PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

  Once again defendant USA shows utter contempt and

disregard for a meaningful rule of law in virtually

ignoring both the Scheduling Order and failing to file a

subsequent motion (annexed hereto at pages 34-40 hereof).

Indeed,such continues a tradition of lawlessness evinced by

defendant USA which was in default in the matter as before

the corrupt J.Matz in the U.S. District Court for the Cen-

tral District of California (annexed hereto at 41-44 hereof

-defendant usa didn’t even bother to file a motion therein,

the process being totally controlled and corrupted).How can

defendant usa possibly expect other nations to respect an

international rule of law when defendant usa glaringly does not adhere to a meaningful rule of law domestically, much less internationally? Indeed, defendant usa’s presence in

Afghanistan is already being felt throughout the world with

the now “back-up-and-running” heroin trade in said nation

consistent with the nefarious and corrupt criminal presence

of defendant usa (the Taliban had dismantled and destroyed

the heroin/poppy trade/crops in Afghanistan – see one of my web sites for facts/details) Click here. .

  Contrary to defendant usa’s spurious assertion in their

brief at page 12, plaintiff/appellant did not waive and did

raise the issue as to the John Doe defendants in the con-

text of the doctrines of fraudulent concealment, equita-

ble estoppel, and equitable tolling (Plaintiff/Appellants

Brief, hereinafter ‘AB’, at pages 9 and 10). Specifically,

John Doe defendants are referenced as follows in pertinent

part:     ‘While both equitable estoppel and equitable tol-

 ling are apposite in the present case, said doctrines are    distinct in that equitable tolling allows plaintiff to avoid the bar of the limitations period if despite due diligence he is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the claim (ie., names of employees of defendant(s) feloniously removing filed court documents, precluding discovery and obstructing justice thereby,etc.), whereas equitable estoppel prevents a defendant from asserting untimeliness where the defendant (as defendants USA and USBC and “John Doe defendants” [Emphasis Supplied])

has taken active steps to prevent the plaintiff from litigating in time (ie., RICO predicate acts including bankruptcy fraud, obstruction of justice, bribery, etc.,“tying up” proceedings,[“AA”, 7-9,18-27].’

  [Parenthetically, I was constrained to set up new web

  sites owing to limited bandwith, related problems, and

  continued hacking of the former, with the following new

     websites  URLs:   http://www.albertlouispeia.bravepages.com;    http://www.albertlouispeia.1afm.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.012webpages.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.fcpages.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.150m.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.wtcsites.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.netfirms.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.aokwebhost4free.com;

http://www.albertlouispeia.5u.com; 

http://peia.250free.com  ].

          SUMMARY OF REPLY TO BRIEF OF DEFENDANT USA

   The readily confirmable averments under penalty of

 

perjury giving rise to the instant and substantial (and  

 

unnecessarily unfortunate, and embarrassing for defendant

 

usa) meritorious (in contradistinction to defendant usa’s

 

blind rhetoric) action predicated upon outrageously cri-

 

minal acts of defendants coan, usa, and John Does 1 - 15,

 

are conveniently misstated/spun by defendant usa (in their

 

brief, hereinafter ‘dusab’) and are clarified hereinafter.

  AS TO COUNTS THREE AND FIVE, TORT AND RICO, RESPECTIVELY   AND THE FACTUAL AVERMENTS,A–J,UNDERPINNING SAME(dusab,5-7):

A.   Felonious removal of filed federal court documents to obstruct justice, coverup identity of federal employee “John Doe” perpetrators, damaging appellant thereby.

B.   Employee of defendant usa, alan shiff did commit fraud connected with a case under Title 11, U.S.C., also obstructing justice thereby, (and illegally extracting sanctions from plaintiff-violative of Title 18 U.S.C. 1513), causing plaintiff/appellant substan-tial damages to his property and business thereby.

