CHRIS DAY - FROM GOSSIP, TO CYBER STALKING, TO BLACKBALLING... Part 1

Originally published 9/8/2011

BLACKBALL

"One of the earliest ballot boxes using ballottas. This ballot box was used by members of the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, a social club." *1

"Since the 17th century, Blackballing is a rejection in a traditional form of secret ballot, where a white ball or a ballot constitutes a vote in support and a black ball signifies opposition. A large supply of black and white balls is provided for voters. Each voter audibly casts a single ball into the ballot box under cover of the box, or a combination of a cloth and the box itself, so that observers can see who votes but not how he/she is voting.

A blackballing is a disappointment, and should be a rare event in a congenial club where advance notice of the candidates is given to members.  If a candidate is blackballed, their proper and seconder are often expected to resign from the club, as a failed election implied that they are not knowledgeable of the clubs ethos since they were expected to realize that their candidate is undesirable and quietly convince him to remove himself from the candidacy before the lengthy application process reached the voting stage."

PREFERRING OF CHARGES

When co-workers, each of whom assumably, have personal bias' against another co-worker which doesn't involve each other individually or collectively or the Union which represents them, continues filing (what appears to be a never-ending stream of)  Preferring of Charges complaints against this individual for the purpose of blackballing or stopping their Union representation and benefits you can actually end up with far more problems than ever anticipated.  It's libelous behavior gone wild.  You can't just go through life beating someone up without eventually suffering repercussions.

Typically, Unions don't involve themselves with personality conflicts between members/co-workers however they do try to discourage members from reporting each other to HR by suggesting a more viable solution which is to contact their property's Executive Board Officer for assistance.  Start the day with Solidarity and end it that way. Blackballing not only breaks down the premise of Unions from the inside out but forces members to take sides.  UNLESS a member gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar or their behavior is treasonous like Union busting from within or an officer reporting members to management, etc.

"The preamble to the ATU Constitution states that the union was established “to promote the general cause of humanity and brotherly *2  love, and secure the blessings of friendship, equality and truth.” 

Obviously, the preamble wasn't a consideration BEFORE any of the Preferring of Charges were filed.  The DRAMA they were seeking wouldn't have played out as well had any of them attempted to resolve their issues with me first.  Two of the filings were thrown out by the Union.  I was served on the remaining two.  One in April and one in August. BOTH were SCAMS. I presented proof to the Union BOTH times.  Jon Hunt asked me to hold off on further action until he or Ron followed up but that was August 25th.  No word yet and my working environment has become more and more hostile with each passing day.  The attempts at blackballing me should NOT have been entertained by the Union. WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE JUST SAID "NO"?!! In BOTH cases, the Union President stated that to go forward was illegal and if the Union proceeded I could sue them.  But going as far as they did by actually posting my name on ATU web sites and Union properties was libelous and irresponsible. The top three, Chris Day, John Olsen and Al Margulies who put the effort together expected and received something for their endeavor which I'll dive into during the next posting.  Neither blackballing effort passed.  The April attempt brought 3 votes for and 108 against. I was at the first meeting and saw the three who voted to have me blackballed. (Day, Olsen and Booker) It wasn't a secret ballot. Margulies wasn't there and according to the final vote he not only didn't show up at a meeting at another property but didn't vote. The final tally for August isn't in as of this posting. After the August meeting, Margulies commented on his blogs that "Of course everyone that was watching the Union knew that it had absolutely  zero chance of going through"

  Plus this:  

SO WHY DO IT?

WAS IT A SCAM?!!!

HOW DID IT ALL COME ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE? 

WHY HAS IT GONE ON FOR SO LONG AND WHAT ARE THE TIES THAT bond DAY/OLSEN AND MARGULIES TO EACH OTHER AND THEM TO ME?

'Gossip' by Norman Rockwell

Years ago when I first started at Trimet,  I had a friendship with a guy named Pat Patterson.  At one point I decided I needed to start distancing myself from him. He kept pursuing the friendship, asking what was wrong.  I tried but couldn't get him to understand it was because of where I was moving in my life. One day I had had enough of the constant calls etc and told him. Being the Sagittarius that I am it all just came out.  He was a very sensitive person and what I said didn't sit well.  It festered.  In retrospect I could have understood his situation better and been more sensitive to it. He was known as the company gossip which was one of the problems I had with the friendship in the first place. He would literally go around from table to table telling everyone and anyone who'd listen, who was doing who and who was the bigger bitch, etc.  Nevertheless, after that point, anyone gay, lesbian and new to Trimet who walked through the door got a mouthful about me. Several people over the years told me that he'd point me out and say things such as, "See that one over there, stay away from her. She's the biggest c*unt in town, doesn't like gay men, no one likes her ...  yada, yada, yada." And so it went...

