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     )

                                                                             )                

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

                                APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONCURRENTLY- 

                  FILED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR  JURY TRIAL;

                   REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF THE DOCUMENTED

                                    FEDERAL AMONG OTHER CRIMES HEREIN  . 

 

  1. I, Albert L. Peia,  am the plaintiff pro se in the within RICO action and respectfully apply to the court herein for leave to file the concurrently filed Verified Complaint, a copy of which is immediately appended hereto.
  2. This application is set forth under penalty of perjury and in support hereof are plaintiff’s concurrently filed Verified Complaint under penalty of perjury and Exhibits appended thereto, the Affidavit of Albert L. Peia and Exhibits thereto,  and plaintiff’s RICO Statement and Exhibits thereto, all of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto.
  3. It should be noted at the outset that at all times relevant hereto, defendant Coan et als have attempted to avoid process, jurisdiction, and accountability for their wrongfully culpable conduct, while concomitantly attempting to cover-up theirs and the criminal acts of others, in clear violation of  the apposite federal laws as set forth in the Verified Complaint appended hereto and filed concurrently herewith.
  4. Plaintiff has and continues to sustain substantial damages each day justice is delayed herein.
  5. It should be noted that despite numerous attempts to discern the precise status/position of plaintiff’s assets/bankruptcy case, particularly in light of the substantial wrongful conduct of defendants herein proximately causing plaintiff substantial damages, defendants continue to obfuscate, delay, and illegally obstruct justice herein.
  6. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Affidavit appended hereto, despite reasonable inquiry, no response has been forthcoming.
  7. There is insurance/surety coverage applicable  to the clearly documented wrongful/illegal conduct of defendants Coan et als, which wrongful conduct proximately caused plaintiff substantial damage.
  8. Said insurers/sureties are named and pled as ‘John Doe’ defendants and upon payment would be subrogated to any and all claims herein. The RICO claims are also assignable.
  9. It also respectfully submitted that as documented in the within motion along with the supporting papers, filings, and exhibits which are incorporated herein by reference thereto, a criminal referral owing to defendant Coan’s illegal/wrongful conduct should issue forthwith.
  10. It respectfully should be noted and emphasized that defendant Coan’s et als’ actions in the instant case have been at all relevant times purposefully intended or so grossly negligently performed so as to directly cause substantial damage to plaintiff/debtor’s estate, the minimal creditors thereof, and particularly plaintiff/debtor herein.
  11.  Immediately appended hereto and as referenced in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, RICO Statement, and Affidavit and incorporated therein and in the within Application  is Exhibit “A”, and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice Adversary Proceedings as a direct consequence of defendant Coan’s failure to file pursuant to said court’s order, causing plaintiff substantial damages thereby.
  12.  Concomitantly, and not surprisingly, said illegal/wrongful conduct  on the part of defendant Coan et als conferred  substantial financial benefits to defendants therein, including RICO co-conspirators, also covering up such illegal/wrongful conduct, aiding and abetting offenses involving fraud and fraud connected with a case under Title 11 U.S.C., as well as obstructing justice thereby.
  13.  The aforesaid illegal/wrongful conduct was as set forth in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint a RICO predicate act within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 as set forth and within the meaning 18 U.S.C. § 1964(C).
  14.  As set forth in plaintiff’s concurrently filed Verified Complaint, Affidavit, and  RICO Statement along with Exhibits thereto, this wrongful conduct causing plaintiff/debtor substantial damages is part of a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning and ambit of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,  18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (1994).
  15.  The illegal/wrongful conduct on the part of defendant Coan is also, at the least, a breach of fiduciary duty and/or negligence contrary to the very purpose for which a leave of court requirement is required. Indeed, plaintiff’s action will enhance the estate/trust while defendant Coan’s et als’ conduct has and continues to damage plaintiff/debtor’s estate and creditors thereof.

 

              For all of the foregoing reasons, and as well, as set forth in plaintiff’s concurrently filed Verified Complaint under penalty of perjury and Exhibits appended thereto, the Affidavit of Albert L. Peia and Exhibits thereto,  and plaintiff’s RICO Statement and Exhibits thereto, consistent with the law and the paramount judicial interests of truth and justice, the relief as requested should be granted or in the alternative, considered moot in light of the filing of this well founded and just cause consistent with the law.

 

Dated: April   , 2005

 

                        Signed Under Penalty of Perjury By:

 

                                                               ________________________________________________
                                                                                Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff/Debtor Pro Se

 

                                                             ________________________

*The 1881 case of Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881), relied upon by the corrupt court and the criminals/defendants herein for the purported ‘leave of court requirement’, involved a plaintiff that had brought an action for personal injuries sustained while a passenger in a train, which railroad was currently in receivership. Said plaintiff brought the action against the receiver without having sought leave of court from the court that had appointed him. It is important to emphasize that there was no allegation or even a hint of impropriety, culpability, or illegality on the part of either the receiver or the subject court that had appointed him. Indeed, the fundamental and underlying ratio decidendi and policy considerations leading ineluctably to said Court’s conclusion was that to permit such an action without leave of court would potentially impair the (value of the) property in the hands of the receiver, to the detri- ment of existing creditors and prior claimants. In the case sub judice, the precise opposite is true. Moreover, there was no RICO statute extent at said time to address the endemic and pervasive corruption that has become synonymous with America today and that the RICO statute was enacted thwart consistent with the liberal construction to be accorded said remedial legislation as per the Court in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1989). Specifically, plaintiff/ appellant’s action herein was to preserve the estate which has been purposefully and consistently damaged by defendant coan consistent with a pattern of racketeering activity by an enterprise of which defendant coan along with (or in the alternative)U.S. Bankruptcy court that appointed him was a part. It should further be noted a fortiori that plaintiff/appellant’s action would inure to the benefit of the estate and consequently, legitimate creditors and/or claimants thereof.