SCHNEIDER NATIONAL,INC - SNI - LUKE Simendinger, provide limited training. SNI use government funds to supplement this program (CORPORATE WELFARE) Green Bay Wisconsin

 COMPLAINTS Regarding: CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, Inc. / SWIFT Transportation & AAA ARBITRATION ..... Biased Treatment On or about 1/04/2008 Walter Ellis signed a lease agreement with CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, Inc. / SWIFT Transportation which was determined in a lawsuit http://getmansweeney.com/current-cases/central-refrigerated-forced-labor-minimum-wage . that was based "FRAUD". "This lawsuit and the resulting cases in arbitration are brought on behalf of truckers who lease trucks from Central Leasing, Inc. (CLI) and are treated as “owner operators” by Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. (CRS). The drivers claim that 1) Central misclassified them as “independent contractors” and then made unlawful deductions from their wages,

2) misrepresented the amount they would make as owner operators, and 3) engaged in a scheme of “forced labor” coercing them to driving for Central even though it was unprofitable, under threat they would be liable for excessive charges and be subject to a negative DAC report if they tried to leave". Below is a summary of the agreement entered on Plaintiff’s behalf by Getman / Sweeney http://getmansweeney.com/current-cases/central-refrigerated-forced-labor-minimum-wage, was based on: Third, the Drivers in the individual arbitrations also claim that Central’s contract unjustly enriches Central at their expense by having the drivers pay for the truck leases, gas, tolls, insurance, equipment, bonds, etc. This claim seeks damages for unlawful contract terms which require Drivers to bear all the expenses and business risk for Central’s fleet inventory while securing all the benefits for Central. This claim seeks reimbursement for the various deductions from Drivers’ pay.

Finally, the Drivers claim that the Contract and Lease agreements that Central makes Drivers sign on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without allowing Drivers to take the agreements off Central’s premises to be reviewed by a third-party and without allowing Drivers to negotiate any of its terms, is so beneficial to Central and detrimental to Drivers as to be unconscionable. This claim seeks rescission of the agreements and a declaration that the agreements are unconscionable and unenforceable. If you are or were an Owner Operator for Central at any point in the last six years and you wish to bring an individual claim for arbitration for misrepresentation by Central in terms of the earnings you would receive as an owner operator, or for unlawful deductions from your pay for the truck lease, gas, insurance, tolls, maintenance, bonds, etc., or if you were an Owner Operator within the last ten years and you wish to bring an individual arbitration to address Central’s “forced labor,” please contact Getman Sweeney and ask to speak with one of the paralegals handling the Central Refrigerated cases.

In an attempt to negotiate a settlement, the below e-mail and conversation(s) took place between Attorney Hansen and Ellis: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 Mr. Hansen, Per our discussion of earlier, I am interested in receiving the $500 as discussed. Please send me a check for that amount as soon as possible. Regards, Walter L. Ellis Memorandum telephone conversation with Respondent Attorney Drew Hansen 9/18/2015 Walter Ellis (WE): I asked Mr. Hansen if he would any objection to staying the arbitration. DH: They would reject the lifting of stay. After suing CRS in 2011 and loss I have no case against CRS. DH stated he intend to alert the ARB that WE have no claim. WE: I intend to get n touch with the ARB & let AA know that I intend to pursue my claims. DH stated I had no claims they would object to me filing “any” claims, due them being time barred. Advised a PAGA claim in ARB. You cannot pursue any claim anywhere. Any claim I would pursue would be frivolous. WE: I asked if the claims Getman filed on my behalf was frivolous, if not why are my claims frivolous? DH: CLAIMS BARRED BY RES Judicata WE: I INTEND TO PURSUE THESE CLAIMS, AND WOULD RESP AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY. THESE CLAIMS WERE BASED ON FRAUD, AND WERE FILED WITHIN THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS. DH: ARGUED THAT I WAS NOT IN THE STATUE. STATED. STATED ARB WOULD HAVE TO BE HELD IN UT, NOT CA. DH STATED I DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO OTHER CASE STATUS, DUE TO ME REP MYSELF IN PRO-PER (RAMBLING….) WENT ON TO OFFER $500.00. WHEN ASKED IF HE WOULD SEND HIS PROPOSAL IN WRITING, HE STATED HE WOULD NOT DO SO IN WRITING. THIS 500 WOULD RELEASE CRS OF ALL CLAIMS. STATED HE DID NOT KNOW WHY I WOULD PURSUE THESE CLAIMS. Hansen went on to state THAT I DID NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL. I am outside my understanding. STATED I HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING ANY AMOUNT,

