Albert L. Peia, Pro Se
(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, )
)
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Re Albert L. Peia,
Debtor/Plaintiff )
)
Chapter 7 )
Case
No. 95-51862 )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF’S RICO STATEMENT
THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. 1962
1.
Employees of and/or the
ecticut (hereinafter ‘USBC’), and
defendant Richard M. Coan
(hereinafter ‘Coan’) and defendants
Timothy Miltenberger (hereinafter ‘Miltenberger’),
Whitney Lewendon (hereinafter
‘Lewendon’), and Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and
Miltenberger , LLC., (hereinafter
‘CLGM’),
did in violation of Section 1962(c)
conduct
or participate in the conduct of the
affairs of an enterprise
that affects interstate commerce
through a pattern of racketeering activity
(by reason of which)
causing injury to plaintiff’s property and
business. 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 an enterprise, engaged in or affecting interstate
commerce, 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.
The aforesaid wrongful conduct is
consistent with and related to the wrongful conduct as follows:
Alan Shiff purported Chief Judge at
USBC fraudulently misrepresented the date of dismissal of a proceeding over
which he himself had presided in bringing a
(retaliatory against a
witness/informant, obstructing justice thereby) spurious contempt
against plaintiff (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) . USBC did utilize the mails
to perpetrate said fraud
(on courts, creditors, plaintiff,
etc.) constituting the RICO
predicate violation of mail fraud
thereby .USBC
utilized false hearing dates to
wrongfully dismiss adversary
proceedings, defrauding plaintiff and
creditors thereby.
Exhibit “C” thereto. USBC, its agents
employees did feloniously remove
filed federal court documents for the
purpose of defrauding plaintiff,
covering up various crimes connected
thereto, obstructing justice
thereby, causing damages to
plaintiff’s property and business.
Exhibit “B” thereto. Federal employee
Maryanne Trump (Barry) did corrupt
the federal judicial process
obstructing justice thereby, even
as substantial sums of (drug) money
were being laundered through
her brothers’ casinos by RICO
defendants before her.
Federal employee (and then
retainer by RICO defendants Dilena and
companies, violative
of the predicate act of bribery, as
well as obstructing justice
consistent therewith. Facts giving
rise to what a trier of fact could reasonably
infer from same, particularly when
coupled with the similar scenario (a more
direct
(and then Assistant
Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal”
and as well, did obstruct
justice by removing from the Office of
the
documents and/or file concerning drug
money laundering and other
federal law violations. Id. Federal
employees in Virginia
(and defendant
Chapter 7 proceeding in
for the purpose of defrauding
plaintiff, and as well, obstruct-
ing justice thereby, by reason of
which plaintiff sustained
damage to his property and business
(also damaging creditors,
and committing bankruptcy fraud
thereby).
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 thereby, by reason of which
plaintiff sustained injury
to his property and business.
Exhibit”A”.
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 futherance thereof,
did conspire to commit a fraud in
connection with a case under
Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby,
with knowledge of
the commission predicate acts as set
forth in #2, infra, were
a part of the racketeering activity
activity by which plaintiff
sustained injury to his property by
reason of said overt pre-
dicate acts. 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, evinced intent
to injure plaintiff and benefit
(former) RICO/adversary
proceeding defendants, and as well did
obstruct justice (and
criminal investigations thereof) .
It should also be noted that in
conspiring to violate section 1962 (c)
by reason of which violations
plaintiff sustained injury to his business
and property, with intent to injure
plaintiff and benefit
(former) RICO/adversary proceeding
defendants, the aforesaid
defendants did violate (federal)
substantive law in addition
to the RICO violations; ie., in prima
facie tort, negligence,
and (purposeful) breach of fiduciary
duty for which punitive
damages are appropriate owing to the
malice, hatred, and ill
will toward plaintiff as exhibited by
said defendants’ outrageous
and illegal conduct.
THE DEFENDANTS, THE MISCONDUCT, AND
THE BASIS OF LIABILITY
FOR EACH DEFENDANT
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 perpetuating 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 “B”.
In addition to the foregoing, federal employee
Maryanne Trump (Barry) (and
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,
which if not for the obstruction of
justice therein, through
discovery likely would have yielded
“quid pro quo” in the form
of increased drug money flows from
which a trier of fact could
have reasonably concluded to have
constituted a violation of
Section 201 relating to bribery. (It
should
also be noted that at or around the
time of the retaliatory
and spurious contempt proceeding, late
1992/early1993 , Trump had “retained”
the brother of then
discovery may have yielded a similar
conclusion consistent with
said Trump modus operandi. Federal
employee (and then
Trustee, and
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.
