I, Albert L. Peia, residing in Los Angeles, in the State of California, of full age and being duly sworn according to law, hereby state the following facts of my own knowledge under penalty of perjury as follows:

1.      At all times relevant hereto, U.S. GOVERNMENT CO-CONSPIRATORS /EMPLOYEES (CURRENT AND FORMER - JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, AND EXECUTIVE)WITH KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL ACTS SET FORTH HEREIN, acted in violation of federal statutes in furtherance of said criminal acts, to obstruct justice, obstruct criminal investigations thereof, retaliate against a witness/victim/informant, commit fraud in cases under Title 11, U.S.C., among other criminal acts set forth with specificity hereinafter.

                      Calls To Defendants Coan, Lewendon, and Miltonberger

   I Stated that I Needed Information For Purpose of A Proper Affidavit Concerning the following which was articulated to a secretary, by voicemail, and to Timothy Miltonberger in a phone conference as set forth hereinafter.  The precise areas that I indicated I believed a court would want to see in such an affidavit given the totality of circumstances (particularly the criminal activity, RICO among other) in this case were articulated to secretarial personnel as messages to be relayed to Miltonberger, voicemail messages to Miltonberger, and in a conversation with Timothy Miltonberger himself , who referred to defendant coan as his “client” (not “partner”) are as follows:

·        The status of the judgment entered in my favor on or around 9-19-97 by Judge Thompson, United States District Court, District of Connecticut, Docket #3:93cv2065(AWT), copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”;

·        As referenced in the 12-11-97  telephonic examination (I was at the Los Angeles, California office of what I believe was the bankruptcy trustee for this California district – defendant coan was in Connecticut), the status of the David George Swann (DOB: 4-6-60 / self-admitted junkie who had 4 guilty pleas to theft in less than 5 years in California) matter, which was ripe for default and/or  judgment, [I had joined the trustee coan as plaintiff and indicated Swann’s familiarity with theft as was so of my business/personal assets making time of the essence in proceeding for recovery (replevin and damages the remedies sought). Defendant coan purposefully/wrongfully had the bankruptcy court dismiss same at the hearing on default saying he would decide whether to bring same];

·        Anything regarding the Adversary Proceedings which were ripe for the entry of default/default judgment, assets, surplus funds yet unaccounted for, which defendant coan wrongfully/illegally caused dismissal thereof, Exhibit B page1 page2;

·        Anything  regarding the disposition of the contents of the storage unit in Danbury, Connecticut  (including as related in the 12-11-97 telephonic examination what remained of my art collection which I indicated  had probably gone up in value);

·        Whether there were any criminal proceedings/referrals for the documented RICO among other criminal acts (which coincidentally caused me damages/harm/injury).

    Not surprisingly, given the integral involvement of said defendants in the criminal activity as herein, no response, clarification, or explanation was forthcoming. The details concerning the calls are set forth immediately hereinafter:

1-5-04      I initiated my first call to Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, & Miltonberger subsequent to the action of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, all violative of RICO, having given defendant Coan and subject defendants time to cure, in light of their illegal coverup. I asked to speak with Timothy Miltonberger and was told by the receptionist that he was not in. I gave my name and phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, January 9, 2004.

1-9-04      I called back on January 9, 2004, was told he was not in, was asked whether I wanted to leave a voicemail message, to which I responded that I needed to speak to him personally concerning an affidavit I would be filing with the court, and set forth the subject areas of concern in such an affidavit. I gave my name and phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, January 16, 2004.

1-16-04     I called back on January 16, 2004, was told he was not in, was asked whether  I wanted to leave a voicemail message, to which I responded that I needed to speak  to him personally concerning an affidavit I would be filing with the court, and set forth the subject areas of concern in such an affidavit. I gave my name and phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, January 23, 2004.

1-23-04      I called back on January 23, 2004, was told he was not in, was asked whether  I wanted to leave a voicemail message, to which I responded that I needed to speak  to him personally concerning an affidavit I would be filing with the court, and referenced the prior articulated subject areas of concern for such an affidavit. I gave my name and phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, January 30, 2004.

