Updated: Sunday, June 15, 2008
Welcome to the Chet Bennett Web Page
Who is Mr. Bennett? The first
time I saw Mr. Bennett’s name was on the Summons I got notifying me that Mr.
Lavin and Mr. Delgado were suing me. He
was listed as: Plaintiff’s Attorney,
Chester E. Bennett. ESQ.
Over time I’ve grown fond of Mr. Bennett, and actually made two changes
to my front web page in honor of Mr. Bennett.
I added “Thank you Chet!” to the bottom of the $9147 check from Local
47. Since Mr. Bennett kept asking me if
I was a Dog Catcher during his questioning of me during the trial, I added a
Dog Catcher graphic.
Lately (June 2007) , Chet has become unhappy with my website, and has
started sending me emails about his displeasure. So, posted below are his emails and my responses:
Jump
to “if you ever grow a set of balls” email!
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Misrepresentations
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Fri, Jun 01, 2007 4:42 pm
To:
<webmaster@ibew47.com>
Mr.
Boettjer
This
is to advise you that you have misrepresented the nature of my employment with
IBEW Local 47 as well as the nature of my legal practice. I am a full time
business representative employed by IBEW Local 47. The 1074 E. LaCadena address
you have seen on legal documents was address of IBEW Local
47's Construction Division. That address has recently changed to 1405
"H" Spruce St. in Riverside.
As
an attorney I often render legal services to our members. I do not charge for
this service as it would possibly create a conflict of interest. On the rare
occasion a fee is charged, the client is instructed to make a donation to IBEW
Local 47's injured worker fund.I personally take nothing for this service.
It is offered in the spirit of Union brotherhood and as an unofficial benefit
for our union brothers who periodically find themselves in need of legal
counsel and service.
You
would do well to conduct a little research before making allegations.
Thank
You, Chet Bennett
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Response to Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Misrepresentations
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Mon, Jun 04, 2007 8:25 pm
To: Chet Bennett <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Dear Mr. Bennett,
I find it very interesting that you claim I have misrepresented the nature of your employment with the IBEW Local 47.
During the five days that you provided legal representation for Mr. Lavin and Mr. Delgado when they sued me in Laguna Hills Superior Court you clearly presented yourself to the Court as their Lawyer, not a Business Representative. Also during your questioning of me while on the witness stand I referred to you as a Local 47 employee and you were quick to correct me that you didn’t work for Local 47, and you proudly pointed out that you had your own Law Office. Furthermore, I have several letters from you sent to me and my lawyer with the heading “LAW OFFICE OF CHET BENNETT”. Nowhere in your letters does it say “Business Representative”. You start your second paragraph in your message above with “As an attorney”… And your email address is “chetlaw@earthlink.net.”
So Chet, I wonder who among us has misrepresented themselves?
Thank you for explaining that you render legal services to members, mostly free of charge. Hopefully you provide better advice to regular members than you offered to Mr. Lavin and Mr. Delgado at our trial last year in which the Court found in my favor on all charges. And while we are talking about ethical conduct, I was wondering, because Mr. Lavin and Mr. Delgado sued me as individuals and not as an organization, and since you represented them, I am curious to know, did the three of you take time off without pay or vacation days, or did you continue to collect a paycheck from Local 47 while you were off doing personal business during our five days in court and your time at our Deposition? If you didn’t take personal time off or vacation time, then the Union filing with the Department of Labor Financial Statement is incorrect and needs to be corrected. Because acting as a Lawyer in Court on a personal matter is surely not the job of a paid Business Representative. If you would like, I’d be happy to submit a request to the Department of Labor and ask them to investigate this issue.
As for your comment that I would do well to conduct a little research before making allegations, you might want to consider signing your letters as a Business Representative if that’s what you want people to think your position is. By sending out letters with large type at the top that say “LAW OFFICE OF CHET BENNETT”, you clearly send the message you are a lawyer with your own office, not a business representative. And why if you are a Business Representative, are you in an office away from the Union Office where regular Union Business takes place?
To me, if you claim to be an attorney, represent yourself in Court as a Lawyer, and send out letters claiming “LAW OFFICE OF CHET BENNETT”, then Chet, to me you are a lawyer. It’s like the old line, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.” I sat in the witness box for hours while you represented yourself as a lawyer asking me questions. I’m sure if you asked the Judge, that he assumed you are a lawyer, as do I. I guess this must be the same as how you tried to explain in Court that anyone who works for a Utility isn’t entitled to the “all members get fully-paid” health insurance that Local 47 advertises on their website, even though they are members in good standing. The leadership of Local 47 (you included) continues to believe that somehow magically the world should know that when Local 47 representatives say one thing you really mean something else.
I am happy to know that you continue to check the accuracy of my website. I will be happy to post your email on my website where we will let the visitors to the website make up their own minds.
Just because you say something, doesn’t make it so. How many times during the trial did you stand up and say “Damages are Presumed!” It didn’t work then, it’s not working now.
Oh yeah, one other thing Chet, you might want to review the Agreement Local 47 signed with the National Labor Relations Board about infringing on my Section 7 rights (Freedom of Speech) or coercing me before continuing to use words like “allegations” in your emails to me. You can download the agreement at my website.
Have a really great day Chet, and thanks for writing,
Randy
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Auto Response from
Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Misrepresentations (chetlaw@earthlink.net) (chetlaw@earthlink.net) 06/01/2007 4:42 pm Re: RE: Misrepresentations
From: chetlaw@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, Jun 04, 2007 8:25 pm
To: wiz@ibew47.com
I apologize for this automatic reply to your email.
