Day 5 at the SEIU-UHW/NUHW Trial: NUHW Attorney Frustrated By Witness

NUHW Attorney Frustrated By Witness:

In finishing up his cross exam of Security consultant Jerry Bullock, Mr. Siegel was not able to determine what security officers observed former staff eating for lunch on January 24, 2009. His frustration grew as he was also not able to establish if $20 is too much money for a T-shirt…Keep your eye on the prize.

They Changed The Colors:

Two more members testified today about how they were recruited by the defendants to make our union “ungovernable.” Anita Torres a homecare worker and steward told the jury how a NUHW staffer gave her a membership list complete with personal information like where people work, address, and phone numbers. Like previous witnesses that also received such lists to move decertification petitions, Torres told the court that in the past phone banking was done in the union hall and she had never gotten such a list with so much detailed information to take home with her. Nancy Stengel a member and steward at Kaiser told the jury how on January 21, 2009 just one day after the violent attack on the Alameda office defendant Lewis car pooled her and other members to the LA office to “picket” there.

Disappointed that there was no SEIU staff to knock down there too, the mob of about thirty people then started to take whatever documents they could find so they could then give them to defendant Lewis. An altercation occurred between a security officer and the mob of 30 when they refused to leave. Ms. Stengel told the court that she too received a complete Orange County membership list with address, and phone number for her to keep at home. She went on to say that she was asked to stay in the union office overnight and was instructed by defendant Krivosh how to chain and padlock the doors shut while she and other members slept inside (Fire Hazard!). The court went on to learn how at the 2008 Leadership Assembly in San Jose the people were already seeing red posters and red shirts everywhere. Some at the conference were led to think that the union had abandoned purple. If the former leaders value “union democracy” so much, why then did they impose a gag order on recording and video taping at the conference? Makes you wonder where Rosselli learned about the principles of democracy…perhaps China, maybe Cuba,

Follow The Money:

In May of 2007 defendant Dan Martin asked Edgard Cajina, UHW Director of Finance,  how much cash was on hand. A few days later he instructed Cajina to prepare a transfer of one million dollars of members’ dues from the UHW treasury and place it into Rosselli’s secret fund, the “Patient Education Fund” (PEF). Martin explained that Rosselli would present the transfer to the executive board for approval. Flash forward to February 5, 2008, Martin instructed Cajina to transfer another two million into the PEF. When Cajina questioned the request, Martin replied, “Do what Sal says!”  February 15, 2008, two conflicting contracts arrived to Cajina’s attention for Sprint Blackberry phones, one signed by defendant Phyllis Willet on behalf of UHW, the other by defendant Joan Emslie on behalf of the PEF. Ten days later, after another large cell phone purchase, Cajina asked Willet about why there were so many phone purchases, and she replied that it was so the defendants could communicate after the trusteeship was imposed. Mr. Cajina went on to tell how he was instructed by Emslie not to cooperate with SEIU representatives who were reviewing the union’s books and to withhold information from them.

With so much evidence piling up against these conspirators, it’s no wonder that the cocky smiles have begun to thin out. I imagine it’s hard to keep following a lost cause which began under questionable circumstances by shady leaders.

3 thoughts on “Day 5 at the SEIU-UHW/NUHW Trial: NUHW Attorney Frustrated By Witness”

  1. Nancy Stengel was there in the “attack” at the Alameda office the headquarter for the trusteeship as UHW voluntary resistantce force, a non-violent group that she was part of it and if you are fair and honest she was the agressor to the trustee troops in that office, so you cannot have it both ways, either you sue her for being voluntary there or the actions was not violent in which she participate.

  2. Secretive conference in San Jose?

    No video allowed?

    Secret cell phone orders?

    Moving millions in wire transfers to private accounts?

    no democracy or transparency here

Comments are closed.