A false accusation of conduct that damages another’s reputation is generally regarded as defamation.   Defamation through negligence is wrongful and actionable.  Deliberate, falsehoods make defamation worse.  Falsely accusing another of criminal conduct makes it even more offensive.   There is written defamation and oral defamation.

Joe Nigro and Bob DiOrio  may be on track to take home the grand  prize of all defamations.  The linchpin pretext of the I.A. trusteeship over 28, as gamed by Nigro and DiOrio was their accusation that selected Local 28 officials unlawfully enriched themselves through “double dipping”.  Nigro and DiOrio assaulted the reputations of these officials in writing and orally, knowingly and deliberately, and then topped it off by accusing them of criminal conduct.  If the I.A. accusations against these officials are true, the accused are criminals.  If the accusations are untrue, Nigro and DiOrio are defamers.  Which is it?  Was this a grand slam of stupidity by a pair of reckless I.A. harpies?  Or was Local 28, thanks to the due diligence of Nigro and DiOrio, saved from a criminal cabal?

Let’s see?  These accusations have been out there, published, since November 13, 2013.  The accusations were cemented into place in the  minds of Local 28’s membership by the I.A. when Nigro and DiOrio suspended or removed the accused from office.  Since November ’13 there has been more than enough time for the I.A. to confirm their charges or reconsider their charges.  There has been no retraction of the charges by the I.A.   There has been no apology.  If there was defamation of these officials by the I.A., it therefore continues today, unabated, knowingly and deliberately.

Perplexingly however, for the membership, the I.A. has just seen fit to return three criminally accused BAs to the office which they were recently elected after having accused them and removed them from office for double dipping, et al.  Hmmmm?

All of which inescapably leads us to a choice of two ugly answers to two uglier questions: whether the I.A. was unerringly inept in returning  three criminals to office?  Or whether the I.A. was unerringly officious and malicious in charging them with crimes in the first instance?

What say you, Joe Nigro,  Bob DiOrio?  And what say you, I.A. VPs, Whately, Word and Zimmerman who robotically ratified this misbegotten trusteeship?

What say you, the membership?