To control spam, I now allow incoming messages only from senders I have approved beforehand.
If you would like to be added to my list of approved senders, please fill out the short request form (see link below). Once I approve you, I will receive your original message in my inbox. You do not need to resend your message. I apologize for this one-time inconvenience.
Click the link below to fill out the request:
https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=chetlaw@earthlink.net&id=1hVpFt4aT3Nl34g1
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Misrepresentations
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Sat, Jun 09, 2007 3:00 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
Just
a quick response to your e-mail to me:
I did,
in fact, represent to the judge and everyone else involved with the lawsuit
that I was Mr. Lavin's and Mr. Delgado's attorney. At the time I was acting in
my capacity as a fully licensed attorney and not as a Business Representative. The fact I am a licensed attorney does not
preclude me from working as a Business Representative for the union. In fact, I
am also a journeyman lineman and have been for nearly 35 years as well as a
licensed commercial pilot. None of these precludes me from working full time as
a business representative.
Further,
I have never denied to anyone that I am fully employed as a Business
Representative for IBEW Local 47. In fact, prior to the trial, my position as a
business representative came up in passing in a conversation I had with your
lawyer. Your statements to the contrary are either the product of an honest
mistake or a bald-faced lie.
As
for my letterhead saying "Law Office of Chet Bennett": you have
conveniently failed to mention the address is C/O IBEW Local 47 at the LaCadena
address in Riverside. This is the
Construction Department and is the department I work out of. Regular Union
Business takes place daily at this office. Perhaps if you were to ask one of
the Construction members where the union hall is you would be surprised to
learn it is in Riverside. We have six full time business representatives
working out of that office. On any given day you will find two of them in
office in the morning taking care of dispatch. Once dispatch is over, the
regular duties are attended to and, if the work load permits, one business rep
will leave for the field to conduct crew visits and meet appointments with our
various contractors. All legal correspondence I send out is headed "Law
Office of Chet Bennett." This is done primarily for confidentiality
purposes. Letters coming to the union hall are opened by whichever Business
Rep. happens to be there. The only exception are those addressed to "Law
Office of Chet Bennett." For confidentiality reasons, I am the only one
who opens letters that are so addressed.
I
am not sure what your point is in noting my personal e-mail address is
chetlaw@earthlink.net. This has been my personal e-mail address for about 10 to
12 years and predates my employment with IBEW Local 47. I am not aware of any
rule or law that mandates I have to give up my personal e-mail when I take a
job with the union. I do have an e-mail address through IBEW Local 47. It is
cbennett@ibew47.org. I do not use it except for Union related matters and not
for legal issues. This is primarily because I do my legal research and legal
work in the evenings and weekends from my home. I am not that computer literate
and haven't learned how to access emails from other computers.
In
short, I am a fully licensed attorney and am employed full time as a Business
Rep. for IBEW Local 47. I did not mislead anyone. If you think my actions
were--or are--in anyway unethical or unlawful, feel free to contact the
California State Bar and file a complaint.
To
more points:
1.
You may want to check case law. Damages are presumed in a case of per se
defamation. The judge, in his ruling said he did not believe my clients
suffered any damages and that is why he denied the claim. The judge was wrong.
2.
No one is infringing on your free speech rights. No one is coercing you. I just
thought you would want to be accurate in your statements about me and the
union. The term "allegation" does not equate as coercion or
infringement.
Thank
You
Chet Bennett, Esq.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Response to Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Misrepresentations
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 9:39 pm
To: Chet Bennett <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
What? The Judge was
wrong???
Chet, I am not a lawyer, but I’m
pretty sure the only thing wrong was that in a real Court Room, unlike the
Local 47 Kangaroo Court held in my honor where the outcome was known before the
trial started, you actually have to prove your case before you can collect
damages.
But hey, you can believe what
you want. In fact why not just say:
Chet’s Law; greater than
Federal Law
Chet’s Law; greater than the
United States Constitution
Chet’s Law; greater than the
Bill of Rights
Chet’s Law; greater than the
first Amendment (Freedom of Speech)
However, speaking of presumed
damages, I think I might be entitled to those for Malicious Prosecution when
Mr. Lavin and Mr. Delgato sued me and lost. What would be your free legal
advice on that?
Randy
Oops!
No reply from Chet. Guess this question
left Chet speechless….
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Another misrepresentation
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Sat, Jun 02, 2007 7:44 pm
To:
<webmaster@ibew47.com>
The
pay raises you claim we voted for ourselves were motioned, seconded and voted
on by the general membership. Check the record.
Again,
you would do well to do a bit of research before making your allegations.
Thank
You, Chet Bennett
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * Response to Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Another
misrepresentation
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Mon, Jun 04, 2007 8:33 pm
To: Chet Bennett <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Dear Chet,
I have asked my fellow co-workers (general membership type) if they
remember voting a 12 to 35% pay raise for Union Officials or if they remember
voting to raise Mr. Lavin’s pay to $175,000.
Not surprisingly to me, no one remembers such a vote. However, I will be glad to open this issue
up to members not employed by or working for Local 47 and ask them to email me
if they remember voting in these outrageous pay raises. I will post your message, and my response on
my website, where you can track the member’s responses.
