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
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
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
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].