C.   Employee of defendant usa, alan shiff did commit fraud connected with a case under Title 11, U.S.C., (Chapter 7, California, 6-4-96) also obstructing justice thereby, causing plaintiff/appellant sub-stantial damages to his property and business thereby.

D.   As a direct consequence of bribery in the form of drug money laundered through the trump (mob family –  the trumps should be in jail – parenthetically, it is preposterous that trump is suing the State of New York) casinos, consistent with a pattern of racket-eering activity, federal employee/u.s. trustee hugh leonard (wound up on retainer by the RICO defendant dilenas) was provided documentation of the RICO crimes and refused to intervene in the then pending RICO action after I was constrained to file a Chapter 11 proceeding (owing to delays precipitated by Maryanne trump), federal employee maryanne trump (barry) wrongfully/illegally dismissed plaintiff/appellant’s civil RICO action against defendants dilena and companies owned and operated by dilena, obstructing justice and causing plaintiff/appellant substantial damages to his property and business thereby.

E.   Federal employees (ie., lacey, allito, etc.) did illegally, wrongfully “dispose” of documentation of the drug money laundering through the trump casinos and other crimes, covering up said crimes and obstruc-ting justice thereby, causing plaintiff/-appellant substantial damages to his property and business.

F.   Federal corruption in the processes in violation of RICO in both new jersey (May, 1988) and Connecticut (shiff-1989) led to my filing for a(n orderly liqui-dation of assets including three real properties with substantial equity far in excess of liabilities under) Chapter 7 proceeding in Virginia(September, 1989) where I had maintained an office. Said Virginia pro-ceeding which would have resolved all matters was never consumated in accordance with law, also obstruc-ting justice thereby, causing plaintiff/appellant sub-stantial damages to his property and business thereby.

G.   Defendant usa totally mistates the fact that in 1992 I filed a RICO action (Dkt.#92cv0166)in the federal district court in Connecticut, which action was stayed by Judge Daley pending the resolution of the parallel adversary proceedings in the then extent bankruptcy proceeding in Connecticut. Upon Judge Daley’s passing, the case was transferred to Judge Thompson (1995), and then to Judge Arterton (1996) who dismissed the case without prejudice indicating that it was her under-standing that said case was being resolved in the corrupted bankruptcy proceeding giving rise to the instant case. The RICO predicate acts of fraud connected with a pattern of racketeering activity, including obstruction of justice,caused appellant sub-stantial damages to his property and business thereby.

H.   For the purpose of perpetrating a fraud connected with cases under Title 11, to coverup crimes consis-tent with a pattern of racketeering activity, and to obstruct justice thereby, and conceal RICO predicate acts, the shiff court and San Bernadino(CA) bankruptcy courts used false and conflicting notices of hearing causing plaintiff/appellant substantial damages to his property and business.

I.   For the purpose of perpetrating a fraud connected with cases under Title 11, to coverup crimes consis-tent with a pattern of racketeering activity, and to obstruct justice thereby, and conceal RICO predicate acts, federal employee alan shiff did dismiss with prejudice meritorious adversary proceedings (some ripe for the entry of default/judgment), also constituting misprision of felony, causing plaintiff/appellant substantial damages to his property and business.

 Another corrupt federal employee, j. matz, LA, CA, Central District Court of California judge, in 1999 did fraudulently misrepresent the record of proceed-ings, obstructing justice thereby, and to coverup predicate acts under RICO among other crimes consis-tent with a pattern of racketeering activity, also committing misprision of felony thereby.[Fedex Corp. is also in contempt of a subpoena regarding transmis-sions by plaintiff/appellant to (u.s.) attorneys general (former) barr and reno for which plaintiff sought sanctions/enforcement].

  To facilitate review by the Court thereof and incorpo-rated in this reply by reference thereto, plaintiff/ap-pellant has appended immediately hereto, PLAINTIFF’S RICO STATEMENT (filed 6-5-01), which has also been included in Plaintiff/Appellant’s Appendix (attachment to Memorandum - pages 41-73 thereof, pages 1-33 hereof).