Sincerely, Randy
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * Question for Members * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
OK members, if you are a member of Local 47, and not a Local 47 employee
or board member, or other person working for Local 47, and you remember voting
for the pay raises listed on the 2006 Union Finances page, please email and let
me know. Thanks, Randy
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Another misrepresentation
From:
chetlaw@earthlink.net
Date:
Sat, Jun 09, 2007 8:23 am
To:
wiz@ibew47.com
Try
asking members who actually go to meetings. I was personally at the membership
meeting for the construction division when the motion was made. It was
seconded, and discussed. One month later at the next meeting, it was voted on.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Response to Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Another misrepresentation
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 9:30 pm
Dear Chet,
Thank you Chet! This explains
what happened. I’ve talked to several regular
SCE employed members, and not only do they not remember voting on a pay raise
for union officials, but they were very vocal that they would have voted it
down.
Just so I understand what “construction division” really means, please
correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that during the trial, Mr. Lavin
described the construction division as those members who don’t work for SCE or
other City Utilities. This group
represents less than one-third of all Local 47 members. This is the same bunch that Local 47 just
purchased a new building ($426,000 for land, plus a new $800,000 building per
your financial report) in Riverside so they wouldn’t have to drive to Diamond
Bar to conduct their Union Business and where you have your “LAW OFFICE OF CHET
BENNETT”. This building was purchased
(without a vote of the entire membership) with the dues mostly paid by the
majority of members, those employed by SCE (and other Utilities) who Local 47
feels are not entitled to decent medical coverage (per any SCE member), and for
who Local 47 has decided not to negotiate medical benefits this year.
This construction division is also the same group that Mr. Lavin
explained in Court is entitled to “fully paid health insurance” that is
advertised on the Union’s Website.
So if I have this straight, Local 47 had a meeting with some of this
minority group of members, probably in their new building, they get fully paid
health insurance, and the union asked them to give union leaders a 13+% pay
raise and few minority voted yes? You
claim that this minority vote is grounds for burdening all Local 47 members
with greatly increased administration costs.
Is this your claim, Chet?
I find this story hard to believe, but I’m willing to check it out. Could you send me the names and phone
numbers of a few dozen of these “construction workers” so I could verify your
claim? I’d also like to know how many
of those who voted for the raise were not employees or representatives of Local
47. I’d sure appreciate it. And so
would the visitors to my website. I’ll
be happy to post whatever I learn.
Here’s a question for you, Chet.
Do you think it’s a good ethical business practice to get a minority of
members who have better benefits than the majority of members to vote a huge
pay raise that is mostly paid for by those who aren’t allowed to vote on the
issue? Ethically, what’s the difference
between this possibly manipulated vote and my claim that Local 47 is giving
themselves huge pay raises?
As for talking to members who actually go to meetings, that’s hard to do when Local 47 hasn’t had a meeting at SONGS in something like seven years. But then, why would you? No one can remember the last time Local 47 did anything positive for SONGS members. This union just keeps taking more in dues and dragged me into court because I ask questions.
Looking forward to talking to members of the “construction division”,
Randy
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Messages from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Here is an offer
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Tue, Jun 12, 2007 4:36 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
Randy:
You
said in one of your e-mails that you would print my responses. Let's see if you
are man enough to keep your word:
The
"pay raise" you claim the IBEW staff voted themselves was actually
voted on at several different unit meetings. This includes, but is not limited
to Edison, Big Bear, City of Colton, Ventura, Bishop and the outside
construction department. In order to vote, one must be a member of the
particular Local the change affects. Your allegation that only the outside
construction division voted is just another product of your ignorance. However,
if you are so sure of yourself, I have a proposition:
I
own three cars: a Porsche Carrera, a Pontiac Trans Am and a FFR Cobra. I will be willing to put up the
pink slip to any one of them against the pink slip to your car that the vote on
the "pay raise" was held according to the bi-laws and was made at the
various unit meetings, not just at the Construction meeting as you have so
boldly alleged. There's your offer, Randy, what do you say? Put up or shut up.
I can get the minutes from the various meeting.
As
for you complaint that there has not been a unit meeting at SONGS; I am not
aware of any time a Union meeting has been held on the employer's property. I
may be wrong, but I have never seen it. Why don't you ask your Union Steward
where the meetings are held? We hold the Construction meetings at the Riverside
Office. Our jurisdiction spans North to Fresno, South to Tijuana, West to the
Pacific Ocean, and East to Arizona and Nevada. Interested members willingly
travel 100 or 200 miles to attend without complaint.
Thank
you for acknowledging the brilliant move Local 47 made in acquiring the new
building. The equity has already skyrocketed and the extra income we will soon
gain from renting the office space next door to Local 440 will greatly increase
the ability of Local 47 to even better serve its members.
Chet
Subject: Imagination
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Wed, Jun 13, 2007 4:39 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
I
really get a kick out of how you make up scenarios to fit your
misinterpretations as to how the union works. For instance: when the outside construction
department voted on the "pay raise" the unit meeting was held at the
old location on 1074 E. LaCadena Dr. in Riverside, not at the new
building. The vote was held several
months prior to our acquiring the new building (which was, by the way, also
voted on by the general membership at another time). Further, despite your
assertion that only a "few dozen members were present, the attendance was
far more. As for who in particular voted in favor: I don't know. I left the
meeting hall while the vote was being made as I didn't want my presence to
influence the vote. The staff did not vote on it. I was not in attendance at
the other unit meetings when they voted on it, but, as I have told you, I can
get the minutes. All you have to do is put the title to your car up.
