Plaintiffs Responses to Discovery Questions

The files (attached below) containing the discovery responses from the original lawsuit plaintiffs were forwarded to us today by an anonymous source. From what we can gather, it seems the statements in them were made sometime last week.

The plaintiffs definitely seem to be trying to be as tight-lipped and evasive as possible as judging by their refusal to discuss anything that reveals their ties to the Teamsters. Roy Arnold, for one, refused to answer a single question beyond admitting to have thrown out some documents he had in his possession.

Even, a lot of new information comes to light that none of us in the UTU seem to have had any knowledge of before:

Everyone knows that President Mike Futhey cooperated with the plaintiffs by providing them with an affidavit in support of their effort to stop the merger. We know at the same time he did this, he was still telling everyone around him he was for the merger and had ample opportunity to come out against the merger numerous times at the UTU Convention and at an October Board meeting. What we did not know is that according to Jim Eubanks, it turns out Futhey was the one who started the ball rolling against the merger by initiating contact with the Teamster plants! According to Eubanks: “I received a phone call from M.B. Futhey that resulted in a meeting Ed Michael and I had with him in Memphis during which we learned, generally and for the first time, that Paul Thompson's representations about the UTU Constitution remaining intact as part of a SMART Constitution, and preservation of UTU autonomy, were disingenuous and false."

Ed Michael refused to answer questions about or deny his involvement in the Teamsters. This includes what offices he ran for, statements he made while at the Teamsters, positions he took as a Teamsters official, and his effort at merging the UTU into the Teamsters.

Ed Michael, in an amazing moment of clarity actually answered questions about his membership in the UTU. It seems that Ed Michael left the UTU in 1992 and did not come back until last year – just in time to launch his bid to derail the membership’s vote for the merger.

About funding of the lawsuit, Eubanks testifies that “Contributions to plaintiffs’ Save Our Union fund have been received, to date, from 66 individual members, ranging from $20 to $1,600, and from 29 subordinate UTU entities, ranging from $100 (US) to $30,000 (Canadian). In addition, a retired UTU member loaned plaintiffs the $35,000 required, at the outset, to retain Mr. Fox.” Who is this retired UTU member with $35,000 to burn? The answer to that I’m sure may turn a lot of heads.

It’s interesting that the plaintiffs seem to be doing everything they possibly can to pressure the 7 UTU Vice Presidents into caving into King Futhey’s wishes – rather than let the process continue towards one of discovery where the plaintiffs’ motives and plans are exposed. Though they refused to answer a lot of important questions, we’re confident they will eventually have to fess up in one way or another. It’s not just the Court that will begin pressuring them, it’s also the mounting pressure on their allies in Cleveland that will force them to.

Click on the following to view .pdf scans taken of each of the plaintiffs' depositions:

Roy Arnold Discovery Responses
Jim Eubanks' Discovery Responses
Jon Hasenauer Discovery Responses
Ed Michael Discovery Responses
Save Our Union Checks
Fox Engagement Letter