   THE LAW APPOSITE IN REPLY TO BRIEF OF DEFENDANT USA

I. The Court Below Erred In According Immunity Under RICO to the Substantial Criminal, Non-governmental Acts of Defendant USA Consistent with the Pattern of Racketeering Activity Set Forth Herein.

  In rejecting the assertion of Nigeria that it could nei-

ther be accused of nor held liable for “indictable” RICO

predicate acts (Foreign Sovereign Imunities Act, 28 U.S.C.

§1604 et seq.), in Southway v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 198

F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 1999), the Court reasoned as is appo-

site herein in pertinent part:

  ‘Defendants……essentially ask us in construing RICO and the FSIA to ascribe an intent to Congress which would effectively insulate foreign states, their agents, and instrumentalities from the scope of civil RICO. We do not believe Congress envisioned such a construction of RICO and the FSIA. Congress’ purpose in enacting the FSIA was to codify the restrictive principle of sovereign immunity……to cases involving acts of a foreign state which are sovereign or governmental in nature, as opposed to acts which are either commercial in nature or those which private persons normally perform……Meanwhile, in enacting RICO, Congress ex-

pressly instructed courts to liberally construe its provi-sions “to effectuate its remedial purpose”…… RICO’s “’reme-dial purposes’ are nowhere more evident than in the provi-sion of a private action for those injured by racketeering activity,” Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.,Inc., 473 U.S. 479,

498, 105 S.Ct. 3275 (1985), activity which often will be commercial in nature.’ Southway, 198 F.3d at 1216.

    Surely, as set forth supra and in the case sub judice,

 

the egregiously illegal, wrongful, criminal acts and

 

RICO predicate violations of Defendant USA’s employees, a-

 

gents, and contractors by reason of which plaintiff/appell-

 

ant sustained substantial injury to his property and busin-

 

ess could not possibly be deemed sovereign or governmental.

 

Indeed, the same policy considerations are apposite in the

 

present case “to effectuate(RICO’s)remedial purpose” and to

 

prevent and deter further infiltration by and growth of or-

 

ganized crime and corruption in the U.S. government itself.

 

  Despite strong policy reasons militating against sove-

 

reign immunity as set forth supra, even assuming, arguendo,

 

the grant of same herein, it is should be emphasized that

 

while federal officials may qualify for the absolute or

 

limited immunity available to them in all types of federal

 

civil litigation, they do not receive the same underlying

 

protection that federal agencies receive in the RICO con-

 

text. This important distinction which is apposite herein

 

was made clear in McNeily v. United States, 6 F.3d 343,350

 

(5th Cir. 1993), in which the Court held that while the FDIC

 

as a federal agency is not chargeable, indictable or puni-

 

shable for state and federal criminal provisions, id., FDIC

 

officials could face RICO liability since individual offi-

 

cials can violate, as in this case, RICO’s predicate acts.

 

Id. Accord,see also Brown v.Nationsbank Corp.,188 F.3d 579,

 

587(5th Cir.1999)where even FBI agents, and hence other

 

federal employees as appropriate herein,would not be affor-

 

ded the grant of qualified immunity in the RICO scenario.

The doctrine of respondeate superior is also apposite militating against defendant usa’s spurious claim of immunity given the high-ranking government officials involved in the illegal acts, the substantial injury (in-cluding an $800 sanction illegally extracted by shiff as a consequence of his fraud connected with a case under Title 11) to plaintiff(’s property and business), etc. See gen., Brady v.Dairy Fresh Products,974 F.2d 1149(9thCir1992; Denny v. U.S.Postal Service, 916 F.Supp.1081(D.Kan.1996).

   II. The Doctrines of Fraudulent Concealment, Equitable Estoppel, Equitable Tolling, and Substantial Criminal Acts of Defendant USA Including Those Violative of RICO to Prevent Detection and Prosecution Thereof, Preclude Defen-dant USA’s Assertion of the Statute of Limitations as a Defense Herein by Doctrine of Res Judicata or Otherwise.