1-30-04    I called back on January 30, 2004, was told he was not in, and immediately transferred to Timothy Miltonberger’s voicemail wherein I referenced the prior message which the receptionist had indicated had been given to Mr. Miltonberger and briefly reiterated those subject areas of concern for the affidavit.

2-2-04    I called back on February 2, 2004, was told there had been some kind of a power problem by one who identified herself as a new receptionist, Lisa, and that Timothy Miltonberger had been called into a meeting. I gave my name and phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, February 6, 2004.

2-6-04  I called back on February 6, 2004, no one was in and at the prompt I left a voicemail message wherein I referenced the prior messages which the receptionist had indicated had been given to Mr. Miltonberger and briefly reiterated those subject areas of concern for the affidavit.

2-13-04 I called back on February 13, 2004 and had occasion to speak with Mr. Miltonberger.

   I Stated that I Needed Information For Purpose of A Proper Affidavit and articulated the precise areas that I indicated I believed a court would want to see in such an affidavit given the totality of circumstances (particularly the criminal activity, RICO among other) in this case as follows:

·        The status of the judgment entered in my favor on or around 9-19-97 by Judge Thompson, United States District Court, District of Connecticut, Docket #3:93cv2065(AWT), copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”;

·        As referenced in the 12-11-97  telephonic examination (I was at the Los Angeles, California office of what I believe was the bankruptcy trustee for this California district – defendant coan was in Connecticut), the status of the David George Swann (DOB: 4-6-60 / self-admitted junkie who had 4 guilty pleas to theft in less than 5 years in California) matter, which was ripe for default and/or  judgment, [I had joined the trustee coan as plaintiff and indicated Swann’s familiarity with theft as was so of my business/personal assets making time of the essence in proceeding for recovery (replevin and damages the remedies sought). Defendant coan purposefully/wrongfully had the bankruptcy court dismiss same at the hearing on default saying he would decide whether to bring same];

·        Anything regarding the Adversary Proceedings which were ripe for the entry of default/default judgment, assets, surplus funds yet unaccounted for, which defendant coan wrongfully/illegally caused dismissal thereof, Exhibit B;

·        Anything  regarding the disposition of the contents of the storage unit in Danbury, Connecticut  (including as related in the 12-11-97 telephonic examination what remained of my art collection which I indicated  had probably gone up in value);

·        Whether there were any criminal proceedings/referrals for the documented RICO among other criminal acts (which coincidentally caused me damages/harm/injury).

In this phone contact with Miltonberger for which I meticulously made record of his response to my statement of Judge Chatigny, U.S.D.C.J., District of Connecticut, having incorporated in his decision my stated intent to sue defendant coan for which no prior leave of court was to be necessary,  Timothy Miltonberger responded that same was his recollection as well, although contrary to the  position he had taken in papers filed on behalf of defendant coan, his “client/partner”.

. I gave my phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, February 20, 2004.

2-20-04    I called back on February 20, 2004 and was told to call back on Monday, February 23, 2004.

2-23-04    I called back on February 23, 2004, and was told that Mr. Miltonberger was not in and I gave my phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, February 27, 2004.

2-27-04    I called back on February 27, 2004, was told he was not in, and I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back on Friday, March 5, 2004 at the same time.

3-05-04    I called back on March 5, 2004, and was told that Mr. Miltonberger was not in  and that they did not know when he would be back  I gave my phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, March 12, 2004 at the same time.

3-12-04  I called back on March 12, 2004, was told he was not in and that he would not be returning for the rest of the day. I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back in one week on Friday, March 19, 2004 and that I needed a response.

3-19-04    I called back on March 19, 2004, was told he was on the line and that I should call back in about an hour. I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back in about an hour. I called back a bit over an hour later, was told Mr. Miltonberger was on the line, and stated that I would hold for him. Mr. Miltonberger finally picked up and related to me that his client had not gotten back to him, to which I responded that I would call back in one week.