Of course, you can always get first hand
knowledge by attending or speaking with someone who actually goes to the
meetings. But why would you want to do that? You would much rather imagine
scenarios that fit your ill-informed impression of the union. By the way, who
do you think negotiated your wages?
Chet
Subject: forgot to mention
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Wed, Jun 13, 2007 4:45 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
By the
way, despite your assertion, the union did not ask anyone to vote in the pay
raise. The motion was made and seconded on the floor by one of the rank and
file. It was then discussed and, finally voted on. The whole process lasted
about two months if I remember correctly. The staff and officers are not
allowed to make such motions nor did we vote on it. We are not allowed to vote
ourselves such raises. Since you know it all, I'm sure this part of the bi-laws
just slipped your mind.
Chet
P.S.
How 'bout that bet?
Chet
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * Response to Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Here is an offer
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2007 10:20 pm
To: Chet Bennett <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Wow, Chet, three emails to answer, you’re really into this! It’s like having a pen-pal. All these emails, but Chet, where’s the beef?
I am always a man of my word. Your letters are posted on my website.
You amaze me Chet. First you say one thing, and then in the next email you say something else. Here’s an example. On June 9 you said “I was personally at the membership meeting for the construction division when the motion was made. It was seconded, and discussed. One month later at the next meeting, it was voted on.” Today, June 12 you say “Your allegation that only the outside construction division voted is just another product of your ignorance.” My ignorance? All I did was quote you. Now today you change your story and say, “voted on at several different unit meetings.” Dude, make up your mind! Why are you always changing your story?
I did find it interesting that you said Ventura voted on it. I contacted the Ventura shop and the person I corresponded with doesn’t remember any such vote. Bottom line, this HUGE pay raise request for the officials of Local 47 should have been voted on by ALL the members, not just the few that show up to a meeting here and there. Answer this; out of the 6700 members, how many actually voted yes? Was it more than 5% (335 members) that actually voted? I doubt it, because I sure can’t find a single soul who remembers the vote.
Those seem like really nice expensive cars you have, I’m happy for you. However, I could never accept your challenge. Mainly because I can’t trust any paperwork that comes from Local 47. Even you don’t trust it. Remember at the end of the trial, after the Judge handed down his ruling, you stood up and told the Judge you didn’t believe that all the letters I got from Local 47 and presented as evidence were real? So if you don’t trust Local 47 documents, how can I? As I remember the Judge suggested you contact the District Attorney if you felt the Documents were not real. Did you ever contact the District Attorney?
Back to the bet, Chet. Just cause you make almost twice as much as IBEW Local 47 is willing to negotiate for the people it represents (like me), and you probably do get free health insurance, and oh yeah, lets not forget that company car and all that free gas you get, you shouldn’t try to take advantage of me like that. You and I both know there’d be nothing stopping you from altering any “Minutes” that aren’t already public. And I’m pretty sure betting pink slips in California is illegal. As a representative of the Court, you should know that. If you have those Minutes, let’s post them. Come on Chet, where’s the beef? Be a good lawyer, and backup what you say. Prove there was a fair and honest vote by a majority of members on those ridiculously large pay raises.
As for meetings, once again you tell two different stories. You indicate you have meetings in Big Bear, Bishop, and Ventura. But when it comes to having one in the SONGS area, you come out with some wild rant whine “we don’t hold meetings on employer’s property”. Is that the best you can do? When I said SONGS, you know it’s a geographical area, just like “Ventura”, or “Bishop”. Like I said before, this union hasn’t had a meeting at (or near) SONGS in years. One of the people I work with said he did drove 65 miles to a meeting once and all the union reps did was drink beer, and they didn’t want to talk about any SONGS issues. Won’t any of those fancy company cars make it to SONGS (area)? IBEW Local 47 collected $8.7 million in dues last year, but they can’t come to represent their members at SONGS. Pretty sad, still no beef.
So, is quoting misinformation on one day and then a few days later changing your story a standard IBEW Local 47 negotiating tactic? How about using the line "Put up or shut up."? Is this how all Local 47 Business Representatives do business or just you? It sounds like when I first called the Union to inquire about the “fully paid health insurance”, and I was told, “we don’t like your kind.”
As for who negotiated my wage, I can only wish it weren’t Local 47. I easily negotiated more when I was a contractor, and had to take a pay cut to become a full time IBEW Local 47 represented employee. However, since I am not a member, I asked if I could negotiate my wage now, but unfortunately, they won’t let me. Maybe I could earn $175,000 plus a company car like Pat Lavin, or $135,000 like you. Now that would be some beef! Say, why do union officials make more than the people they represent?
You say “you can always get first hand knowledge by attending or speaking with someone who actually goes to the meetings.” Boy, I bet that would be a dream come true for you to see me, a non-member, try and attend a meeting. You would love to throw me out. As for talking to someone who actually goes to the meetings, I would love to. Why do you think I keep asking you to send me some names so I can talk to them? Chet, where’s the beef? You say you’ve got the Minutes, prove it, show me the beef. If you don’t then I will have to assume that it was 5% or less (or maybe none) of the membership that actually voted.
Write soon, your pal,
Randy
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: RE: Here is an offer
From:
chetlaw@earthlink.net
Date:
Thu, Jun 14, 2007 7:04 am
To:
wiz@ibew47.com
I knew you wouldn't be man enough to back
up your allegations, no surprise that you would fiind a way to weasel out of it. Why don't we still
make the bet and you can make a complaint to the NLRB and have them investigate
it? You trust them, don't you?