When Dan Booker arrived I noticed he sat with Pat at the Center Street round table.  Co-workers were telling me that in his position as a Union Steward Dan would encourage them and others to write me up to Human Resources. Pat told him about my lawsuit against Trimet management and HR. He knew they were still retaliating against me. I imagine he figured that 'reporting me to HR' would be a way to 'get back' at me. And so Dan followed Pat's lead with that and among other things like calling me "the biggest c*nt in town".  He tells co-workers that I don't like gay men. He just told someone else the same thing a week or two ago and it got right back to me.  His rhetoric came from Pat, almost verbatim. Dan and I used to frequent the same place several years ago but I've never had a conversation with him except about Jay one time.  He doesn't in fact know anything about me. He has NO personal experience with me. It was all derived from GOSSIP.  I eventually contacted Jon Hunt. Phone and e-mail. Multiple, multiple times. He wouldn't respond. I told him he had a Union Steward who was encouraging members to write me and others up to HR. Jon Hunt knows the history of this. When it got worse I finally contacted the e-board but by then so much damage was done it felt irreparable.  Hunt called after that but I wasn't willing to talk with him at that point.  It's like - if someone calls - pick up the phone and either answer it or call back. It only takes a minute.  Just acknowledge the person. If you're too busy, call 'em back later.  But ya gotta return EVERY call because they're from the members. 

Then John Olsen came on the scene.  

Write up #1)  November 4, 2005 he boarded my bus at SE 60th and Belmont. DRUNK. He was in street clothes. Never saw him before. He flashed something at me which prompted me to ask him if he would come back up and show his fare. He came back up, visibly angry and yelling, "I'm a Trimet Bus Driver, I don't have to show you shit." I then asked him to quiet down as he could be refused service. He sat in the creep seat and called dispatch telling them I was "throwing him off the bus".  Dispatch then called me and asked who he was and what his problem was.  Mr. Olsen then called Pat.  He got his ride downtown. He was extremely abusive to me during the trip. When he de-boarded he said, "I'll see to it that the Union fires you."  Apparently he believes that - even to this day.  

Write up #2) May 7, 2007.  Mr. Olsen was in uniform at Center Street inbound bus stop. He was at the curb and lifted his hand to signal bus service. I was running late. Sunday, last bus of the night and I wanted to make sure my customers didn't miss their connections downtown. I opened the door and he just stood there talking on his phone. I waited as long as I was going to under the circumstances and then asked him, "Sir, do you want THIS bus?"  He responded, "Can you wait a couple of minutes so I can finish my call?" At that point I closed the door, waved him off and floored it.

The following morning I received a call from Jon Hunt informing me that I had been written up to HR:

Me, "By whom?" 

Jon, "The guy waiting at the 17 stop last night." 

Me, "What for?" 

Jon, "He says you refused him service because of his Sexual Orientation."  

And so the nightmare began...

*1 Taken from Wikipedia

*2  The word 'sisterly' needs to be included.

COMPARING CYBER STALKING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Originally published 8/29/2011

My personal experience would include the highlighted sections (taken from the article posted below)

"Tactics Used to Control Victims."  

The motive for stalking is not sexual; rather, in (my experience)  anger or hostility toward the victim and a desire to control the victim. Participants in the focus group asserted that their stalkers had systematically tried to subjugate them. Stalkers employ various acts of terrorism over a period of weeks, months, years, or even decades, which has the cumulative effect of eroding victims’ self-confidence and sense of control over their lives. Some acts convey subtle messages meant to instill fear, while others brutally remind victims of their stalkers’ dominance over them. Discussion participants described a range of stalking tactics that included:

• Leaving or sending unwanted messages, such as sending letters written in blood or cut-up pictures of victims.  

• Breaking into and vandalizing proper-ty, such as homes and cars.

• Following, harassing, and defaming victims."    "Following" is intended to mean 'ONLINE'.

Some of their followers have already found me on my Bus, in stores and in the community.  They have no problem approaching me with the RECOGNITION factor and (in some cases) letting me know their disdain for me - SOMEONE OF WHOM THEY'VE NEVER MET OR TALKED WITH BEFORE.  

