Albert L. Peia, Pro Se

P.O. Box 862156

Los Angeles, CA 90086



††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


†††† AlbertL. Peia,††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† )

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Plaintiff†††††††††††††††††††††††††† )†††† CASE NO.305cv00657(MRK)

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††† -vs-††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† )

†† Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger,)

†† Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon,†††††††† )

††† Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC.,†††††††††††††† )††††

††† John Doe Surety 1, John Doe Insurer 2,††††† )††††††††††

††† John Does 3 Ė 10,†††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††)

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Defendants†††††††††††††††††††† )


††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT L. PEIA  ;

†††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††REQUEST FOR CRIMINALREFERRAL

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† OF THE DOCUMENTEDFEDERAL

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† AMONG OTHER CRIMESAND ILLEGAL

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ACTS OF DEFENDANTS AND CO-

†††††† †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††CONSPIRATORS AS SET FORTH HEREIN

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† AND BY REFERENCE HERETO.


††† 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.On 4-28-05 I received a call from a person who identified herself as an employee of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division, who stated that the bankruptcy case #95-51862 as referenced in the application had been closed, and that I would have to pay a $155 fee and file a motion to re-open the case.

2. This was the first time that I had been apprised that the case had been closed.

3. I asked why I didnít receive any notice of same, to which the employee respondedthat they donít as a matter of standard procedure provide same.

4. Upon further inquiry the employee said that the trustee had filed a final report.

5. She further stated that if I didnít file a motion to reopen, the application would be denied by the bankruptcy court to which I responded that the RICO action had already been filed and that it mattered little that (RICO defendant) Coan and the (RICO enterprise/associated-in-fact enterprise) bankruptcy court had closed the bankruptcy case.

6. I asked to speak to her supervisor whom she identified as Susan Comstock and was transferred to Comstockís line, but only voicemail. I left a message which was cut off.

7. I tried to call back but got only voicemail.

8. About 30-60 minutes later I received a call from another employee of the bankruptcy court who identified herself as Sandra. She stated that my complaint didnít have a cover sheet and she had been told by her supervisor to file said complaint.

9. I explained that the complaint had already been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and that she should look at the caption, and that the (already filed) complaint had been appended to the application and incorporated therein by reference.

10. She stated that they donít read the contents of the legal papers, and that she was just following orders (by her supervisor).

11. I responded that, ďthatís what they said in nazi GermanyĒ, that there was an error in that the (already filed) District Court RICO Complaint wasappended to the Application as an exhibit, that the RICO Statute is a criminal law which provides for a civil damages remedy, that courts such as the (U.S. ) bankruptcy court could be a RICO enterprise, that there isnít immunity even for judges for criminal acts thereunder, that I was suing only for damages I had sustained, that there was insurance/surety applicable although I had been kept in the dark as to the names of the companies,and asked to speak to supervisor Comstock.

12. She responded saying that her supervisor Susan Comstock had left for the day to which I responded that I didnít think it was a coincidence (that Comstock had left for the day), and asked when she, Comstock, would return, to which she responded that Susan Comstock would be back on Monday, 5-2-05.

13. I said that Comstock must have made an error in a cursory reading of the papers in failing to discern the U.S. District Court captioning on the filed complaint and that I would call Comstock on Monday, 5-2-05 regarding same.

14. I further inquired as to the date the bankruptcy case had been closed, to which she responded that the case had been closed on October 20, 2004.

15. I received no notice of said closure or disposition from either Richard Coan, or other member of the firm Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltenberger, LLC., or said court despite my inquiries and the illegal, wrongful, and culpable conduct as sent forth in the instant case.



†††††††††††††††††††††††††† ___________________________________________________
†† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff/Affiant

Dated:†† May1, 2005



††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


†† I, Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff Pro Se in the within matter, do hereby certify that copies of the within SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT L. PEIA , have been served by regular first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on this _____ day of May, 2005, upon the following:



††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Richard M. Coan,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Timothy Miltenberger,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Whitney Lewendon,

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC.,


At:495 Orange St.

†††††† New Haven, Connecticut 06511




Dated:†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Signed: _________________________________

†† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff Pro Se