I never said I attended all the unit
meetings that addressed the "pay raise". All I meant was that I was
personally present at our unit meeting when the issue was motioned, discussed
and voted on. No story changed.
It
was voted on in Ventura. As well at he other unit meetings. Again, try asking someone who actually
goes to the meetings.
I
too took a pay cut to come to work for the union, a significant one. But
serving ther union has
been well worth it.
Well,
the offer still stands, if
you ever grow a set of balls. I may be in contact again. However, it is
not really that interesting to communiacate
with someone who won't back up his allegqtions.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * Response to Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: [FWD: RE: Here is an offer]
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Sun, Jun 17, 2007 8:14 pm
To: chetlaw@earthlink.net
Dearest Chet,
Wow, what can I say? I’ll start with; it might be helpful if you could learn how to use a spell and grammar checker. And you’re beginning to sound like a bully. You attacked my manhood twice in this short letter. Not very professional, Chet.
Let’s see if I get this right. I set up an anti-IBEW 47 website, refused to knuckle under when Local 47 fined me $250,000, refused to settle out of Court when Local 47 sued me in Court, stood up to you and Local 47 in Court, beat you in Court, then moved on to the NLRB where IBEW 47 knuckled under and agreed to remove the fines, leave me alone, pay me over $9000 -- and you challenge my manhood? What planet are you living on? I may be the only person represented by Local 47 who isn’t afraid of you or Local 47.
You started this. You wrote me and made statements that the information I posted was wrong. I have asked you SEVERAL times to send me the Minutes or a list of people whom I could call to verify your claims, but you have no names and no documentation. I must deduce that what I posted is correct.
How does it feel knowing you, an attorney, can’t even win against someone with no legal training or background?
My website stands for exposing the truth about Local 47. Your emails have gone a long way towards achieving that goal.
Thank you, Randy
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Offer
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Mon, Jun 18, 2007 7:31 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
The
offer still stands. Sign your pink slip and I'll do the same. You never asked me
to supply the minutes. When I offered to in exchange for your putting up your
signed pink slip against mine, you made up the exact excuse I expected you
would use to get out of it.
Put
up the pink and I'll produce the minutes.
Dear “Where’s the Beef” Chet,
You say “You never asked me to supply the minutes.”. I asked you for the Minutes on June 13th immediately after you claimed they existed. You would do well to conduct a little research before making allegations.
Answer this; why would anyone bet you anything for something you should be freely offering up to substantiate your claims? The fact that you can’t produce the Minutes is proof enough to me they don’t exist. Worse, a large increase in Union Administrative costs is something that all members should vote on; not just a very few select gung-ho handpicked want-a-bees.
Let me see if I can explain this one more time so even you can understand why I won’t make any bet with you. Here is a partial list of reasons:
1. You don’t have any car(s) I’d be interesting in owning.
2. Betting pink slips in California is illegal, but if you knew the law, you’d know this.
3. I graduated from Jr. High School (translation; I’m not stupid enough to be involved in a fixed bet).
4. I don’t do any deals with untrustworthy people (like sending a Summons to an address where you know I no longer reside and illegally forcing a subpoena on my ex-landlady – very sneaky!).
5. There’s not a single good reason in the world to bet with you.
6. You constantly change your story.
7. I don’t bet with bullies (you disrespected me in your previous email).
8. Betting is unethical, particularly for you because you are covered by IBEW’s “Ethical Code of Excellence”. For a lawyer, Chet, it amazes me you think even the IBEW rules are of no consequence to you.
9. You know I won’t bet you, and yet you are so intent on pushing this bet, that it must mean there really is something bogus with this so-called vote to give everyone in Local 47 a HUGE pay increase.
10. I’ve already beaten you at everything.
As usual Chet, you offer no Beef, just hot air.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: offer
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Sat, Jun 23, 2007 12:30 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
I
see you are still not willing ot
back up your false allegations. All you do is make baseless allegations
supported only by your ignorance. Don't worry about owning any of my cars. You
will lose the bet. The bi-laws are clear on the issue. I don't know how you
figure they could have been subverted.
By
the way, betting is not illegal in California. Of course you know that since
you seem to know everything else. Soliciting any illegal act is illegal in Californa. Since you are so
sure betting is illegal, why don't you have me arrested for soliciting the bet?
The truth is you just don't have the balls to back up your false allegations.
You are happy to sit back and take pot-shots, but aren't man enough ot step up when you are
called on it.
It is
interesting that you are calling me a bully just because I told you what I
think of you. Of course, you are actually a full-time, professional victim,
aren't you? When called to answer for your false allegtions, you run and hide and claim you are being
picked on. Come on, man up! Put up your pink slip. Or, alternatively, how about
a month's pay?
I
don't have time for petty cowards. Let me know when you decide to actually back
up your allegations. The only reason I wrote you in the first place was to let
you know you were mistaken about the nature of my legal practice. I mistakenly
believed you were interested in being accurate and truthful on you website. I
should have known better.
If
you are not willing to back up your allegations, don't waste my time with
further e-mails.
Chet
Dearest Chet,
So, let me get this straight. You are admitting by default that there was no vote on the OUTRAGEOUS PAY RAISES (since you have been unable to provide a single document, or the name of someone who actually took part in the vote you claim took place).
Your on-going attempt to shift your responsibility for providing some kind of proof that your apparently false claim is valid to me, by requiring me, to pay you for such information is pathetic. Continuing to call me names to cover your inadequacies is also pathetic.
