`the propriety of actions' taken pursuant to the consent decree."
IBT v. Teamsters Local Union 714, 109 F.3d 846, 849 (2d Cir.
1997); see Erbacci, 911 F. Supp. at 749. In his lawsuit, Slemko
objects to the conduct of the Election Officer and the IRB in
pursuing disciplinary action against him. If the Canadian court
grants the relief requested in the Slemko Action, it would
unnecessarily complicate the Election Officer's, the IRB's, and
the IBT's efforts to pursue disciplinary measures against Slemko,
a result that would subvert the Consent Decree's disciplinary
processes. See United States v. IBT ("Darrow"), 896 F. Supp. 1339
(S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, this Court enjoins Slemko from
continuing with the Slemko Action because it violates the All
B. Personal Jurisdiction
"Under the All Writs Act, this Court has the power to enforce
the Consent Decree . . . against a non-party . . . so long as
this Court has jurisdiction over the non-party." See United
States v. IBT ("Labatt"), 945 F. Supp. 609, 624 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Slemko is a member of the IBT, and as such, it is important to
recognize that the Consent Decree binds all members and
affiliates of the IBT, see United States v. IBT ("Senese &
Talerico"), 941 F.2d 1292, 1297 (2d Cir. 1991) and, by its
terms, the All Writs Act applies to "members" of the IBT.
Furthermore, although Slemko is not a party to the Consent
Decree, it is well established that "[i]njunctions may be issued
against non-parties under the All Writs Act." All Writs Order,
907 F.2d at 281. Indeed, this Court has enforced the Consent
Decree against third parties in Canada. See Labatt, 945 F. Supp. 609.
To establish personal jurisdiction, "the All Writs Act requires
no more than that the persons enjoined have the `minimum
contacts' that are constitutionally required under due process."
All Writs Order, 907 F.2d at 281. The minimum contacts standard
is satisfied and a court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign
party "if at the time jurisdiction is asserted . . . the person .
. . had carried on outside the state an activity having a
substantial, direct, and foreseeable effect within the state, but
only in respect to such activity." Labatt, 945 F. Supp. at 620.
This Court finds that Slemko's conduct in Canada has caused a
substantial, direct, and foreseeable effect within the United
States. First, Slemko's violations of the Election Rules
interfered with the election process and the Consent Decree's
goal of ensuring a fair, free, democratic, and informed election.
The Election Officer found that Slemko violated the Election
Rules by collecting, marking, and mailing ballots of other IBT
members in the 1996 IBT rerun election. This Court has emphasized
that the Election Rules "are the `linchpin' in the ongoing effort
to cleanse the IBT of the `hideous influence of organized
crime.'" Id. at 621 (quoting Darrow, 896 F. Supp. at 1354);
accord United States v. IBT ("1991 Election Rules Order"),
742 F. Supp. 94, 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ("[N]o question is more central to
the ultimate success of this Consent Decree than this proposed
framework for the first fully democratic, secret ballot elections
in the history of a union which has been the historic marionette
of organized crime."). Thus, Slemko's prohibited actions
interfered with the Election Rules' purpose of governing the IBT
election throughout the United States and Canada, and, thereby,
caused an effect within the United States by thwarting the
Election Rules' ultimate goal of ridding the IBT of the influence
of organized crime.
Second, Slemko's challenge to the IRB's and the IBT's authority
to discipline him for his interference with the 1996 IBT rerun
election impedes the disciplinary process set forth in the IRB
Rules and the Consent Decree's objective of ridding the IBT of
corruption and the gruesome influence of organized crime. Conduct
that impedes or stymies the efforts of the Court Officers or
threatens the purposes and goals of the Consent Decree will
to confer personal jurisdiction. See Labatt, 945 F. Supp. at
620-23 (discussing conduct interfering with Election Officer's
enforcement of Election Rules). Here, if the Canadian court
grants Slemko's requested relief of an order enjoining the IRB
and the IBT from pursuing disciplinary proceedings against him,
it would prevent the IRB and the IBT from exercising their
authority under the Consent Decree and the IRB Rules. Such a
ruling would, in turn, interfere with this Court's exclusive
authority, pursuant to the Consent Decree, to oversee the
operations of the IRB. Thus, Slemko's lawsuit causes an effect
within the United States because it seeks to subvert the
disciplinary processes and the underlying objectives of the
For all the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Slemko has
violated the All Writs Order and that it is entirely consistent
with the notions of fair play and justice for this Court to
exercise its jurisdiction over Slemko to order his immediate
compliance with the All Writs Order. This Court also finds Slemko
in default because he has neither timely nor adequately responded
to the Government's motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to the All Writs Order,
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and this Court's inherent
equity powers, Slemko is enjoined from further pursuing the
Slemko Action, presently pending in the Court of Queens Bench of
Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, in any court or forum in
any jurisdiction except this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Slemko is to withdraw the Slemko
action within ten days of this order.