3-26-04    I called Timothy Miltonberger on March 26, 2004, was told he was on the line and that I should call back in about twenty minutes. I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back accordingly. I called back about twenty minutes later, was told Mr. Miltonberger was on the line, and to call him back on Monday or Tuesday in the afternoon, to which I responded affirmatively.

 3-29-04  I called Timothy Miltonberger on March 29, 2004, was told he was in court. I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back

on Friday, April 2, 2004.

4-2-04    I called Timothy Miltonberger on April 2, 2004 and was told he was not answering his line. I gave my name and phone number for a return call, also left my new P.O. Box (P.O. Box 862156, Los Angeles, CA 90086) and further stated I would call back on Monday, April 5, 2004.

4-5-04 I called Timothy Miltonberger on April 5, 2004,  and was told he was not in, and to try  calling him on Thursday, 4-8-04. I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back on Thursday, April 8, 2004.

4-8-04 I called Timothy Miltonberger on April 8, 2004, was told he was in conference and to call him back Friday, April 16, 2004, to which I responded affirmatively.

4-16-04    I called back on April 16, 2004 and was told he was not in. I left my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call back in one week on Friday, April 23, 2004 and that I needed a response.

4-23-04    I called Timothy Miltonberger on April 23, 2004 and was told he had stepped out and in response to my query stated he would be back in 15-20 minutes. I called back in about 25 minutes and was told he was not anwering his line. I gave my name and phone number for a return call, also left my  P.O. Box (P.O. Box 862156, Los Angeles, CA 90086) and further stated I would call back on Friday, April 30, 2004 and that I needed a response.

4-30-04    I called back on April 30, 2004, and was immediately transferred to Timothy Miltonberger’s voicemail wherein I referenced the prior messages which the receptionist had indicated had been given to Mr. Miltonberger, which I had discussed with him, and as well, left as voicemail messages,  briefly referencing those subject areas of concern for the affidavit. I further stated the need for a response for the affidavit, that a resolution of the matter would be wise in light of the substantial illegal activities (of defendants/co-conspirators), that I had diligently kept a record of my calls, and that I would call back in one week.

5-7-04    I called Timothy Miltonberger on May 7, 2004 and was told he had left for the day. I left my name and phone number for a return call, also left my  P.O. Box (P.O. Box 862156, Los Angeles, CA 90086) and that I needed a response.

5-10-04    I called Timothy Miltonberger on May 10, 2004 and was told he was out to lunch. I stated that I would call back on Friday, 5-14-04, that I had already begun drafting the papers and that it would take some time and hopefully the matter would resolve, that this was never about being litigious but rather about protecting my interests, and that this would get very nasty (in light of the substantial illegal/fraudulent acts by defendants/co-conspirators). I left my name and phone number for a return call, and also left my  P.O. Box (P.O. Box 862156, Los Angeles, CA 90086).

5-14-04 I called Timothy Miltonberger on May 14, 2004 and was told he was out to lunch. I stated that I had already begun drafting the papers and that their insurer and surety would be John Doe defendants, but that hopefully the matter would resolve since it would be in the best interests of the parties . I left my name and phone number for a return call, and also left my  P.O. Box (P.O. Box 862156, Los Angeles, CA 90086).

Wrongful Conduct/Pattern of Racketeering Activity

         Defendants/co-conspirators, at times relevant hereto, said

         conducted and/or participated in the affairs of an

         enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, affecting

         and having a nexus to interstate commerce thereby, with the

         intent to damage and defraud plaintiff and obstruct justice

         thereby, by reason of which violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections

         1961 et seq., plaintiff sustained injury to his property and

         business. Specifically, Alan Shiff purported Chief Judge at

         USBC fraudulently misrepresented the date of dismissal

         of a proceeding over which he himself had presided perpetrating a fraud

         connected with a case under Title 11 as proscribed in Title 18 U.S.C.

