Albert L. Peia, Pro Se

P.O. Box 862156

Los Angeles, CA 90086

(213)219-7649

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

----------------------------------------------------------

Albert L. Peia, )

Plaintiff ) CASE NO.

-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 – 10, )

Defendants )

----------------------------------------------------------

)

In Re Albert L. Peia, Debtor/Plaintiff )

)

Chapter 7 )

Case No. 95-51862 )

) AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT L. PEIA

) IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT,

) CONCURRENT MOTION/APPLICATION

) FOR LEAVE, RICO STATEMENT, AND

---------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL

OF THE DOCUMENTED FEDERAL

AMONG OTHER CRIMES AND 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. 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 Miltenberger

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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger, voicemail messages to Miltenberger, and in a conversation with Timothy Miltenberger 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.

· 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, & Miltenberger 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 cover-up. I asked to speak with Timothy Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger’s voicemail wherein I referenced the prior message which the receptionist had indicated had been given to Mr. Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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. Miltenberger 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. Miltenberger.

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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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. Miltenberger 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. Miltenberger 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. Miltenberger was on the line, and stated that I would hold for him. Mr. Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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. Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger’s voicemail wherein I referenced the prior messages which the receptionist had indicated had been given to Mr. Miltenberger, 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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 Miltenberger 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

2. 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 perpetrating 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 “D”.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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/having removed

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

concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other

federal law violations.

6. Jonathon Lacey did, upon information/facts giving rise to what a

trier of fact could reasonably infer from same and belief, “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 consummate 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).

7. 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 “B”. 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.

8. 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 furtherance 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 predicate acts.

9. Specifically, At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, and Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut and the other conspirators associated with this enterprise, conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of this enterprise's affairs through a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Specifically, Defendant Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as successor plaintiff was ordered by the court to file papers consistent with his capacity and duty as successor plaintiff and Trustee, in a number of adversary proceedings brought by debtor/plaintiff herein for which the entry of default had been requested and the entry of default judgment appropriate inasmuch as proper service had been made with some matters being without defense, ie., properties (outside the state of Connecticut, ie., New Jersey) sold during the pendency of the automatic stay pursuant to §362 of Title 11, U.S.C., unaccounted for substantial funds (in New Jersey) generated from said wrongful acts, theft of personalty/business assets (in California, New Jersey, and Connecticut), loss of rents (in New Jersey, California, and Connecticut), among other causes and damages, including a substantial fraud on debtor/plaintiff herein perpetrated by R.I.C.O. defendants/co-conspirators involved in laundering drug money through the Trump (of New York) casinos (in New Jersey) along with other criminal activities covered by and violative of federal law. All of said matters were meritorious, substantial, some without defense, as well as some for which partial settlements and/or payments had been made. Defendant Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as Trustee, and Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., thereby, and to cover-up various criminal activities including, inter alia, illegal drug money laundering, bribery, fraud, theft, other violations of federal law including §362 of Title 11, U.S.C., and the illegal, wrongful and culpable failure to conclude the 1989 Virginia Chapter 7 proceeding under Title 11 in accordance with federal law, among others, wrongfully, negligently, and culpably failed to file any document whatsoever. Defendant Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as Trustee, and defendant Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., thereby, along defendants Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon have at all times attempted to evade process and avoid culpability and accountability for defendants’ wrongful and illegal conduct.

10. 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 enumerated 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 concomitants of said racketeer-

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

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

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, 1993 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 Shiff’s law secretary who identified himself

as ‘David’ and who indicated same would be given to defendant

Shiff that same day, Exhibit “D”;

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 refiling 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 dismissal 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 Shiff as set forth in part B, supra,

the California Bankruptcy Court dismissed a prior Chapter 7

proceeding here in California for which the Section 341a hearing

had already been consummated causing plaintiff damage. It should

be noted that Shiff utilized the mails in furtherance of said fraud

involving the subject case under Title 11 U.S.C., committing mail

fraud thereby, and for the purpose of preventing detection of his

own crime and those of other RICO co-conspirators, obstructing

justice thereby;

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

Docket #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 firm of Cole, Shotz,

and Bernstein) in Hackensack, 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 smirkingly 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

Ch. 13 proceeding in Connecticut in September 1989.

Said proceeding was not consummated 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 consummated 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. Gilroy 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 “B” annexed hereto, Judge Arterton dismissed the RICO

action, Docket # 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 Shiff court of false and/or conflicting

notices of hearing, ie., as set forth in Exhibit “D” 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 cover-up 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 cover-up

predicate acts under RICO among other crimes, committing

misprision of felony thereby. Said criminal act of Matz would also be

characterized as an(y) offense involving fraud connected with a case under Title 11

U.S.C. within the meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(D) and also violative of Title 18

U.S.C. § 1962 thereby, in addition the aforesaid provisions. [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].

11. Inclusion of Defendant Coan’s et als' (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.

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

(illegal drug)money laundering[Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956], bankruptcy fraud [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D)], obstruction of justice, [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1503] , offenses involving fraud connected with a case under Title 11 U.S.C. [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D)], extortion[Title 18 U.S.C. § 1951] , mail fraud [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341], bribery [Title 18 U.S.C. § 201], retaliation against a witness/victim/informant [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513], and racketeering [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1952], along with other substantive causes sounding in (continuing) negligence/breach of fiduciary duty and Misprision of Felony [Title 18 U.S.C. § 4], fraudulent concealment thereof and contract.

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, 1993 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 “E”;