Facts giving rise to what a trier of
fact could reasonably infer from same,
particularly when coupled
with the similar scenario (a more
direct “
Section 201) vis-a-vis federal
employee (and then
Sam Allito, federal employee (and then
Assistant
thereby) who did “cut a bribe deal”
(Section 201)
and as well, did obstruct justice
(Section 1503) by removing
from the Office of the
concerning drug money laundering
(Section 1956) and other
federal law violations.
Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal”
(Section 201)
and as well, did obstruct justice
(Section 1503) by removing
from the Office of the
concerning drug money laundering
(Section 1956) and other
federal law violations. Federal employees in
(and
Chapter 7 proceeding in
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).
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 “A”. 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
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 and defendant CLGM thereby,
has neither abandoned nor
rebrought same, violating Section 1503
and (defrauding) damaging plaintiff
thereby. The aforesaid defendants,
along with defendants Miltenberger
and Lewendon 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 pre-
dicate acts. 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
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,
defendant
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
the Currency and Foreign
Transactions Reporting Act. As set
forth and as pertains to paragraph
#3 infra
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.
Defendant John Doe Insurer1, upon
information and belief is licensed to do business in and transacts its affairs
in the state of
[ It Should Be Noted That the Insurer and the Surety Would Be
Subrogated To Any and All Rights/Claims/Causes of Action Upon Payment. It
Should Also Be Noted That Rico Claims are Assignable. Holmes v. Security
Investor Protection Corp., 530
THE WRONGDOERS OTHER THAN THOSE SET
ABOVE AND THEIR MISCONDUCT
3. The defendants as set forth in
that matter designated as
Docket #92cv0l66,
stayed same owing to the bankruptcy
(and “parallel” adversary)
proceedings (and upon whose passing,
then transferred to Judge
Thompson, and then to Judge Arterton).
PVC at pages 16 and 17.
Notably, RICO defendants Dilena and
companies, engaged in
unlawful conduct violative of 18
U.S.C. 1962 Sections (c) and
(d), and as well, Section 1962(a).
defendants/entities became a controlled
operation and source (laundered drug money)
to USA/employees/contractors which
accorded “protection” to same.
First Fidelity Bancorporation, with
close ties to Dilena and companies, among other
defendants set forth in said action,
engaged in unlawful conduct
violative of RICO, sections 1962 (c)
and (d), and which unlawful
conduct included racketeering (section
1952), extortion,
retaliation against a witness/victim/
informant (section 1513),
obstruction of justice (section 1503),
fraud, fraud in connection
with a case under Title 11 (section
1961(1)(D), as set forth
in more plenary fashion therein, and
PVC along with Exhibits
A thru C thereto, which are
incorporated herein by reference
thereto. The bribes paid to federal
employees including but
not limited to, ie.,
forth supra, were among the the
Section 1962(a) violations
in addition to violations of the
apposite 1962 Sections (c)and(d).
THE VICTIM AND INJURIES
4. The victim is plaintiff herein.
In addition to the person-
al injuries within the province of the
(federal) substantitive
law claims (ie., prima facie tort,
negligence, breach of fidu-
ciary duty, etc.), plaintiff’s injury
to his property and
business by reason of the RICO
violations include the seizure!
theft of assets both real and
personal(business), loss of use
and/or access to same, particularly
impacting extent legal
proceedings, ie., software, legal
documents including
“proof s”,legal books, etc.), and
importantly, fraud connected
with a case(s) under Title 11.
The RICO proscribed acts of defendants
have dama-
ged plaintiff to the extent of
$5,000,000 (trebled under RICO,
$15,000,000), substantial legal fees
(time/in excess of a decade
of my life), and costs. The same is
set forth in greater detail
in #17, infra. Plaintiff has sought
punitive damages as to
defendants Coan, CLGM, Lewendon and
Miltenberg in the (federal)
substantivelaw (and RICO) claims, and
as to said defendant(s) for the
malice, willful, hateful toward
plaintiff, and egregiously unlawful
conduct. The law supports the award of
punitive damages in a
civil RICO action (RICO being remedial
legislation to effectu-
ate Congressional intent), see, e.g., Corn-Tech
Assocs. v.