  It should be emphasized that j. matz (a “ringer” brought

 

in by the corrupt clinton administration to replace the

 

presiding judge to facilitate the continued coverup)

 

couldn’t have (legitimately) addressed the RICO conspiracy

 

for res judicata purposes in light of his (corrupted)

 

decision evincing specific intent not to address the RICO

 

conspiracy and as well the misrepresentation of the record

 

as discussed infra. Indeed, j. matz purportedly dismissed,

 

concomitantly misrepresenting the record which clearly set

 

forth a multi-district conspiracy within the ambit of 18

 

U.S.C. 1965(b) despite his misrepresentation to the con-

 

trary, stating that plaintiff had not met his burden

 

according to California (9thCircuit) “law” that there was no

 

other court in which the court would have jurisdiction over

 

all parties, referencing, viz., Connecticut/Coan. It is a

 

well settled rule of law that a dismissal for want of

 

jurisdiction does not preclude suit in a court with

jurisdiction, ie.,Connecticut.American Nat.Bank & Trust v. City of Chicago,826F2d 1547(7th Cir.1987),cert.den.108 S.Ct. 489,484U.S.977,98 L.Ed.2d487.The clear import and necessary

concomitant of same being that matz had not addressed the

 

RICO conspiracy, but rather left same for that other court,

 

especially in light of j. Arterton’s dismissal without

 

prejudice as set forth supra.

  Certainly, defendant usa couldn’t possibly (in total

 

defiance of reality and truth) be seriously saying to this

 

Court of Law that “allowing” the subject actions/claims to

 

be filed, followed by defendant usa’s egregiously criminal

 

acts to “dispose” of said filings/claims (ie., felonious

 

removal of filed court documents, retaliation against a

 

witness/victim/informant by spurious, illegal contempt

 

proceeding by the shiff bankruptcy court though without

 

jurisdiction to do so, obstruction of justice, bribery,

 

fraud connected with a case under Title 11, mail fraud by

 

shiff court on ie., California bankruptcy court, etc.) to

 

inter alia prevent progression of said filings/claims,

 

prevent discovery, ie., identity/names of “John Doe” perpe-

 

trators of predicate acts, etc.), would preclude the invo-

 

cation of the doctrines of equitable estoppel, fraudulent

 

concealment, or equitable tolling in the instant case. See also, Meridien Intern. Bank Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Liberia, 23 F.Supp.2d 439(S.D.N.Y.).

[PLAINTIFF’S RICO STATEMENT, Plaintiff/Appellant’s Appendix (attachment to Memorandum, 41-73 thereof, 1-33 hereof].

        III. Defendant USA is Clearly a RICO Person Within the Meaning of the RICO Statute and As Well, Employees Thereof Are Not Immune From RICO (Civil) Liability for the RICO Crimes and Other Wrongful Conduct Causing Plaintiff Substantial Damages.

 Neither j. Dorsey nor counsel for defendant usa understand

 

RICO (‘person’). Contrary to defendant coan’s unsupported

 

assertion, the fact is that at the hearing before Judge

 

Chatigny, on my cross-examination of coan and reiterated in

 

the follow-up questioning by Judge Chatigny, Coan admitted

 

that he did not know of any legal way a real property as

 

plaintiff’s could have been sold during the pendancy of the

 

automatic stay which was one of the RICO causes which coan

 

purposefully and illegally (in violation of RICO) damaged

 

plaintiff, estate and creditors thereby, while concomi-

 

tantly benefitting said RICO defendants.[“AA” at 117].

  Additionally, contrary to defendants usa and coan’s un-

 

supported assertions, direct defendant coan can as well be

 

considered a “john doe” defendant conspiring to and parti-

 

cipating in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern

 

of racketeering activity.[“AA” at 7-9,18-27,59-65,97,108].