see: Below recording: AA Hansen #4 2-23-15 3-3-2016 (3).wma AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION Walter Ellis, Claimant, v. CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICE, INC., CENTRAL LEASING, INC., JON ISAACSON and JERRY MOYES, Respondents SUPPLEMENTAL ARBITRATION FACTS AND CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF WALTER ELLIS FACTS ADDITIONAL TO COMPLAINT Fraud and Misrepresentation That Owner Operators Would Earn 15 to 43% More As Owner Operators. CRS and CLI (collectively “Respondents”) have regularly misrepresented that owner operators will earn $15,000 more than company drivers. Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability of the Lease and Employment Contract 11. The Contracts allow CRS to terminate Owner Operators’ Contracts, with or without cause, on 10 days’ notice. Unjust Enrichment of Respondents by Claimant Due to Employee Misclassification 20. Despite the characterization of Owner Operators as independent contractors, Respondents exercise virtually the same control over Owner Operators as they do over their employee drivers. 21. The Respondents’ characterization of Owner Operators as independent contractors is the centerpiece of a labor scheme crafted to allow Respondents to charge Owner Operators for the opportunity to work, shift virtually all of their business expenses and business risk to Owner Operators, and to defeat all federal and state protections for employees, such as Title VII, MLA, NLRA and wage protection statutes such as the FLSA and similar state laws and to exact profits from their drivers they never could legally take from employees (such as charges for equipment, bookkeeping charges, bond and insurance requirements, etc.). By misclassifying Owner Operators, Respondents also evade the tax burdens that they would otherwise bear for employees – Social Security, FUTA, etc. – which are also shifted to the Owner Operators. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (FEDERAL COMMON LAW FRAUD CONCERNING MATERIAL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT) 25. Claimant re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs, including those in the complaint filed in Cilluffo, et al v. Central Refrigerated, et al, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.), which has been incorporated into Claimant’s arbitration demand. 26. Respondents engaged in FRAUD by making (1) a false representation (2) in reference to a material fact (3) made with knowledge of its falsity (4) and with the intent to deceive. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (UTAH UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LEASE AND EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT UNCONSCIONABILITY) SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (UTAH COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION) WHEREFORE, Claimant requests that the arbitrator enter an Order:

1. With respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims: a. Declaring that Respondents engaged in fraud and negligent misrepresentation; b. Granting judgment to Claimant for his/her damages, including but not limited to unpaid wages and interest; c. Granting judgment to Claimant for punitive damages against Respondents; and d. Awarding Claimant and his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit including expert fees and interest.

2. With respect to the Uniform Commercial Code unconscionability claim: a. Declaring that the Lease and Contract are unconscionable; b. Fashioning appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy Respondents’ violations of law, including but not necessarily limited to an order determining that the contract is void, or voidable, or alternatively severing any unconscionable clauses and enjoining Respondents from continuing their unlawful practices as described herein; c. Awarding statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, appropriate statutory penalties, and restitution to be paid by Respondents according to proof; d. Awarding Pre-judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law; e. Granting such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and f. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert fees, interest, and costs.