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 753
F.Supp. 1078 (S.D.N.Y.1990),
aff’d on other grounds, 938 F.2d 1574
(2d Cir.199l) (“this
Court is of the view that at least at
the pleading stage,
a claim for punitive damages should be
allowed to stand... “)
Ross v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc.,
No. 2:85-2425-1, 1991 u.s.
Dist. LEXIS 13585 (D.5.C. Sept.4,l99l)
(awarding actual damages
of $440,000, trebled to $1.32 million,
plus punitive damages
totaling $l3.625 million); and Al-Kazemia
v. General Acceptance
& mv. Corp., 633 F.Supp. 540
(D.D.C.l986) (awarding both puni-
tive and treble damages). It should
also be noted that plaintiff
was defrauded out of $800 by the fraud
connected to a case under
Title 11 perpetrated by defendant USBC
in addition to that set
forth hereinabove and as set forth
infra in #17.
A partial good faith payment toward
settlement was made ($300)
by one of the RICO defendants (in
default)in the subject parallel
adversary proceedings) as set forth in
greater detail in #17.
Such(amount towards,or) settlement
would merely be deducted from
the total award won from the remaining
defendants. Importantly,
the deduction is to be made from the
total trebled award, and
is not to be taken before trebling.
See, e.g., Morley v. Cohen,
888 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir. 1989); Singer
v.
878 F.2d 589 (2d Cir. 1989),
cert.denied, 493
In re National Mortgage Equity
Corp. Mortgage Pool, 636 F.Supp.
1138 (C.D.Cal. 1986);
1364 (E.D.Pa. 1985) . The same rule is
applicable to setoffs
(ie., the value of returned goods) and
which should be deducted
after trebling. Liquid Air Corp. v.
(7th Cir. 1987) , cert. denied, 492
There is no general claim-of-right
defense to extortion with
regard to the illegal taking of
plaintiff’s property,
Agnes,753 F.2d 293 (3rd Cir.
1985), defendants were further
aware of other defendants’ illegal
activities,ie., fraud,
taking of property, etc., vis-a-vis
the subject proceedings
including adversary proceedings (PVC,
Exhibit A, and plain-
tiff reasonably anticipates in
accordance with Rule 11(b) (3)
and Rotella other such similar illegal and fraudulent acts to
obstruct justice as well as aid and
abet said predicate acts),
and defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, and CLGM thereby,
did by their unlawful conduct aid and
abet the predicate acts applicable herein;
including, for example, Sections 1503
(obstruction
of justice); 1513 (relating to
retaliation against a witness,
victim, or informant). Such aiding and
abetting civil liability
is not inconsistent with liability for
operation or management
of a RICO enterprise, Fidelity
Federal Sav.and Loan Ass’n v.
Felicetti, 830 F.Supp. 257
(E.D.Pa.l993), where as in this
case, there is an independent wrong,
knowledge of
said wrong, and substantial assistance
on the part of the
aider or abettor (defendants thereby) to effectuate
that wrong. Wiley v. Hughes Capital
Corp., 746 F.Supp. 1264
(D.N.J.1990).
THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
5. The predicate acts and statutes
violated including
the following (as set forth, PVC,
COUNTS 1 and 2, pages
10-18 and 19-24):
Exhibits a thru c
As to Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon,
and CLGM, at times relevant hereto,
said defendant 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
15l3) 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).PVC at
page(s) 11,12,20-24. USBC employees
and Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon, and
CLGM thereby,
did utilize the mails in the course of
perpetrating said fraud (on courts,
creditors, plaintiff, etc.)
constituting the RICO predicate violation of mail fraud
thereby, violative of Section 1341 on
or about June 4, 1996. PVC at 12, 19-23.
USBC employees utilized false hearing
dates to wrongfully dismiss adversary
proceedings, defrauding
plaintiff and creditors thereby, PVC
at page(s) 17-18 and Exhibit
“C” thereto, and violative of Section
1503, utilizing the mails
to perpetuate same in violation of
Section 1341, USBC
employees 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 plain-
tiff’s property and business. PVC at
page(s) 17-23
and Exhibit “B” thereto.
In addition to the foregoing, federal
employee Maryanne Trump (Barry)
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 in
or around 1987 to 1989 and upon
information beyond said dates,
which if not for the obstruction of
justice therein, through
discovery likely would have yielded
“quid pro quo” in the form
of increased drug money flows from
which a trier of fact could
have reasonably concluded to have
constituted a violation of
Section 201 relating to bribery. PVC
at page(s) 12-15. (It should
also be noted that at or around the
time of the retaliatory
and spurious contempt proceeding,
Trump had “retained” the
brother of then
discovery may have yielded a similar
conclusion consistent with
said Trump modus operandi.