Some of these include co-workers - some even signed petitions to have me balckballed from my Union. 

This is exactly what happens when one practices 'CONTEMPT PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION.'

Once the victim has been defamed - they then take it to the next level.  

My experience via Internet Bloggers -  moved from (but continues) Cyber Stalking to (HR 171) Respectful Workplace violations, to (HR 202) (IT) Internet Technologies violations and Union Preferring of Charges or Blackballing scams.

Union Violations includes four attempts to BLACKBALL me from Union Representation and Benefits.  I was served on two of the four. BOTH of which were SCAMS against me, the membership and the Union in terms of the highly deceptive manner in which they evolved. 

CYBERSTALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PART II

Originally published 8/28/2011

CYBERSTALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Report to Congress


U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Violence Against Women Office World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo

Report to Congress on Stalking and Domestic Violence 2

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

An Existing Problem

Aggravated by New Technology

Although online harassment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers—online or offline—are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and will engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the majority of cyber- stalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalk- ing men and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the vic- tim had a prior relationship, and the cyber- stalking began when the victim attempted to break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an evermore integral part of our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of communication as well as increased access to an enormous amount of personal information that is available through the Internet. Indeed, a cyberstalker can easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse clicks or keystrokes. In addition, the ease of use and the nonconfrontational, impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, where a potential stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending harassing or threatening electronic communications. Furthermore, as with physical stalking, online harassment and threats may

foreshadow more serious behavior, including physical violence.

Despite the many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to pursue their victims. A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages (or through public blogs) by the simple push of a button. More sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations in which victims repeatedly received the message “187” on their pagers—the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by, for example, posting a victim’s name, telephone number, (ways to find unpublished address)  e-mail address on a bulletin board or in a chat room with a controversial message or invitation, resulting in the victim receiving multiple e-mails in response. Each message—whether from the actual cyber- stalker or others—will have the intended effect of frightening or harassing the victim, with little effort on the part of the cyberstalker.

Evidence Suggests Cyberstalking Incidents Are Increasing

Although comprehensive nationwide data on the extent of cyberstalking in the United States do not yet exist, there is a growing body of statistics available from law enforcement agencies, as well as from some ISPs, that compile information on the number and types of complaints of harassment and threats involving ISP subscribers. There is increasing anecdotal and informal evidence on the nature and extent of cyberstalking, and research addressing offline stalking may provide insight into the scope of the problem. 

According to the most recent National Violence Against Women Survey, which defines stalking as involving instances where the victim felt a high level of fear:4

• One out of every 12 women (8.2 mil- lion) in the United States and 1 out of every 45 men (2 million) have been stalked at some time in their lives.

• One percent of all women and 0.4 per- cent of all men had been stalked dur- ing the 12 months preceding the survey.

• Women are far more likely than men to be victims of stalking—nearly 80 percent of stalking victims are women. Men are far more likely to be stalkers, comprising 87 percent of the stalkers identified by victims partici- pating in the survey.

• Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of stalking by strangers and eight times as likely to be victims of stalking by intimates.

In the United States today, more than 80 million adults and 10 million children have access to the Internet. Assuming the proportion of cyberstalking victims is even a fraction of the proportion of persons who have been the victims of offline stalking, there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of victims of cyberstalking incidents each year in the United States.

Cyberstalking Resources Online CyberAngels: A nonprofit group devoted to assisting victims of online harassment and threats,

including cyberstalking: www.cyberangels.org.

GetNetWise: An online resource for families and caregivers to help kids use the Internet in a safe and educational manner. It includes a guide to online safety, a directory of online safety tools, and directions for reporting online trouble: www.getnetwise.org.

National Center for Victims of Crime: Through its toll-free national hotline, the center provides vic- tims with referrals to the nearest appropriate services in their community, including crisis counseling and support groups, advocacy services, and assistance with the criminal justice process. The center publishes bulletins on a number of topics, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking: www.ncvc.org.

National Cybercrime Training Partnership: This interagency Federal/State/local partnership, led by the Justice Department with extensive support from the Office of Justice Programs and the National White Collar Crime Center, is developing and delivering training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies on how to investigate and prosecute computer crime. Information about the partnership can be found through its Web site: www.cybercrime.org.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: This nonprofit consumer information and advocacy program offers consumers a unique opportunity to learn how to protect their personal privacy. Its services include a consumer hotline for reporting privacy abuses and for requesting information on ways to protect pri- vacy and fact sheets on privacy issues, including one entitled Are You Being Stalked? Tips for Your Protection: www.privacyrights.org.