         Section 1961(1) (D); and further, brought a (retaliatory against a

         witness/victim/informant violative of Section l5l3) spurious contempt

         proceeding against plaintiff, obstructing justice thereby in

         violation of Section 1503 (and additionally was without

         jurisdiction to legitimately do so). Quite simply, he lied

         (materially false fraudulent representation); knew he lied

         (scienter); lied with the intention of deceiving; that the lies

         were relied upon (ie.,government, courts, etc.); said fraud

         in connection with a case under Title 11 directly causing damage

         to plaintiff’s property and business (and as well to plaintiff’s

         estate and creditors thereof) . Defendants did utilize the mails in

         perpetrating said fraud (on courts, creditors, plaintiff, etc.)

         constituting the RICO predicate violation of mail fraud thereby,

         violative of Section 1341 (discussed infra at paragraph # ).

         Defendants/co-conspirators utilized false hearing

         dates to wrongfully dismiss adversary proceedings, defrauding

         plaintiff and creditors thereby, Exhibit

         “C”, and violative of Section 1503, utilizing the mails

         in perpetuateing said scheme in violation of Section 1341

        did feloniously remove filed federal court documents for the purpose of

        defrauding plaintiff, covering up various crimes connected thereto, obstructing

        justice in violation of Section 1503 thereby, causing damages to

         plaintiff’s property and business.

         Exhibit “B”.

           In addition to the foregoing, federal

         employee Maryanne Trump (Barry) (and USA thereby) did

         corrupt the federal judicial process obstructing justice in

         violation of Section 1503 thereby, and Section 1510 as a conse-

         quence thereof, even as substantial sums of (drug) money were

        being laundered, in violation of Section 1956, through

         her family’s/brothers’ casinos by RICO defendants before her,

         said “quid pro quo” in the form of drug money flows  constituted a violation of

         Section 201 relating to bribery.

         At or around the time of the retaliatory

         and spurious contempt proceeding, late 1992/early1993 , Trump had “retained”

         the brother of then U.S. Attorney Christopher Droney, which further

         discovery may have yielded a similar conclusion consistent with

         said Trump modus operandi. Federal employee (and then U.S.

         Trustee, and USA thereby) Hugh Leonard was placed

         on (bribe) retainer by RICO defendants Dilena and companies,

         violative of the predicate act of bribery, Section 201, as well

         as obstructing justice, Section 1503, consistent therewith.

         Facts giving rise to what a trier of

         fact could reasonably infer from same, particularly when coupled

         with the similar scenario (a more direct “USA bribe deal”,

         Section 201) vis-a-vis federal employee (and then U.S. Attorney)

         Sam Allito, federal employee (and then Assistant U.S. Attorney, and USA

         thereby) who did “cut a bribe deal” (Section 201)

         and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing

         from the Office of the U.S. Attorney documents and/or file

         concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other

         federal law violations. 

         Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal” (Section 201)

         and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing

         from the Office of the U.S. Attorney documents and/or file

         concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other

         federal law violations.  Federal employees in Virginia

        (and defendant USA thereby) illegally failed to consumate the

         Chapter 7 proceeding in Virginia in accordance with law, and

         for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff (fraud in connection

         with a case under Title 11), and as well, obstructing justice

         (Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff sustained

         damage to his property and business (also damaging creditors,

         and committing bankruptcy fraud thereby).        

           Defendant Coan did consistent with the aforesaid perpetrate

         a fraud (connected with a case under Title 11) upon the estate

         of plaintiff and purposefully and with the intent to damage

         plaintiff did cause the dismissal of proceedings, obstructing

         justice (Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff

         sustained injury to his property and business.

         and Exhibit “A”. The same violations apply to the adversary

         proceeding concerning junkie and thief, David George Swann

         (DOB 4-6-60; three guilty pleas to theft in less than 5 years

         residence in California) who stole (bankruptcy) estate among

         other assets of plaintiff and against whom default (judgment)

         was ripe for entry (violations of Sections 1513, 102 and that

         concerning extortion would also have been appropriate) . Defen-

         dant Coan has neither abandoned nor rebrought same, violating

         Section 1503 and (defrauding) damaging plaintiff thereby.