As the on-staff lawyer for IBEW Local 47, the continued harassment, bullying and name-calling actions of yours are very unprofessional and unproductive. I find it amazing that Local 47 continues to employ you in this position with your attitude.
Thank you for the continued interest in my health, but my balls are just fine. And thank you for pointing out that I was a victim of IBEW Local 47’s false charges and forced unionism. I believe that’s why Local 47 paid me over $9000 and agreed to leave me alone. Not only was I the victim of Local 47 misdeeds, I was brilliant enough to purchase and now own the domain, “ibew47.com”, which is obviously driving you crazy. Maybe if you sell all those fancy cars, and combine that with a years pay, you might have enough to buy my website. As my appraiser, I offer the union, IBEW Local 47, since they kindly affixed the fair market value to my website.
According to “my.ca.gov” the only betting that is legal in California is that which is approved by the California Gaming Control Commission.
And Chet, I have to ask; is this incessant childish need of yours to bet large sums of money the standard operating procedure down at the union hall when one of the whiners doesn’t get his or her way? What comes next, my daddy can beat up your daddy?
As always, lots of hugs…
Randy
PS. Oh yeah, I think I’ll nominate you as the on-going worst speller I’ve ever met.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * Message from Chet * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Mr. Bennett,
About a month ago you wrote me about issues on my website that you felt were inaccurate. We have exchanged several emails. On June 12th you challenged me; “You said in one of your e-mails that you would print my responses. Let's see if you are man enough to keep your word”. I have printed all of your responses including your very unprofessional gutter talk and bullying. So I guess I’ve met your definition of “man”.
I haven’t changed my point of view about betting pink slips in California being illegal. I even listed the appropriate reference to back up my point of view from the State of California website. From your statements in these recent emails, it is obvious that you feel you know more about State Law and the U.S. Constitutional Law than judges do. This is the reason I cannot take anything you say as valid information; you apparently live in a dream world where you see yourself as someone who controls all the rules of the universe even when the Judge explained the law to you. As an Officer of the Court, you should know better and act accordingly. Many who are following these emails find it hard to believe that you are really a licensed lawyer.
Anyone who has read this bantering of ours knows that you do not believe that Freedom of Speech should be afforded to anyone that IBEW Local 47 represents. People are waking up. Even Southern California Edison, who has toed the union line for so long is waking up. You might have noticed the image of an SCE Check at the bottom of my main web page for the refund of the illegally collected Agency Fees at IBEW Local 47’s request. You will probably find that in the future they will not be so willing to violate the law at Local 47’s direction.
Somehow you feel that just because “Chet Bennett” says something, then darn, it must be true. You made several, sometimes conflicting claims, about the outrageous pay raises for union officials that IBEW Local 47 reported to the Federal Government. You say it was voted on by the members but have been unable to tell me a single person who voted for it. You talk about “by-laws” and “Minutes of Meetings” but can’t provide any documentation, not a single iota of anything to backup your objection to what I post on my website except your ongoing immature, unprofessional attempts to attack my manhood and this incessant ridiculous desire of yours for me to bet you pink slips before you will provide documentation to backup your claims. You know I will never bet with you, so it can only mean there is no documentation. A simple majority of members would be 3,353 members who voted FOR the raise. Why is it I can’t locate a single member who remembers ever being asked to vote on this outrageous raise?
Chet, I have to tell you, so many people have contacted me about your comments, I think I’ve made you famous. You are a cross between a pit bull that won’t let go (we have to bet “pink slips”) and a bag of hot air (all talk, no beef). May your legacy live for many years.
I replied to your emails in an attempt to find out if your objection had any truth to it. You have managed to waste a lot of my time, and that’s all you’ve accomplished. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing, and lives on at my website. You want me to “put my money where my mouth is”… I’ve done you one better, I’ve put my integrity on the line with my website, I’ve beaten you at your own game in a Court of Law – that’s worth so much more than money, or your expensive cars.
Happy Independence Day,
Subject: RE: offer
From: wiz@ibew47.com
Date: Sun, Jul 08, 2007 9:27 pm
To: Chet Bennett <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Dearest Lawyer Chet,
“Baseless Allegations”??? What are you talking about? How do you figure that the financial data IBEW Local 47 filed with the Federal Government is “baseless”? Are you saying that the information Local 47 filed is false? Did you actually give yourselves a bigger pay increases than reported? This could be big news!
“False Allegations”??? All I did was take the information IBEW Local 47 filed with the Federal Government and compare it to the previous year. Believe me Chet, Microsoft Excel can figure percentages correctly, and those 12 to 35 percent pay increases are outrageous, particularly when you compare it to the paltry 3.5 percent Local 47 procured for the majority of their members (less than the amount of increased costs some pay for their health insurance, a loss of benefits woefully negotiated by Local 47).
Let’s face it Chet, you in particular, believe in and promote lies. On the Local 47 website, Local 47 still claims all members “get fully-paid health insurance”. And there you stood in Court, as a Representative of the Court, defending this lie. You were unable to provide any proof to the Court that any member had “fully-paid health insurance”. An SCE subpoena clearly showed that Local 47 had 179 SCE members with NO medical coverage, just like my first 18 months in this dreadful union. And I don’t know a single one of your 5000+ SCE members who get fully-paid health insurance. Such a lie! And then you expect me to believe anything you say. You truly are living in a fantasy dream world. Local 47 collected $8.7 million dollars to represent us, then post lies on their website, and refused to negotiate for decent medical coverage for all members. Shame on Local 47.