Search Group, Inc.: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, provides assistance to State and local criminal justice agencies on information technology issues. SEARCH, through its National Technical Assistance and Training Program, provides comprehensive, hands-on training on computer crime investigations at its headquarters in Sacramento, California, and at regional training sites around the country: www.search.org.

Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA): Founded by women to educate the Internet community about online harassment, WHOA empowers victims of online harassment and develops voluntary poli- cies that systems administrators can adopt to create an environment free of online harassment. WHOA educates the online community by developing Web site resources, including the creation of a safe- and unsafe-site list to enable users to make informed decisions and providing information about how users can protect themselves against harassment: www.haltabuse.org.

CHRIS DAY - AN ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER ADDRESS IS STILL AN ADDRESS

Originally published 8/15/2011

Will be interesting to see how this plays out...  

From International Constitution

"21.7 Disclosure of Union Business.  No officer or member of the L.U. shall furnish to any unauthorized person a list of the names and addresses of the membership. All business of the L.U. must be kept strictly private from persons outside of the Union, unless publication be authorized by the L.U., and persons giving out any information contrary to the L.U. shall after proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 22, if found guilty, be fined, suspended or expelled."

Besides all of the reasons Hunt mentioned in yesterdays meeting for not allowing the Preferring of Charges to go forward,  here is the REALITY of the situation.  What this means is that when the International Constitution says ADDRESS - it MEANS ADDRESS - NOT BADGE NUMBERS.  ONE cannot simply change the wording of the constitution to suit THEIR purpose.

Did Margulies and Day publish all those private Union documents on their Rantings blog (since the blackballing scheme didn't work)  the last couple of days because they didn't understand the difference between an ADDRESS AND A BADGE NUMBER and decided while they were at it they might as well change the wording of the International Constitution to include the Freedom of Information Act -  OR... 

DID THEY JUST HANG THEMSELVES?

Al M's been known to change the context and significance of statements written by others on his blogs and through comments he shares throughout the community on other blogs. Something I've been aware he's been doing since 2009.  Day does this as well.

I write my blog for myself because as a victim of cyber abuse it's become my voice as well as a way to reach out to other victims of Internet harassment. But he and his friends come over here, take my words and put their own spin to it - to fit their purpose which is to discredit me. It's another tactic abusers use in order to de-focus you from the facts and validate themselves.  We can debate different perspectives in terms of what we understand about what an author meant, but in those specific instances where reputations and abuse are on the line - it's not debatable.  For Instance, I may write something to deflect the constant barrage of name calling and slander by simply bringing the quote to the forefront.  

Then... Margulies, Chris Day and Jeff Welch through their shared Ellen Fox Slander Blog Watch write: 

"Ellen Fox says Chris Day is "coming after 'you'"   They even apply quote marks which makes the statement appear legit.

But, what I ACTUALLY wrote on that post is:

"WHO'S NEXT ON HIS LIST, YOU?!!!

The context and meaning of my words have been changed because they are trying to control what you think, feel and interpret.  They are changing your mind-set. Every caption to every entry listed on the Blog Watch has purposely been changed for your benefit.  It's another strategy abusers use. Abusers, once exposed will go to any extreme necessary to make sure you don't see the truth. 

While I was talking in the meeting yesterday about abuse I was going through, a woman sitting a few rows up turned and acknowledged me for what I was going through.  At one point she started repeating my words with me. She understood. If you've been there  - you know. She validated my experience.

Another example:

The Watch Blog says: 
"Does Bruce Hansen support Ellen Fox's Slander Blog and her campaign of hate?"

What I wrote was, 
"Time to get your Bruce Hansen for President buttons and t's on."

My Freedom of Speech is that I can make those comments. The difference is Margulies, Day and Welch changed the spin on my statement to make Bruce look bad. They even went so far as to use ATU logo. They did this to control what you comprehend before you read it. It's the same thing Chris Day did as he was gathering signatures for his Preferring of Charges - Blackball petitions against me. He went up to people during rush hour bullpen madness knowing time was a factor with 18 pages of single spaced print, asked co-workers to sign something "for the Union" then interpreted it in one or two sentences that fit his motives.

