Times article had the sum of $82 million dollars in 1999, eight long years ago.

How many more millions in dues funds have been redirected from pro-labor, hard working union workers to the interests of big business?

It's a tidy and neat package between the Teamsters and the Government, having Hoffa, a former corporate lawyer, give millions of Teamster members' dues money to the government, denying real money to be directed to benefit hard-working union members through union-supported politicians who would strengthen the rights of union workers.

As an end result, there is no "true" remaining ethics committee. As early as 2001 Hoffa prepared for the extermination of any ethics program within the Teamsters when all mention of any ethics program was deleted in the IBT constitution during the 2001 Teamster Convention. An article quotes in part "In a final blow, all references to the Ethical Practices Committee were struck from the constitution."

The Government's Independant Reveiw Board does not concern itself with the atrocities committed by companies and union officials targeting and assaulting their own members through backdoor "deals" in a corrupt and unlawful tribunal called the "Panel Committees", and in doing so Hoffa is rewarded by being able to target any internal opposition of union members by summarily terminating them at the panel hearings through interpretations of state statutes without due process and upheld by the courts.

The members have no "appeal" to these sham arbitration hearings and committees, especially for those workers who are injured or near retirement. The government agencies and judicial appointments a decade ago that had a slow current of conservative appointments has become a flood, and a high tide of the conservative assault has appeared, ignoring all past precedent, law and constitutional guarantees to American workers. The powers that be have and will protect each others interests. Dan O'Shea's own conservative, Republican paper-trail has run its course.

It took him three years of inquiry, through UPS, the Teamsters, the regional branch of the NLRB in Maryland to Bush's appointed General Counsel of the NLRB, Arthur Rosenfeld (who President Bush has since "awarded" a different appointment), to a Freedom of Information federal action against the NLRB, to a federal lawsuit in Maryland to finally "find out" no policy existed...and neither does constitutional due process for American workers.

Link by Link - Connecting the Dots
The federal court under judge Frederick J. Motz denied its own rules for a scheduling order, a scheduling hearing and any discovery (investigation) even though both defendents (UPS represented by Piper Rudnick) were allowed to engage in their own discovery. It was a violation of all rule of law.

"Earmarks"...directions in legislation that money flow to very specific groups in very specific places for very specific purposes: big presents from Congress to favored constituents, or, in other words, many favors called in when deemed necessary. As an article points out - "What is most interesting is that these "earmarks" are now described as the property of firms like Piper Rudnick--a Republican-oriented lobbying business".

The intrigue moves on.

O'Shea had boxed the defendents into having admit they had negotiated no policy and even introduced evidence that others, similarly-situated employees around the country adhered to the same management instructions without discipline, not so much as a warning notice, O'Shea was summarily discharged for. (Of course all of this has changed with the "earmarks" from Piper Rudnick - what once was unlawful is now precedent, there is no due process in company/union panel hearings or the courts for American workers with respect to discharges - companies can interpret any action by a worker as a violation of law and brand that worker as a criminal).

The unlawful actions continued. Since Dan O'Shea forced the defendents to admit there was no policy (to be able to state no material fact exists), the defendents had to determine a new "strategy" - that Dan O'Shea violated law.

Thus, the federal court unlawfully "interpreted" state statutory law and instead of merely and unlawfully denying Dan O'Shea and his family justice, the new strategy was to use their authority to brand O'Shea as a criminal. Just as the NLRB's investigation was no more than 4 days, the Motz decision in Dan O'Shea's case took all of 2 days, after his summary judgment response was filed, as if the court's opinion had already been written...

...2 days.

Federal opinions take months, not days.

But "exceptions" were the constant norm in this case. Judge Frederick Motz just as quickly approved O'Shea's motion to appeal. The ink of his signature probably wasn't even dry yet as the delivery clerk was still heading out of his chambers - as if knowing the 4th Circuit was awaiting the case, as his wife, Diana Gribbon Motz conveniently sits as an appeals judge to the very court Dan O'Shea was appealling to.

Note a conference showing both Motz' in attendance. Diana Gribbon Motz gave a luncheon speech sponsored by Piper Rudnick, the lobbyist firm representing UPS that was allowed by Judge Motz to engage in discovery with the Teamsters while O'Shea was denied all discovery.

Dan O'Shea and his family were "informed" by an appeals court clerk that his case had one of the most experienced clerks on his case.

That initial comfort was merely a facade.

Eight months later, two weeks before the change in the Federal Rules of Procedure mandating that ALL opinions be "published", the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rushed a one-paragraph, unpublished "affirmed" decision refusing to explain how an American worker can be denied the right to be charged or plead in response, a right to council for defense, a right to a trial by jury and be determined guilty in a federal court, when no federal question existed with respect to that law, denied all proper jurisdiction and branded as a criminal in a public opinion.

One unlawful act compounded upon another by a company, a union, a government agency and the judicial system as they disregarded time after time their own rules, regulations, policies, procedures, precedent, the law and fundamental constitutional rights the government and judiciary are responsible to protect.

Not only did they allow it to happen, they created and continued the assault.

What happened in Dan O'Shea's case was nothing but a brutal assault upon him and his family and continues for many American workers and their families as the rulings set precedent, sanctioned by the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari.   To the right -  Megan's Story

The federal court opinion stated Dan O'Shea's claim of the Constitution's due process clause of the 6th Amendment was "frivolous", upheld by the conservative 4th Circuit and Supreme Court, fueled by one of the largest conservative lobbyist law firms in the country...setting precedent that an American worker's claim for 6th Amendement due process is frivolous.

The purchase power of corporate conservative lobbyists is great indeed...and unrestrained, as the Judicial Branch is accountable to no one yet appears now dependent on both a government and a bloated lobbyist system.

As a former-teamster, I can now in my opinion honestly say that the Teamsters siding with the company in this lawsuit effectively wiped out union-member protections of the National Labor Relations Act.

As a Republican, I can now in my opinion honestly say that the high dollars from big business and their corporate-lobbyists effectively wiped out all constitutional protections of the American worker, union or otherwise.

Now that big business and corporate lobbyists have rendered unions and union members into obscurity (see attached as the Democrats would be wise to add the American worker to their platform), this decision set precedent and targets simply the American worker.

They can now determine violations of law without the constitutional safe guards of due process, avoiding courts, avoiding trials and avoiding juries. Companies become the charging person, the prosecutor and the judge against any American worker they "deem" to have committed an unlawful act...any act they themselves "interpret" to be unlawful.

This precedent, set by the judiciary purchased with high corporate dollars, is nothing short of an assault upon the American worker, their spouse and their children…