Trustee) 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.
PVC at page(s) 13. Facts giving rise to
what a trier of
fact could reasonably infer from same,
particularly when coupled
with the similar scenario (a more
direct “
Section 201) vis-a-vis federal
employee (and then
Sam Allito, PVC at page(s) 14, federal
employee
(and
then Assistant
“cut a bribe deal” (Section 201) and
as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503)
by removing from the Office of the
concerning drug money laundering (Section
1956) and other
federal law violations. Id.
Federal employees in Virginia
illegally failed to consummate the
Chapter 7 proceeding in
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).
PVC at page(s) 14.
Defendant Coan and CLGM 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. PVC at page(s) 17-23
and Exhibit “A”. 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
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.
[Defendant Coan has neither executed
on nor abandoned a sub-
stantial (non-RICO related) judgment
entered for plaintiff by
the
3:93cv02065(AWT)]
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 futherance 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 above, were
a part of the racketeering activity
activity by which plaintiff
sustained injury to his property by
reason of said overt pre-
dicate acts. 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, evinced intent
to injure plaintiff and benefit
(former) RICO/adversary
proceeding defendants, and as well did
obstruct justice (and
criminal investigations thereof). PVC
at page(s) 10-18,18-23.
d) There have been no criminal
convictions as to any pre-
dicate acts inasmuch as criminal
proceedings, not surprisingly,
given
in same and criminal proceedings are
warranted and should be
brought against defendant Coan and
federal employee Shiff among
others for their criminal acts as set
forth herein. It should
be noted that there is no
prior-conviction requirement for the
commencement of a civil RICO action
for the underlying predicate
acts. See, Sedima, S.P.R.I v. Imrex
Co., Inc., 473
493 (1985)
e) N/A
f) The predicate acts form a
“pattern of racketeering acti-
vity” in accordance with the case law
construing same in terms
of “relatedness”; viz., in terms of
time, space, proximity,
nature of crimes, victims-plaintiff,
and repetition. Indeed,
while somewhat nebulous in terms of
the parameters set forth
in the seminal decisions construing
same by the
Supreme Court, see, e.g., Sedima,
S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc.,
473
Co., 492
activity) plus relationship (acts
“that have the same or similar
purposes, results, participants,
victims, or methods of commis-
sion, or otherwise are
interrelated by distinguishing character-
istics and are not.isolated events”),
the pattern requirement
is readily satisfied in the instant
case. Specifically, various
predicate acts (pattern of racketeering
activity) including those
of the associated-in-fact enterprise
(including
USBC and employees/contractors of
same, ie.,
defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, and CLGM) occurred
over a period of approximately 16
years beginning in or around
1988, and accruing on December 5,
1996, when plaintiff sustained
substantial injury and damage to his
property and business by
reason of the RICO predicate
violations of defendants herein.
(The matter concerning junkie/thief David
George Swann as discus-
sed supra did accrue at a later
point in time). Said predicate
acts as set forth above were committed
by defendants herein,
agents/”contractors”/employees on behalf
of the associated-in-
fact enterprise(s) and RICO predicate
act violators/co-conspira
tors as set forth supra.
The subject predicate acts were said
enterprise’s
regular way of “conducting business”
and constituting an open-
ended pattern of racketeering activity
thereby, constituting
the threat of continued misconduct.
Indeed, said fraud in con-
nection with a case under Title 11
would also, in light of the
serious predicate acts involved (in
proceedings) therein, be
sufficiently serious crimes to project
a threat of continuing
misconduct. See generally, Olive
Can Co., Inc. v. Martin, 906
F.2d 1147 (7thCir.1990);
1370 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498
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.
Similarly, the fraud in connection
with a case under Title
11 as perpetrated USBC employee Alan
Shiff and defendants’ complicity and cover-up
thereof, is consistent with a pattern
(of racketeering activity) as set forth herein [and
documented in the record and by way of
numerous transmissions to the FBI (including
the office of Director Freeh as per
instruction and as well to
the office of former Attorney General
Reno] defendants/co-conspirators
had knowledge/constructive knowledge
and/or was aware of said
defendants’ illegal activities and
RICO predicate violations.