Do I need to list the other lie you defended, “the same set of rules applies to everyone”? Gee, is that why some members, in good standing, can’t bid on open job positions. Again Chet, why would anyone believe anything you have to say? And you accuse me of false allegations?
From the statements in your email I am beginning to wonder
if you have a reading comprehension problem.
Maybe you can get that five year old next door to read these to you and
then explain what they mean. Your “PS”
statement is unbelievable. You are
unbelievable. How do you figure
“betting pink slips” is not betting?
Hello, earth to Chet… How could
anyone ever take anything you say with any expectation of it being true?
And what do you mean I “run and hide”??? Chet, are you on drugs? I’m right here, in your face. I publish everything you write, how do you figure that’s hiding? Oh yeah, I forgot, you live in a fantasy dream world. Only one problem Chet, I don’t play by your dream world rules. Truth has no room for lies and deception.
OK, on to your stupid bet. Let me get this straight. You’ll give me an all-expense-paid trip to Nevada (I’m guessing Las Vegas) where we can legally have this bet, and after I put up my pink slip, you’ll produce a list of 3,353 members (and their phone numbers for verification) who voted “yes” to these OUTRAGEOUS PAY RAISES (3,353 = simple majority, list to be in Excel format so I can search for duplicate names and phone numbers). Sounds good to me. I will call all 3,353 members to verify their vote before surrendering my car (in reality, I will probably only have to call two or three at random to find someone who will say they never heard of any such vote, and then you’ll lose). By the way, which one of your expensive cars do you think will fetch the highest price on eBay?
When describing yourself you say “I'm man enough to back up what I say”. How do you figure that, Chet? Remember in the beginning how you tried to tell me you weren’t a lawyer? And then you admitted you were. Did you really pass the bar exam? You couldn’t even answer my simple question about assumed damages for Malicious Prosecution. All you have to offer is twisted hot air. Where’s the beef? No documentation to back up this wild claim you started and your ongoing crazy statements means you have zero believability. Maybe I should call you Mr. Zero. How’s this; Mr. Zero, you are the Man!
Sweet dreams of me tonight,
Randolph (a.k.a. your reality check)
PS. Maybe you could get that five year old to spell and grammar check your messages before you send them.
Subject: offer
(chetlaw@earthlink.net) (chetlaw@earthlink.net) 07/09/2007 6:46 pm offer
From:
"Chet Bennett" <chetlaw@earthlink.net>
Date:
Mon, Jul 09, 2007 6:48 pm
To:
<wiz@ibew47.com>
Just
got your e-mail, again replete with your unique interpretations of facts and
statements. First of all, let's get something straight: you are a lying sonofabitch. I never denied
being a lawyer. Why would I do so when I am representing clients in court?
Maybe you don't know, but it is a felony to practice law without a license. Why
would I claim to be committing a felony? Your attorney knew I was a lawyer.
But, again, you already know that, don't you? You know everything, don't you?
The complaint we served you with contains my Bar number as does each document
we propounded on your attorney. Interesting how I would deny being a lawyer
when every document pertaining to the case has my bar card number on it. What I
did say was that, despite your assertions, I do not work full time as an
attorney and I do not have my own office. I am a full-time business rep for the
IBEW Local 47. My legal practice is incidental to my job as a business rep.
You falsely claimed on your web cite that I was a part time
business rep.and full time attorney with my own office. I merely corrected this
untruth. You need to try and keep better track of your falsehoods and
subsequent attempts to change the facts.
As
for the statement about medical insurance: you have again decided to disregard
the clear reference to construction members. Of course, in your case, you have
to disregard certain key words time to time in order to convince people you
know what you're talking about. You are a utility worker. The construction
division is entirely separate. The statement in question specifically refers to
construction members when it speaks of fully paid health insurance. Try reading
it again. This time read all the words.
All
union members have the same rights as the others when it comes to union rights.
Everyone is treated the same. You even admitted to working the same hours and
for the same pay as the other members in your classification. It is the company
that does not let certain members bid on certain jobs. All members are entitled
to the same protection by the union as any other member.
We
never voted ourselves any pay raise. That is against the bi-laws and the law. The
raise was passed at the respective unit meetings by the rank and file members.
I have offered to prove it to you, but you don't have the guts to back up your
statement. If you are so sure I am lying about this, shut up and put up your
car's pink slip. What are you afraid of?
I
never said I would give you the names of each person who voted on the pay
raise. You will not find any correspondence where I said that. I said I would
produce the minutes from the various unit meetings. In case you don't know,
there is no record of the names of those voted for (or for that matter against)
the "pay raise." Just like in
our governmental elections, records of such things are not kept in order to
encourage fair elections. If you knew anything about how meetings are conducted
and how issues are voted on, you would know this. But of course, you would much
rather remain ignorant. That way nothing will impede you from creating your own
little fantasy world where you get to be the perpetual victim. After all, that
is what your web cite
is, isn't it, your little fantasy world where you get to be the divine ruler
and things are just what you say they are? Perhaps you should take a class in
political science.
As
for your statement that I "couldn't even answer [your] simple question
about assumed (sic) (the correct term is presumed) damages for Malicious
Prosecution": The issue was presumed damages for libel per se. For your
information, damages are not presumed in a malicious prosecution action. If you
are so sure you will prevail in a malicious prosecution action, go ahead, shut
up and file it. It is interesting the judge didn't think the suit was without
merit or he would have granted your attorney's motion to dismiss after the case
in chief.