3. With respect to the unjust enrichment claim: a. Awarding compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution to be paid by Respondents according to proof; b. Awarding Pre-judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law; c. Granting such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert fees, interest, and costs. Dated: November 13, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, Dan Getman, Lesley Tse, Getman & Sweeney, PLLC, 9 Paradies Lane New Paltz, New York 1256, Telephone: (845) 255-9370, Fax: (845) 255-8649 FRAUDULENTLY repossess a truck that I had leased, and had fulfilled all my obligations, This recording took place at the DOT Inspection Station, Saugus, CA May 2008, between CENTRAL'S Attorney Mark Wilkey and Human Resources Director Bill Baker. They conspired to illegally / FRAUDULENTLY repossess a truck that I had leased, and had fulfilled all my obligations, see recording below: #1 Recording CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES Safety Direrctor Saugas, CA DOT Facility / #2 Recording Baker-Wilkey @ Saugus, CA Scale This recording below was made to protect me from criminal acts perpetrated by CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, while illegally taking a leased truck that was in my possession, see: #1. Recording CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES Safety Direrctor Saugas, CA DOT Facility ============================================================================ This recording took place at the DOT Inspection Station, Saugus, CA May 2008, between CENTRAL'S Attorney Mark Wilkey and Human Resources Director Bill Baker. They conspired to illegally and FRAUDULENTLY repossess a truck that I had leased, and had fulfilled all my obligations, see recording below: #2. Recording Baker-Wilkey @ Saugus, CA Scale ============================================================================ Conversation David T. my Fontana home terminal Dispatcher #3. Recording Dispatcher David T ============================================================================ This is a conversation with Utah DOT Official BLUAR regarding CRS' numerous DOT violations #4. Conversation with David Bluar Utah DOT Official Re: CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICE VIOLATIONS ============================================================================ A conversation with Carl Deharo regarding trainee's eye problems, see below recording: #5. click here to download file ============================================================================ The below recording is a conversation between Human Recourses Director William Baker, initiated by me, along with UTAH Attorney General. The subject of the conversation was my pointing out the extreme discrimination that existed in CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, and the State of UTAH. #6. Recorded Conversation CRS Bill Baker / UTAH Attorney General ============================================================================ A conversation with CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES' Safety Director regarding problems I was having with my second Trainee. I advised that I was recording our conversation, as CRS was well aware that I recorded most conversations. #7. Conversation with CRS SAFETY regarding problems with Trainee Joel 12/20/2007 Posted by walter Lake Elsinore, CA

Explain in further detail to the FMCSA whitleblower complaint that you filed and (assuming) is being investigated.

Also you have the legal right to file criminal charges of being assulted by the guard and negligent from injury. So the claim that the police department didn't follow (hmmm something is missing here) and yes they have to do a police report if they come out (so again something is missing here).

Why were your logs forcefully removed from you? Where they completed copies of logs? Then you have grounds for theft (again the police department will take a report from you) or where they just blank books or the original logs (which the company must keep on-file for a period of 6 months per FMCSA regulations.

You have the right to appeal the workers comp claim which I suggest doing so. You will need to get a copy of the police report they showed that the police arrived to Schneider National office and witnessed your injury at the site (since they will claim that you were not injury there).

You have a legal right to sue for damages in civil court and suggest speaking to a lawyer to express your rights within the allowed time frame.

ALSO: expect the FMCSA to deny your claim. Where you terminated yet? If so you have a right to file a Whistleblower retalation claim for being terminated after complaining to the FMCSA. You need to do this within 6 months of discharge but again expect to have that denied so securing a driver transportation lawyer will be in your best interest. Ask the OSHA office near you for a list of referrals.

But again there seems to be more here then you said. No one would "forcefully" detain anyone with no reason due to criminal and civil penalties that could occur afterwards and the cost to litigate that matter would be very expensive.

Explain in further detail to the FMCSA whitleblower complaint that you filed and (assuming) is being investigated.