Plaintiff reasonably anticipates in
accordance with Rule 11(b) (3)
and Rotella other such similarly unlawful attempts to ob-
struct justice as well as aid and abet
said predicate acts,
and did as set forth aid and abet the
predicate acts applicable
thereto, as well as aid and abet the
commission thereof, and
by the retaliatory and spurious
contempt proceeding predicated
upon fraud, did violate Title 18,
Sections 1503 (obstruction
of justice) ; 1513 (relating to
retaliation against a witness,
victim, or informant), by reason of
which plaintiff sustained
injury to his property and business.
The aforesaid USBC, and defendants Coan,
Miltenberger, Lewendon,
and CLGM did constitute an
associated-in-fact RICO enterprise for the
purpose of injuring/damaging plaintiff
as set forth supra and benefiting
the RICO defendants, co-conspirators,
and to cover-up significant
illegal, including RICO predicate
acts, and other unlawful
(racketeering) activity, which
structure of said associated-in-
fact RICO enterprise comports with the
law concerning same.
See, e.g. and generally, United
States v. London, 66 F.3rd
1227(1st Cir.1995) (“two or more legal
entities can form or be
a part of an association-in-fact RICO
enterprise”);
v. Blinder, 10 F.3rd 1468 (9th
Cir.1993) (“a group or union
consisting soley of corporations or
other legal entities can
constitute an ‘associated in fact’
enterprise”);
v. Huber, 603 F.2d 387(2d Cir.
1979) (to exclude a group of
corporations [or analogously other
entities as involved in this
case] from the definition of
“enterprise” would “perversely
insulate the most sophisticated
racketeering combinations from
RICO’s sanctions, the precise opposite
of Congress’ intentions”).
In the alternative, said USBC is the
enterprise and
defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, and CLGM were RICO persons
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.Section
l961(3)who were part of an association
in fact RICO enterprise by reason of
which associated-in-fact enterprise’s RICO
violations, plaintiff sustained injury
and damage to his property and business.
g) The aforesaid acts at all times
were designed to damage
plaintiff and to obstruct justice
(including theft of
evidence, ie., legal documents, etc.),
to preclude
accountability for same, utilizing
similar modus operandi,
by reason of which predicate acts,
plaintiff sustained sub-
stantial injury to his property and
business.
THE RICO
6. a) The USBC, and defendants Coan
constitute an asso-
ciated-in-fact enterprise engaged in a
pattern of racketeer-
ing. The USBC and defendants Coan are
an associated-in-fact
enterprise for the purpose of
conspiring to violate Section
1962 (c) in violation of 1962 (d) . In
the alternative, USBC is the
enterprise within the meaning of
Section 1961 and Section 1964(c).
Defendants Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon, and
CLGM did violate the
proscription of 1962 (C). Indeed, it
is a well settled principle
of RICO law that governmental entities
including courts may
be enterprises within the meaning of the
RICO Act. In the widely
cited and authoritative case, Averbach
v. Rival Mfg. Co., 809
F.2d 1016,1018(3rd Cir.1987)certjorari
denied 107 S.Ct.3187,
482
484
settled principles of law as are
apposite in the instant case
as follows:
“We agree that a court may be an
enterprise within the meaning
of RICO”, citing a plethora of cases
so holding, the Court
continues, “In those cases in which
courts have been recognized
as RICO enterprises, however, the
participants engaged in
patterns of activities designed to
corrupt the operation of
the courts’ own processes.”
The aforesaid defendants are also RICO
persons as defined by
RICO. The aforesaid enterprise(s)
constituted associations-
in-fact within the meaning of RICO and
in violation of Sections
1962 (c) and 1962 (d)
b) USBC is, upon belief, an
agency/department/branch/
court of USA, the function of which is
to adjudicate/
administer (bankruptcy) cases under
Title 11, U.S.C.. The office
of the
an office/agency/department of
are upon information and belief principals in the law firm, defendant CLGM,
and as
well,
defendant Coan the Chapter 7 trustee, as is relevant herein.
c) Set forth in part
b) supra.
d) The defendants herein at times
relevant hereto
were associated with the RICO
enterprise as set forth
hereinabove.