As
for the issue of betting being legal or not: You made the blanket statement
that betting is illegal in California. It is not illegal. In your last e-mail you
even cited a circumstance where betting is legal, or don't you remember? Maybe, you now don't believe yourself.
Again,
I'm man enough to back up my statements. Just say the word and I'm ready to put
up my pink slip. Haven't seen you make any moves in that direction. Nothing but
empty talk and baseless allegations coming from you. I'm ready to act, but you
are again hiding under your rock inventing your little world so that you can
again be a victim. It particularly tickles me that you are willing to say
things to me while sitting behind your computer that you would never say to my
face, but again, we all know what kind of "man" you are.
Put
up, shut up, or crawl back into the safety of your hole and hide behind our
computer.
Earth to Mr. Zero, you sure sound tough these days,
I bet you’re really proud of yourself this time. First you slander and defame the good name of my angelic mother by calling her a bitch (you really are a low-life Chet). And then in one public email, as a Business Representative, and an Official of IBEW Local 47, you manage to belittle, disgrace, and disenfranchise over two-thirds of all Local 47 members. Yep, I bet you’re really proud of yourself now. Congratulations, no one can say it like you do!
And, Chet, I really wish you’d make up your mind. Are you a Business Rep or a Lawyer for IBEW Local 47? Because you know Chet, the LEGAL Documents Local 47 filed with the Federal Government says you’re a Business Representative, NOT a Lawyer. If you’re an on-staff lawyer who renders legal advice to members (for free or otherwise), then Local 47 filed false documentation. You represented Mr. Delgado and Mr. Lavin in Court, where you clearly told me you didn’t work for the union while I was on the stand. You proudly proclaimed you had your own legal office. It’s so confusing when you keep changing your story!
Thanks so much for supplying your Bar number 183789. I noted with interest you listed your “law office” on some of the Court documents with the same address as your home. How confusing! How much is Local 47 paying you for this “law office” to serve as “Attorney for the Plaintiffs”? Which one of these conflicting pieces of information should we believe? And gee, Chet, do you have a business license to run this second location of the “LAW OFFICE OF CHET BENNETT” out of your home? When you play lawyer, do you spend your days in Riverside or San Clemente? The more I learn, the more confusing this gets.
Speaking of mistakes, you really do need to take a spelling class; the proper spelling is “son-of-a-bitch”. And although I’m sure you’d like to see me cited for something, it’s a website, not a web cite.
I may not know everything like you claim, but I do know how to run a website, and apparently I know how to get a bully such as yourself to make statements that make you look like a BIG buffoon. And I’ve gotten you to publicly admit what disdain and disrespect you have for the majority of IBEW Local 47’s members (what you call “utility workers”).
You’ve made it very apparent that it is time to end this type of union slavery in California. Unions can be good, but they should earn the respect of their members, not force them to pay high dues imposed by bullies for less than stellar performance. You and those like you should be forever grateful that you don’t have to get a yearly or periodic vote of confidence. If the officials of this union had the guts to take pay raise requests to all members for a vote, you’d never get a raise. There surely wouldn’t be any more statements like “we don’t like your kind”, or “if you ever grow a set a balls”.
And I’ve caught you in another lie; you said in your email, “You made the blanket statement that betting is illegal in California”. All you had to do was check the emails posted on my website, and there, on June 13, when we first discussed the bet I said, “And I’m pretty sure betting pink slips in California is illegal”. Once again you can’t separate fact from fiction. As always, you would do well to conduct a little research before making allegations.
As for the bet, I was ready to accept your bet. I just mentioned a few ground rules so we could have a fair, balanced, and verifiable bet, and you totally backed out whining like a two-year-old. You want me to bet on a document that has no way of being verified? Are you nuts? Is that how you got that fleet of expensive cars (by conning people into betting on some scam)? You know Chet, you started this, you wrote me. If you have some documentation that you think would make my website more correct, then just submit it, like you would to any other website or business. This betting scam is just that, a scam to try to divert attention away from the issue of the OUTRAGEOUS PAY INCREASE.
Now, on to the important issue; your belittling of the majority of members. You really out did yourself on this one Chet. The members who work for the several utilities that Local 47 represents, according to Mr. Lavin’s testimony, totals over two-thirds of the members. Yet you clearly pointed out that this majority is a “lower class” of members than those who are “construction workers”. These elite upper class members get special benefits not afforded to the lower class members. Local 47’s website links to (Top Ten Reasons why you need a union where you work) says “Organizing and Why Union?”. It DOES NOT say, these benefits only apply to the elite minority of your members. Why don’t all members deserve the same level of representation, benefits, and bargaining? I guess if SCE members don’t get the medical insurance as advertised, then they don’t need a union where they work. Would you say that’s a fair understanding?
And what’s this jazz about trying to change Webster’s Definition of “Construction Worker”?. The dictionary says “construction worker” is a journeyman, artificer, craftsman - a skilled worker who practices some trade or handicraft. Just because someone works for Southern California Edison or other Municipality doesn’t mean they can’t be a construction worker. SCE has entire divisions called “Construction this and that”. Do you think high voltage lines get built by themselves? What happens to your previous made up definition if we call your “construction workers” home installers, or electricians, or any other generic type of company? What a line of baloney dude, a real Mr. Zero move. I am not a utility worker. I am a construction worker. In Court I produced the hiring papers that showed I was hired to do construction for a company that is sometimes