         The aforesaid defendants also did violate Section 1962(d) by

         conspiring to violate Section 1962(c) by and during during the

         course of the conspiracy, consistent with the object of the

         conspiracy in relation to the overt acts in futherance thereof,

        did conspire to commit a fraud in connection with a case under

         Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby, with knowledge of

         the commission of predicate acts as set forth herein, were

         a part of the pattern of racketeering activity by which plaintiff

         sustained injury to his property by reason of said overt pre-

         dicate acts. It should be noted that in conspiring to violate

         section 1962 (c) by reason of which violations plaintiff

         sustained injury to his business and property, defendants evinced

         intent to injure plaintiff and benefit (former) RICO/adversary

         proceeding defendants, and as well did obstruct justice (and

         criminal investigations thereof). It should be noted as documented

         therein that co-conspirator USA has continuously and consistently

         engaged in innumerable ennumerated acts of racketeering activity

         as set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section(l), most notably subpart (A),

         viz., dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as

         defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which

         is chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment

         for more than one year, and the concommitants of said racketeer-

         ing activity set forth in said subpart, namely, murder, bribery,

         and extortion. In furtherance thereof, as is relevant herein,

         defendant USA also has been engaged in and violated the predicate

         acts of obstruction of justice (Section 1503), obstruction of

         criminal investigations (Section 1510), laundering of monetary

          instruments (Section 1956) , use of interstate commerce facilities

           in the commission of murder-for-hire (Section 1958), obstruction

           of state or local law enforcement (Section 1511), retaliation

           against a witness, victim, or informant (Section 1513), subpart

           (D) as regards the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving,

           concealment, buying, selling,or otherwise dealing in a controlled

           substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the

           Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the

           United States, and subpart (E) any act which is indictable under

           the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. As set

           forth and as pertains to paragraph #3 infra USA has

           violated Section 1962  vis-a-vis receipt of income through

           a pattern of racketeering, the investment of same in an

           enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby, causing

           damage to property and business by reason of said racketeering

           activity; and, Section 1962 , through a pattern of

           racketeering activity, acquired an interest in and/or maintained

           control of an enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby,

           causing damage to property and business by reason of said

           acquisition of interest in, maintenance of, and/or control of

           said enterprise.

           A. Felonious removal of filed federal court documents by

         federal employees of the bankruptcy court over which Alan Shiff

         presides, among others; viz., on or about March 4, 1994 a motion

         to file nunc pro tunc pre-trial memoranda was illegally removed

         from the court file; the courtesy copy delivered by hand said

         day to defendant Shift’s law secretary who identified himself

         as David and who indicated same would be given to defendant

         Shiff that same day, Exhibit “B”;