The words they used in those conversations as well as blog postings and headings are slander - which is hate speech and because it's used to describe and define me to you all - almost 3,000 of ya, I can sue 'em. 

Third paragraph down, "She has been claiming for years now that blogger AL M is and has been 'stalking her' going to such extremes as saying she is 'afraid for her life'.

What I have ACTUALLY been saying is that in Cyber language a 'Cyber Bully' is one who harasses children over the internet and a 'Cyber Stalker' is the terminology used for an adult who harasses over the internet.  Since Al M, Chris Day and Jeff Welch have plastered my picture on their various blogs, people on my bus, on the streets and in stores I frequent are recognizing me - in a NEGATIVE way.  I have concerns about the mentality of someone who isn't capable of developing their own world experiences but rather live though the negativity and words of others.

Last paragraph of this posting is also interesting because THEY accuse ME of Preferring Charges against Khris Alexander.  lol

The truth is that I signed a petition for his RECALL specifically because he misappropriated a Union donation (a fairly new 27" television) which I handed him for Gresham TC. He took it home for his family's private use.  No one Preferred Charges against him to get him blackballed. The signatories simply wanted to rescind his Executive Board position. Each of us had our reasons - many were similar. He didn't deserve to be blackballed and it was never brought up.  But, Margulies went to that Union meeting and took all of the documents provided and published them on his blog in spite of the fact that President Hunt asked that everything be kept private. He went as far as making comments in his various video rants where he acknowledged President Hunt asking that no one secretly record the meeting or take documents from it.  Margulies could have been blackballed for doing it.  But, even then with all his improprieties and outrageous behaviors - AT HIS CO-WORKERS EXPENSE - he wasn't.  He published all the documents that night - but the subject of blackballing him for doing it never came up.

There were a few private correspondences from me that Hunt included with the packet that night. We discussed them after I discovered they became public.  He said to me, "Oh".  lol  My private e-mail address was even published.  No reason to ask that either Hunt or Margulies be blackballed for exposing those documents publicly against me.  No one ever thought or expected Margulies should work without Union benefits or representation.    

BUT THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW.

Margulies and Day's behavior is treasonous. There's no question the postings from yesterday and today alone should get them all the negative attention they've apparently been seeking.  Years ago I suggested to Hunt and talked about it in several of my postings that Margulies was giving information to people who couldn't be happier than to see all Unions vanished from this Country.  I wasn't implying he was a spy for them I was simply suggesting  he was behaving irresponsibly with sensitive information regarding our benefits and contract on his rants.  Video after video showed him and others at Beaverton TC talking about it. I believe he was responsible for TM receiving the Golden Fleece Award because the very conservative, anti Union anti rail movement was following his blog.  He knew they were and enjoyed the attention. In fact, Hunt asked him several times to stop talking about these things on his blog.  

MARGULIES AND DAY ACT IRRESPONSIBLY WITH THE POWER OF THEIR BLOGS. 

To my knowledge, the only member who's ever been blackballed in the history of ATU was Tom Wallace for stealing nearly half a million dollars.  

I have NEVER met or talked with Welch or 'J'.

 In fact, I've never even had a conversation with Chris Day.

just sayin...

CHRIS DAY, "I TAKE PRIDE TO INSURE THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL."

Originally published 7/22/2011

The following words are from my experience and are the result of being and continuing to be the victim of Cyber Bully/Stalking.

From Chris Day's ATU Presidential bid:

1.)  "I take pride to insure that all members are equal."

update - many of the links referring to his blog no longer work as he's removed the blog.

When ya single out ONE UNION MEMBER through the BLACKBALL process (THREE TIMES) 'cause ya don't have the ability to resolve yer own conflicts that would not exactly INSURE yer intentions to represent ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY!  Mr. Day has a history of filing to have a member blackballed from Union Representation.  Mr. Day wants to be your next Union President AND he's got BlackBall on his mind. Mr. Day additionally has a history of reporting Union members to the former Director of Transportation as well as to the garage manager (while he was a Union Officer) and to HR BEFORE and AFTER he was employed.  (in fact just a mere week ago).  He also has a history of supporting his partner in his partners various and sundry write ups and other forms of abuse against me and other Union members.  THIS IS NOT INSURING ALL MEMBERS ARE OR WILL BE TREATED EQUAL.  Who's on his list next - is anyone safe?

