There Is No Judicial Accountability To Uphold The Law

Pirate Jack Sparrow: "Am I to understand that you lot will not be keeping to the code, then?"
      [To the Brethren Court of Pirates...and the room went silent] - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Imagine, sitting in a courtroom, as a judge being told by UPS:

"Your honor, we discharged Mr. O'Shea on May 13, 2003 for violating policy."

In the next hearing, UPS then states to you as a judge,

"Your honor, we told the union in July of 2003, a month before the panel hearing that we didn't need a policy to terminate O'Shea."

In the next hearing, UPS states:

"Your honor, on August 19, 2003 at Mr. O'Shea's panel hearing, we told the arbitrator that Mr. O'Shea violated policy."

At the next hearing, UPS tells you, as a judge in summary judgment that:

"[A] policy was not needed."

In answer to O'Shea's appeal, UPS then states:

"It is well within our right to implement work rules unilaterally without bargaining." (Even though O'Shea presented the contract where no unilateral management clause existed in the CBA.)

What UPS told you, as a judge was simply this:

"Mr. O'Shea was fired for violating policy." (May, 2003 the day of termination.)
"We didn't need a policy." (July, 2003, a month before The Panel, the unlawful tribunal.)
"Mr. O'Shea was fired for violating policy." (August, 2003, at The Panel.)
"A policy was not needed." (March, 2006, in summary judgment.)
"It is within our right to unilaterally implement policy." (June, 2006, during appeal.)

In O'Shea's case, there was never a hearing in over 760 days of this action. Yet UPS had to change their story five times to make their argument fit for the moment in response to O'Shea's submitted documents each time.

Now, as a judge, wouldn't you be irate that a lawyer and company would stand in front of you, or write to you, under oath and lie, even if it was just once? But UPS said at different times, "We did, we didn't, we did, we didn't, we did..." in proven documents submitted by O'Shea.

If you were lied to five times wouldn't you be insulted? Disgusted? Irate? Offended?

But not these judges of the lower court in the District of Maryland, or the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, or the Supreme Court.

The question then becomes, why aren't you insulted, disgusted, irate or offended as a judge? In what form of manner would you accept a company lying to you at minimum, five times under oath, at not only accepting those lies, but rule in favor of those lies?

What would be YOUR motivation to ignore lies told to you under oath...and rule in favor of them?

Yet while O'Shea showed the judges an affidavit by several employees around the country that they engaged in the same work-related conduct O'Shea was fired for without being disciplined with even a warning letter, the judge writes "all companies have a policy that their employees don't violate law." despite the fact that no policy was entered in as evidence - only a state law that a federal judge interpreted unlawfully as it was not within his jurisdiction to do so.

And further, while O'Shea cited his right to due process, the federal court opinion stated Dan O'Shea's right to a trial and 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 while these same entities are involved in a massive effort to place union workers under technological surveillance on a scale never seen before.

The purchase power of corporate conservative lobbyists is great indeed...unrestrained and unaccountable, as the Judicial Branch answers to no one yet appears now dependent on a government and purchased by a bloated lobbyist system...and the judicial assaults on workers just keep on coming - and see here, here, here, and here.

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.

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.

With these losses of basic, lawful and constitutional rights and with the addition of technological surveillance on a massive scale targeting union members...and American workers, only anarchy results when the law (the code) applies to some, not all.

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…