           B. Fraudulent and otherwise false statements by federal

         employee, Alan Shiff concerning a dismissal date upon which

         spurious contempt proceedings were predicated and which caused

         great damage to plaintiff before said spurious proceedings were

         dismissed on the government’s own motion owing to mistake

         of fact and law; specifically, on or about January 18, 1993

         defendant Shiff did make a false representation regarding the

         date he dismissed a prior Ch. 13 proceeding of plaintiff

         stating said date to have been October 8, 1992, upon

         which a spurious contempt proceeding against plaintiff was

         predicated (false representation); defendant Shiff knew that

         said representation was false since he had presided over the

         hearing on June 3, 1992 when he had dismissed same (which fact

         was ultimately confirmed by counsel on my behalf, Robert Sullivan

         of Westport, Ct.) (scienter); defendant Shiff intended by his

         materially (relating to the 180 day bar to ref iling a bankruptcy

         petition but for which there could not have been a contempt

         charge against plaintiff) false representation to defraud

         plaintiff by the sums wrongfully and illegally extracted from

         plantiff as sanctions imposed by Shiff himself as well as the

         dismissal of meritorious adversary proceedings for which service

         had been effected, some of which matters were without defense

         (intent); the department of justice justifiably (it would be

         a criminal and impeachable offense for Shiff to have made the

         materially false representation he had made) relied upon the

         false representation of Shiff in bringing the contempt action

         against plaintiff (reliance); plaintiff was damaged not only

         by the sanctions wrongfully and illegally (extracted) imposed,

         but as well by dimissal of meritorious adversary proceedings,

         some without defense, regarding property, both real and personal,

         surplus funds from purported (wrongful) sales of real property,

         and substantial money damages owed to plaintiff (causing damage);        

           C. On or about June 4, 1996, relying upon the false

         representations of defendant Shiff as set forth in part B, supra

         the California Bankruptcy Court dismissed a prior Cli. 7

         proceeding here in California for which the Section 341a hearing

         had already been consumated causing plaintiff damage;

           D. On or about August 17, 1987, I initiated a R.I.C.O. action

         Dkt.#87-2433(MTB)in the U.S. District Court, District of New

         Jersey(the action also included E.R.I.S.A. claims in light of

         the theft by RICO defendant Dilena of funds from a pension fund

         to which plaintiff had a fiduciary duty - brought to my atten-

         tion and confirmed by then bookkeeper Peter Baratta- and other

         illegal acts relative to a 401K plan for the benefit of employ-

         ees, although said causes are not part of the instant action).

         Said matter was transferred to Maryanne Trump, a new appointee

         to said district court, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars

         (of drug money being laundered) per month flowing from RICO

         defendants Dilena and companies through the casinos of Maryanne

         Trump’s brother(s) Donald (and Robert). After conflicting

         improper decisions (dictated by either loss of said illicit

         funds or an increase) said matter was stalled and I was

         constrained to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 5-14-88 since

         a substantial sum of money was owed to me and sought in said

         action. Said matter was stayed by Magistrate Stanley Chesler

         owing to said bankruptcy filing. In preparing a motion to recuse

         Maryanne Trump in or around the summer of 1988 I met with

         and apprised United States Trustee Hugh Leonard of said

         illegal activity and sought his office to join in my

         motion to recuse Trump, which he refused despite the obvious

         and egregious conflict of interest. Hugh Leonard left his

         position as U.S. Trustee and joined the finn of Cole, Shotz,

         and Bernstein) in Mackensack, N.J. with his “central” client

         with whom he was on retainer being RICO defendants Dilena and

         companies. Said RICO action was dismissed without prejudice

         in or around early 1989, upon my best recollection;

           E. In or around the filing of the RICO action in 1987 I contac-

         ted the U.S. Attorney’s office and was scheduled a meeting with

         Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathon Lacey at their offices in the

         federal building in Newark, N.J., upon best recollection in

         or around late summer, early fall of 1987. I explained the RICO

         action, the drug money laundering among other illegal activities,

         and turned over to him supporting documents (relevant documents

         corroborating substantial sums owed to me and as well, the

         various illegal activities of said defendants, coincident to

         “break-ins” at my offices and theft of various documents)

         were being illegally held by RICO defendants’ lawyers Woodcock,

         Kingman, and Winkler of Hackensack,N.J.- upon information, they

         had had a “falling out” with the Dilenas who were contem-

         plating litigation against said firm) .Me indicated they would

         be reviewed and I would be contacted. After some time had passed,

         I inquired as to the status of the investigation and forthcoming

         action from said office. I was told that Lacey was no longer

         with said office and that no file or documents could be located.