2.) "I am honest about what I am presenting to the membership and use supporting documents to stand behind my statements."

MY DOCUMENTS (as have been published on this site) SUPPORT that Mr. Day more than MISREPRESENTS himself.  Regarding: Blackball petitions, "These guys walked up to us and asked us to "sign something for the Union."  "Read something?  There wasn't anything to read."; "That's the last time I'll ever sign something without reading it. He pressured me into signing it." "He's my friend. We worked together some other place, no, I'd didn't investigate but of course I'm going to support him." (etc).  This was changed to "I didn't know I was signing a petition to have someone blackballed." Additionally, some of the **signatures are different on each of the petitions and one petition lacked a signature making it illegal.  Documents I've collected from his blogs consistently prove  he changes the meaning of words in order to justify his grievances. And he owns THREE (3) websites that claim he is ATU757, So when you click on it you think you're going to ATU but you're actually going to something Mr. Day created to make you think you're going there.  It's waaay deceitful!  He's got the official ATU logo and banner and advertises the Rantings blog as though they're all associated.  The only association between Chris Day and Al Margulies is between themselves.  Will the real ATU 757 please stand up?  ...and they did by sending him a cease and desist letter.    (which, btw....he didn't do)  

3.) "I have integrity and learn from my mistakes" yada, yada, yada.

Mr. Day not only abused (me) a co-worker and Union Sister publicly - in the workplace - through e-mail to a multitude of co-workers and others in Portland on his blog and the Rantings blog but he was investigated for "RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE VIOLATIONS and INTERNET VIOLATIONS" (HR-171 and HR 202).

Day NEVER approached me with an apology.  He's never apologized to the Union  including over 3,400 Union members from all properties for forcing a discussion regarding his personal problems INSTEAD of allowing the Union to conduct Business during regularly scheduled meetings AND I'm not aware if he apologized to any of the signatories of his petitions for not being up front with them.  He took the entire month of April away from every Union member DURING a time when EVERY meeting was essential.

4.) "I believe with transparency..."

One of the ways we have of determining someone's ABILITY and QUALITY to run for office is by looking at their support -looking at who's backing them -  be it financial or personal.

A.) Mr. Day's biggest supporter is his life partner (*John Olsen) who writes up and calls in on Union members on a fairly regular basis. He wrote me up to HR SEVEN times.  The life partner of a wanna be Union President should share similar values.  I believe they do and I believe Mr. Day AND Mr. Olsen (regardless of how they portray themselves) share the same set of moral values.

B.) Mr. Day receives legal and personal advice from Jeff Welch, former blogger from the Peugeot Sound area.  Mr. Welch is an outspoken ANTI-UNION FEE OBJECTOR.  "Thank you again for your support...  Check out the comments under both letters.  Mr. Welch referred to me as a 'bitch' which is a statement that supports his belief that ALL women are 'bitches'.

Additionally, Mr. Welch refers to the ATU attorney as "incompetent".  Again, another derogatory comment against a woman he's never met or talked with. Whether you like her or not isn't the issue, but at the very least you gotta respect someone who's spent years working in the background to better conditions for Union members against the bureaucratic anti-Union system.  She's also published two books from a series.  A far cry from 'incompetent'. 

C.)  Al Margulies.  Margulies' list of controversies is a growing testament to the character of a man who has no use for anyone unless they can benefit him.  He has a history of secretly recording and video taping co-workers and others without their knowledge and publishing them on his blogs. He has and continues to Cyber abuse me through his blogs and through partnering with Chris Day to create a hostile work and community environment for me. Margulies and Day partnered up in the publishing of their respective blogs for the BLACKBALL effort.  Margulies Blog provided information about our Union benefits to those following him which ended up with Trimet receiving the highly publicized Golden Fleece Award.  His videos caused many of the anti-union conservative anti-tax sentiments we're feeling today regarding contract issues.  

Everything Day publishes is also published on Rantings.  The latest show of Margulies character would be his continued open support for Chris Parker.  Mr. Parker is the former bus operator admitted sexual abuser of a ***14 YO child.  MARGULIES is now requesting his viewers contact Parker's attorney to let him out of jail because he believes:    

"1-He is not a violent man. 2-He is not a threat to society."

FEAR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL RUNNING FOR OFFICE AS MUCH AS THEIR FOLLOWERS FOR WITHOUT THEIR FOLLOWERS THEY WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

*But Olsen can because he's NOT a Union Officer, nor is he trying to be one.  My objection remains with Day who acted before he was hired and while he was a Union Officer and is currently a wanna be Union President.  