  Even assuming arguendo, though contrary to a more ration-

 

al view given the goals of RICO, that no liability attaches

 

to defendant u.s. for the the numerous predicate violations

 

of RICO which should have been criminally prosecuted, as

 

well as in tort including fraud(ulent concealment and

 

corruption in) the process, the same may still be part of

 

the pattern of racketeering activity, and the participation

in the conduct of an enterprise (which can include a court

Averbach v. Rival Mfg. Co., 809 F.2d 1016,1018(3rdCir.1987),

certiorari denied, 107 S.Ct. 3187, 482 U.S. 915, 96 L.Ed.2d

675, certiorari denied, 108 S.Ct. 83, 484 U.S. 822, 98

L.Ed.2d 45) [“AA” at 55-65,97,108], viz., u.s. bankruptcy

court herein and their appointee coan particularly, within

 

the ambit of RICO.Indeed, it is the duration of this (RICO)

 

misbehavior,including culpable cover-ups (viz., ie., fraud

 

connected with a case under Title 11, etc.) that delineates

 

the boundaries of the pattern. See, e.g., Midwest Grinding

Co. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1992), especially

involving an extent (indefensible) RICO cause of action

 

ripe for the entry of (default) judgment (involving the

 

property sold during the pendancy of the automatic stay and

 

bankruptcy fraud thereby, plaintiff’s testimony, and other

causes therein.1

                         CONCLUSION

  Clearly, the laudable goals of RICO and the policy

considerations underlying same would be thwarted if the

pattern of racketeering activity could continue with

impunity through the corrupted scenario as set forth

herein. As such, it is respectfully reiterated that

   As To Defendant Coan:

  The decision of the court below, entered contrary to the

decision of the same court by Judge Chatigny, Bankruptcy

No.95-51862, No.3:97-CV1165(RNC),212 B.R. 217(D.Conn.1997),

constitutes clear error and should be REVERSED and judgment

for the sum certain amount demanded in plaintiff’s com-

plaint entered in plaintiff/appellant’s favor. In the

alternative, said decision should be REVERSED.

  As To Defendant(s) U.S.Bankruptcy Court, U.S.A. :

   The decision of the court below, entered contrary to a

meaningful rule of law, should be REVERSED and judgment

for the sum certain amount demanded in plaintiff’s com-

plaint entered in plaintiff/appellant’s favor. In the

alternative, said decision should be REVERSED.

   Respectfully Submitted by, _____________________________

December  ,2002  Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

 

  I, Albert L. Peia, hereby certify that copies foregoing Reply To Brief of Defendant USA and have been served via first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, on this _____ day of December, 2002 upon the following: 

 

                                Ann L. Nevins, Esq.

             U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dist. Of Conn.

             915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 309

             Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

             Timothy Miltonberger

             coan, lewendon, Gulliver, & miltonberger

             495 Orange St.

             New Haven, CT 06511

 

 

                                     _____________________________________________________          

                 Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff/Appellant Pro Se   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


1 [Parenthetically, it should be noted that a (separate from the RICO causes of action/adversary proceedings) judgment was entered 9-19-96 by the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, #3:93CV0205(AWT) in plaintiff/appellant’s favor as set forth in plaintiff’s RICO statement and filings [“AA” at 70] and for which (along with the other Connecticut federal proceedings, viz., #92CV0166(JBA), Bky.#95-51862 and adversary proceedings filed therein) Judicial Notice was Requested in the court below has not been abandoned nor executed/acted upon by defendant coan, as is similarly the case for defendant David George Swann involving bankruptcy assets and was ripe for the entry of default/judgment in the 1997 adversary proceeding concerning same (neither abandoned by nor acted upon by defendant coan despite being named as trustee/plaintiff therein, all to the substantial damage/detriment of plaintiff, estate, and creditor’s thereof [“AA” at 70]; there is also the matter (not brought) concerning the (bankruptcy) fraud and theft of bankruptcy estate assets (listed) in a U-Haul storage unit in Danbury, Conn. in or about early in the year 2001 (Connecticut, New York, Arizona perpetrators].