         I thereupon in or around late 1988, early 1989 delivered by

         hand a package to Sam Allito, then U.S. Attorney, containing

         said inculpating documents, the recipient at his Newark, N.J.

         office indicating that said documents would be turned over to

         Sam Allito. I was also told once again that I would be contacted

         concerning same. After some time had passed my inquiry revealed

         that Allito had been moved to the Court of Appeals for the Third

         Ciruit and that neither a file nor said documents could be

         located. I thereupon went to the FBI office in Newark, N.J.

         where I was “tauntingly greeted” by an agent uninterested in

         said matter who smurkingly asked me “whether I was going to

         the disco that night”;

           F. In filing the subsequent Oh. 13 in 1989 I sought to preserve

         the interests of the estate and creditors thereof only to find

         a corrupt Shiff court, and thereupon sought an orderly

         liquidation of assets (including three real properties in N.J.

         with substantial equity (approximately $290,000 based on

         actual comp.values & bank appraisals)under a chapter 7 proceeding

         in Virginia, where I had maintained a residence and office,

         filed in September, 1989, just prior to the dismissal of said

         Oh.  13 proceeding in Connecticut in September 1989.

         Said proceeding was not consumated according to law, and(conflic-

         ting) statements that I had been granted a discharge were given

         to an inquiring creditor who subsequently presented same to

         the Connecticut bankruptcy court. The RICO action and sums owed

         to me were listed as assets and were neither abandoned nor was

         a marshalling of assets and distribution consumated according

         to law. Said wrongful, negligent, illegal and culpable acts

         of employees of  the United States of America(‘s) bankruptcy/

         federal court (as well as those of New Jersey and Connecticut)

         have caused my estate and creditors thereof substantial damage;

           G. A Notice of Federal Tort Claim was served upon then

         Attorney General Robert Barr via Fedex in late 1991. Having

         received no response I filed a R.I.C.O. and damage action

         in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

         on April 14, 1992 to preserve (for statute of limitations

         purposes) my contractual claims for sums owed to me by RICO

         defendants Dilena and companies and for other causes of action

         consistent therewith. The Docket * of said case was 92cv0l66(TGD)

         and was assigned to Judge T. Qilroy Daley who had handled a

         substantial organized crime case in said district. Said case

         was stayed owing to the pending bankruptcy proceeding in the

         District of Connecticut where the adversary proceedings focused

         primarily, though not exclusively, on the RICO defendants in

         light of the substantial amounts involved and the position of

         same as a substantial asset of the estate. Upon Judge Daley’s

         passing, said matter was transferred in or around 1995 to Judge

         Alvin Thompson and transferred once again to Judge Janet Bond

         Arterton in early 1996. Within weeks following the dismissal

         with prejudice of those matters (among others) set forth in

         Exhibit “A” annexed hereto, Judge Arterton dismissed the RICO

         action, Dkt.# 92cv0166, without prejudice indicating in her

         Order that(it was her understanding)that said matters were being

         resolved in the bankruptcy proceeding, viz., case * 95-51862

         in the District of Connecticut, further compounding the collusive

         and corrupt, wrongful, negligent and illegal conduct causing

         plaintiff substantial damage. This is especially so given the

         fact that many of the subject defendants were in default on

         the verified complaints, with some partial settlements effected

         with some of said defendants;

           H. The use by the Shift court of false and/or conflicting

         notices of hearing, ie., as set forth in Exhibit “C” is

         another way federal employees acted and conspired to fraudu-

         lently conceal the various illegal, wrongful, and tortious

         acts, including the drug money laundering, theft of surplus

         funds for distribution to the estate and creditors, as well

         as theft of property, both real and personal, defrauding

         plaintiff and creditor’s of plaintiff’s estate. The San Bern-

         adino Court also similarly used such ploy regarding a hearing

         noticed for 9-9-95 when in fact same was actually 9-7-95.

           I. The dismissal with prejudice by Alan Shiff, bankruptcy

         court judge in the district of Connecticut, of adversary

         proceedings on 12-5-96, all meritorious including some for

         which the entry of default/default judgment was appropriate,

         some without defense, defrauding plaintiff and creditors thereby,

         in violation of the RICO Act and the commission of a predicate

         act thereunder; as well as to coverup said predicate acts and

         other crimes within the ambit of RICO and under State and

         Federal, constituting misprision of felony thereby.