Also you have the legal right to file criminal charges of being assulted by the guard and negligent from injury. So the claim that the police department didn't follow (hmmm something is missing here) and yes they have to do a police report if they come out (so again something is missing here).

Why were your logs forcefully removed from you? Where they completed copies of logs? Then you have grounds for theft (again the police department will take a report from you) or where they just blank books or the original logs (which the company must keep on-file for a period of 6 months per FMCSA regulations.

You have the right to appeal the workers comp claim which I suggest doing so. You will need to get a copy of the police report they showed that the police arrived to Schneider National office and witnessed your injury at the site (since they will claim that you were not injury there).

You have a legal right to sue for damages in civil court and suggest speaking to a lawyer to express your rights within the allowed time frame.

ALSO: expect the FMCSA to deny your claim. Where you terminated yet? If so you have a right to file a Whistleblower retalation claim for being terminated after complaining to the FMCSA. You need to do this within 6 months of discharge but again expect to have that denied so securing a driver transportation lawyer will be in your best interest. Ask the OSHA office near you for a list of referrals.

But again there seems to be more here then you said. No one would "forcefully" detain anyone with no reason due to criminal and civil penalties that could occur afterwards and the cost to litigate that matter would be very expensive.

Explain in further detail to the FMCSA whitleblower complaint that you filed and (assuming) is being investigated.

Also you have the legal right to file criminal charges of being assulted by the guard and negligent from injury. So the claim that the police department didn't follow (hmmm something is missing here) and yes they have to do a police report if they come out (so again something is missing here).

Why were your logs forcefully removed from you? Where they completed copies of logs? Then you have grounds for theft (again the police department will take a report from you) or where they just blank books or the original logs (which the company must keep on-file for a period of 6 months per FMCSA regulations.

You have the right to appeal the workers comp claim which I suggest doing so. You will need to get a copy of the police report they showed that the police arrived to Schneider National office and witnessed your injury at the site (since they will claim that you were not injury there).

You have a legal right to sue for damages in civil court and suggest speaking to a lawyer to express your rights within the allowed time frame.

ALSO: expect the FMCSA to deny your claim. Where you terminated yet? If so you have a right to file a Whistleblower retalation claim for being terminated after complaining to the FMCSA. You need to do this within 6 months of discharge but again expect to have that denied so securing a driver transportation lawyer will be in your best interest. Ask the OSHA office near you for a list of referrals.

But again there seems to be more here then you said. No one would "forcefully" detain anyone with no reason due to criminal and civil penalties that could occur afterwards and the cost to litigate that matter would be very expensive.

Explain in further detail to the FMCSA whitleblower complaint that you filed and (assuming) is being investigated.

Also you have the legal right to file criminal charges of being assulted by the guard and negligent from injury. So the claim that the police department didn't follow (hmmm something is missing here) and yes they have to do a police report if they come out (so again something is missing here).

Why were your logs forcefully removed from you? Where they completed copies of logs? Then you have grounds for theft (again the police department will take a report from you) or where they just blank books or the original logs (which the company must keep on-file for a period of 6 months per FMCSA regulations.

You have the right to appeal the workers comp claim which I suggest doing so. You will need to get a copy of the police report they showed that the police arrived to Schneider National office and witnessed your injury at the site (since they will claim that you were not injury there).

You have a legal right to sue for damages in civil court and suggest speaking to a lawyer to express your rights within the allowed time frame.

ALSO: expect the FMCSA to deny your claim. Where you terminated yet? If so you have a right to file a Whistleblower retalation claim for being terminated after complaining to the FMCSA. You need to do this within 6 months of discharge but again expect to have that denied so securing a driver transportation lawyer will be in your best interest. Ask the OSHA office near you for a list of referrals.

But again there seems to be more here then you said. No one would "forcefully" detain anyone with no reason due to criminal and civil penalties that could occur afterwards and the cost to litigate that matter would be very expensive.