**Image below depicts Margulies admission that he was drunk (or legally incompetent) while signing one of the petitions. 

***(...and the child continues posting on Ranting's blog)

...ON DEFENDING A MINOR'S SEXUAL ABUSER

Saturday, May 7, 2011

On Defending a Minor's Sexual Abuser.

Interesting stuff happening over at the Ranting's blog.  For those of you who aren't aware, the Rantings guy - aka Al M, is the same who's been Cyber Stalking, harassing me for nearing two years.

Chris Parker, 53 Parker is charged with third-degree sexual abuse, first-degree online sexual corruption of a child and violating a stalking order (5 times).

The Rantings guy is defending his friend,  fellow blogger and bus operator Chris Parker from charges that he *(confessed - video below at 1:28)  sexually abused a 14 year old girl and violated at least 5 protective stalking orders over the last year.  Rantings comes to Parker's defense for the *confessed sexual abuse by accusing  local media of "lynching" his friend before he has his day in court. If you've been following his blog postings/comments, you'll see where he appears more concerned with local media for 'going after a Bus Driver' than Parker's predatory behavior.

From Al M,

"However, there was no "scandal", that was another example of the bloodthirsty media looking for a way to make Trimet bus drivers look like shit."

Did it not occur to Rantings that when these types of abuses come forward the media double and triples their coverage in case there are other victims.

Most of Rantings quotes below can be found here, What Does the Victim in the Chris Parker Case Think. ...and here, Interesting Comments Click the 'comments' section.

According to blog entries, Rantings knows and has discussed the issues with the child and Chris Parker.  He indicates he's had previous knowledge of the 'relationship'by stating,  "it's complicated." 

From Al M,

"We are not talking about an 11 year old child, we are talking about a teenager in today's world, a completely different world from the world in which most of us grew up in."I know the young lady, quite well as a matter of fact. I can tell you with 100% confidence that she is not 

damaged forever by this."

Since Al M came out in defense of Parker even AFTER Parkers *confession, I am sadly reminded of the abuse Elizabeth Lynn Dunham, endured by then Governor Goldschmidt, which started when she was just 14 years old. She passed away January 16, 2011.  RIP, Liz!!!

Willamette Week Reveals Name of Goldschmidt Victim This all comes as no surprise. Based on my experience, Rantings has a different perspective.  In his world he doesn't 'see' situations like the (confessed) 'sexual abuse' of a minor as being wrong. Having monitored his behavior via his blog over the last couple years I came to believe he considers even the most repulsive of acts against another as 'free game'.  Initially I thought he was creating drama to increase his popularity but as time has gone on and more and more despicable behaviors came forward I found myself more than disturbed that his followers UNTIL NOW, apparently  haven't caught on but instead continued to support and encourage him.

In my estimation, the only one who's damaging Bus Operators is Mr. Rantings himself with his various and highly publicized antics on and off the blog.

According to him,  the 14 year old doesn't see herself as a victim which isn't unusual. She's questioning who pressed the charges against Mr. Parker in the first place and is asking they be dropped.  In criminal cases that would be the DA. The thing is we don't know her past. We don't know if there were other adults who may have victimized her but that could explain a lot. What we do know is that what happened to her is not only against the law but an act of perversion.  Regardless of her statement of permission, young victims tend to protect their abusers - for a myriad of reasons.  My question is, was Mr. Parker 'grooming' her for the whole kit and caboodle or was he being dishonest about the degree to which the relationship progressed over a years time.  According to The Today Show MSNBC he's being held on $275,000.00 bail.  Seems like a lot of bail for "kissing and fondling" her breasts. One thing is certain. Al M is playing 'dumb' about his knowledge of "sexual abuse".  That's something that warrants investigating. Some of Rantings friends confronted him online. There might be hope for the World yet. If you wanna know what someone's all about, hang back and watch how they treat others. Watch their behavior because it's not about what someone says but about what they do.  'Actions speak louder than words'.

Who's behavior is more appropriate?  The one who act's out on a child or the one who defends the one who acts out on a child?

The image placed here is not intended to imply the teen referenced in the article is as young as the one depicted here. I put it up because both children - the one in the image and the 14 year old are, waaaay below the age of consent,  emotionally, physically and mentally.