The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edelstein, District Judge.
This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an
action commenced by the United States of America against, inter
alia, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT" or "the
union") and the IBT's General Executive Board ("GEB"). The
settlement is embodied in the voluntary consent order entered
March 14, 1989 ("Consent Decree"). The goals of the Consent
Decree are to rid the IBT of the hideous influence of organized
crime and establish a culture of democracy within the union. The
long history of this case has been set forth in this Court's
numerous prior opinions. Accordingly, only those facts necessary
for resolving the instant matter shall be set forth.
On June 30, 1994, the IRB issued a report recommending that the
IBT charge Simpson with violating the IBT Constitution by (1)
bringing reproach upon the IBT and (2) interfering with Local
743's legal obligations by allowing Donald Peters to act as an
agent and representative of Local 743 after the entry of a
consent decree barring Peters from these positions. See United
States v. IBT [Simpson], 931 F. Supp. 1074, 1080 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
On July 5, 1994, the IBT charged Simpson as the IRB recommended
and returned the matter to the IRB for adjudication. Id.
The IRB conducted a hearing on the charges against Simpson on
December 20 and 21, 1994. On July 25, 1995, the three member
panel of the IRB issued a unanimous decision finding that the
charges against Simpson were proven. Accordingly, the IRB
permanently barred Simpson from holding any IBT-affiliated office
or employment. The IRB's decision was then forwarded to this
Court for review. See id. at 1079.
After the IRB issued its decision, in a motion to this Court,
Simpson raised the issue of recusal of Lacey for the first time.
In that motion, for which Simpson now seeks reconsideration, he
alleged that a letter Lacey wrote to Thomas Puccio ("Puccio"),
the Trustee of Local 295 ("April 1994 letter"), was evidence that
Lacey was biased against Simpson. On June 27, 1996, this Court
rejected Simpson's claim of bias and affirmed the IRB's decision.
See id. at 1074. In refusing Simpson's demand for Lacey's
recusal, this Court employed the "involved officer or member"
standard set forth in Article XIX, § 1(a) of the IBT
Constitution. Id. at 1103.
Simpson appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, who in turn, affirmed this Court's decision. See United
States v. IBT, 120 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 1997). In rejecting
Simpson's claim of bias, the Second Circuit held that
Simpson's claim [of bias] is based solely on [his]
speculation and conclusory allegations. Simpson has
sought to conjure a claim that Lacey [is] biased
against him from a series of inferences based on a
single sentence in the [April 1994 letter] that
Simpson claims demonstrates that Lacey is biased in
favor of Carey. From this one sentence, Simpson
infers that Lacey is partial to Carey, that this
alleged partiality makes Lacey biased against Simpson
because of an alleged "falling out" between Carey and
Simpson, and that this alleged bias against him
caused the IRB to take action against Simpson that
the IRB otherwise would not have taken.
Id. at 347-48 (citations and footnote omitted).
In a similar case, former IBT Vice President Gene Giacumbo
("Giacumbo") claimed that the same April 1994 letter proved that
Lacey was biased against him. This Court similarly rejected
Giacumbo's claim, again using the "involved officer or member"
standard. See United States v. IBT [Giacumbo], 951 F. Supp. at
1129-30. On Appeal, the Second Circuit remanded the Giacumbo
matter to this Court, finding that the appropriate standard for
determining whether an IRB member should recuse himself is the
"evident partiality" standard of the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2). See United States v. IBT
[Giacumbo], 170 F.3d 136.
On March 26, 1999, this Court issued a decision finding that
even under the evident partiality standard there was no basis for
Giacumbo's claim that Lacey should have recused himself. See
United States v. IBT [Giacumbo], 1999 WL 169635, at *3, 1999
U.S.Dist. LEXIS 3957 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 1999) at *9-10. This
Court reasoned that:
The full test of the April 1994 letter and the
circumstances surrounding that letter demonstrated no
partiality on the part of Lacey toward Carey.
Instead, the letter expressed Lacey's objection to
the litigation tactics of Puccio. As Lacey explained
during his July 30, 1998 testimony before the
Subcommittee on Education and the Workforce of the
United States House of Representatives
("Subcommittee"), he wrote the letter after he had
been informed that Puccio had threatened to ...