           J. J. Matz in Los Angeles, California, Central District Court

         Judge, in 1999 did fraudulently misrepresent the record of

         proceedings, obstructing justice thereby, and to coverup

         predicate acts under RICO among other crimes, committing

         misprision of felony thereby. [FEDEX Corp. is also in contempt

         of a subpoena regarding transmissions by plaintiff to Attorneys

         General (former) Barr and Reno for which plaintiff sought

         sanctions/enforcement]

                                        Inclusion of Defendant Coan’s (Professional 

                         Liability/Errors and Omissions/Malpractice) Insurer and Surety As      

                                                      John Doe Defendants

  In or around 1997, I became aware of the existence of such coverage, though not the precise details of same.

                       Specific Crimes of U.S. Government Employees/Contractors/Agents,   

                                                 Judicial, Legislative, and Executive

                        The Illegal Drug-Money-Laundering Through the trump Casinos

                             Direct U.S. Government/CIA Involvement in the Illegal Drug/      

                                      Illegal Drug-Money-Laundering Business

William Barr

George H,W. Bush

William Jefferson Clinton

            2^nd Circuit FBI Agent Affidavit Under Penalty of Perjury Attesting to CIA Involvement in Illegal Drug Trade Among Other Crimes page1 page2 . U.S. Senators Arlen Spector,

John Kerry, Charles Schumer, among others are apprised. A copy of  said affidavit is annexed hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto.

           CIA Agent Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury Attesting to the Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency, Drug Enforcement Administration, the armed forces of the United States, among others, in the illegal drug business page1 page2 .  

William Barr

George H,W. Bush

William Jefferson Clinton

are named as involved, along with Manuel Noriega, Mike Harrari (Israeli “mossad”), Joe Fernandez, Oliver North, Buddy Young, Felix Rodriguez, and General Gustavo Alverez.

             Specific Crimes of U.S. Government

   Employees/Contractors/Agents: Judicial, Legislative, and Executive

   Federal Employees

• The criminal defendant usa defaults and covers same (among other including RICO crimes, ie., illegal drug-money laundering, (bankruptcy)fraud connected with a case under Title 11, u.s.c., bribery including u.s. attorneys/assistant u.s. attorneys, obstruction of justice, retaliation against a witness/victim/informant, etc.) up with collaboration of the corrupt criminal j. matz, the criminally corrupt 9th circuit, the criminally corrupt u.s. supreme court, the criminally corrupt j. maryanne trump(barry) and j. sam allito of the criminally corrupt 3rd circuit, and the criminally corrupt j. dorsey, j. schiff of the criminally corrupt 2nd circuit (all u.s. "courts" and federally employed criminals/"judges"; and as well, federally employed criminals as "trustee" hugh leonard and independent contractor/u.s. agent/criminal, defendant coan, all of whom should be criminally prosecuted for their clearly documented crimes)

• page1 page2 page3 page4
• FBI Agent's Affidavit Attesting to the U.S. Government's Substantial and Continued Involvement in the Illegal Drug Business in the 2nd circuit

                 _______________________________________________________

TITLE 18 USC, Sections 1961-1968 [RICO];

TITLE 18 USC, Section 4 [Misprision of Felony];

TITLE 18 USC, Section 371 [Conspiracy] ;

TITLE 18 USC, Section 201 [Bribery] ;

TITLE 18 USC, Chapter 73 [Obstruction of Justice] ;

Annexed Hereto As A Part Hereof And Incorporated Herein In It's Entirety By Reference Thereto Is :

• Rico Statement (filed 6-5-02)
• page1 page2 page3 page4 page5 page6 page7 page8 page9 page10 page11 page12 page13 page14 page15 page16 page17 page18 page19 page20 page21 page22 page23 page24 page25 page26 page27 page28 page29 page30 page31 page32 page33

The Damages To My Business, Property, and Me Have Been Substantial - (It Should Be Noted That The Punitive Damages Amount Was Per Defendant/5*2=10 million if totaled) [Click]