See also subpart a) supra.
e) Defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, CLGM and USBC constitute
an association-in-fact enterprise
within the meaning and ambit of and
in violation of Section 1962 (c) and
(d) of RICO. At times
relevant hereto, USBC is a RICO person
comprising an associated-in-fact
enterprise with the aforesaid
defendants. Alternatively, USBC is an
enterprise conducted
through a pattern of racketeering
activity in violation of
Section 1962 C) by defendants Coan,
Miltenberger, Lewendon, CLGM
and USBC employees.
(f) The aforesaid defendants are perpetrators
owing to
the level of culpability properly
attributable to same
as a matter of law for the subject
illegal (predicate) acts.
THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING
VIS-A-VIS THE RICO
7. As set forth hereinabove, the
enterprise though distinct,
are yet deemed as a matter of (RICO)
law to be at times rele-
vant hereto, an associated-in-fact enterprise
in violation
of Sections 1962 (c) and (d) and
hence, construed as one enter-
prise. In the alternative, USBC is the
enterprise
conducted through a pattern of
racketeering activity proscribed by
RICO. Defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, CLGM
and USBC employees did violate and
conspire [in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(d)] to violate 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c) and injure
plaintiff’s property and business
[obstructing justice and
consequently and concomitantly
benefiting the (racketeering)
enterprises/persons/activities
including those in which defendant
illegal)activity consistent with said
illegal object and purpose,
accorded “defacto protection” thereby,
thus facilitating and/or
aiding or abetting the commission of
RICO predicate acts as
a consequence thereof. While the
pattern of racketeering activity
in this case is indeed distinct and
separate from the enterprise,
see generally,
it should be noted that as in this
case, “a group of individuals”
(RICO enterprises, persons) “may join
together and therefore
be ‘associated in fact’...although not
a legally cognizable
entity in one of the traditional
forms.. .solely for the purpose
of conducting their activities. That
is, it is logical to cha-
racterize any associative group in
terms of what it does, rather
than by abstract analysis of its
structure”,
Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d
Cir.),cert. denied, 464
Accordingly, consistent with that set
forth supra, “the concepts
of relatedness and continuity are
attributes of activity [ie.,
of a RICO pattern], not of a RICO
enterprise”.
v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 491
907 (1989). Similarly, there is no
requirement that “a RICO
enterprise must possess an
‘ascertainable structure’ distinct
from the associations necessary to
conduct the pattern of rack-
eteering activity”.
(11th Cir. 1985) , cert. denied, 475
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
8. Sadly, (and I do have the highest
personal regard for
the Law and law enforcement in
general), though purportedly
attributed a mission and purpose
consonant with the Law, I have
discerned as set forth herein that
such (although with
distinct and substantial exceptions)
is not so as indicated
hereinabove, in plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint, exhibits thereto,
and plaintiff’s affidavit, and
incorporated
herein by reference thereto. The RICO
enterprise(s)/persons
involved herein and as
associated-in-fact, I believe to have
been at all times relevant hereto
organized crime influenced
and corrupt organization(s)properly
within the ambit of RICO.
Defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, CLGM
and USBC employees and associates
thereof, I believe succumbed to the
“pressures” exerted
and is ordinarily concomitant with
predicates acts violative
of RICO to avoid detection,
accountability, and obstruct
justice thereby.
THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE PATTERN
OF RACKETEERING
9. It should be noted at the outset
the substantial monies
involved in the (RICO/parallel
adversary proceeding) matters
involving drug money laundering.* The
damage to me by reason
of the predicate acts involved herein,
including (offenses involving and)
fraud in connection with a case under
Title 11, concomitantly benefited
others (ie., money and property, real
and personal, out of which
I was defrauded. At this stage of the
proceedings, I only infer
that based upon experience with such
matters as herein, money
changes hands by way of bribes (ie.,
federal employees Leonard,
Lacey, Trump, etc., discussed supra)
retainers, business, etc., and which in
accordance with Rotella, supra,
plaintiff reasonably anticipates
discovery will confirm.
* Parenthetically, it should be
emphasized as most recently
given some attention, the more recent
among the innumerable
dealer. The money flows are not always
easily detectible, ie.,
“fund-raisers”, off-shore/foreign bank
accounts/cash, other
quid
pro quo, ie., votes, etc.. The people involved in same
are not “closet-respecters” of the
law. Indeed, the “blood,
sweat, and tears” that go into
convicting such criminals is
beyond what most people surmise, from
investigation to prose-
cution to judicial toil and cost. In
the context of my pro-
ceedings, there was NO ONE that “they”
were not able to get
to (with the exception of my mother
whom “they” “eliminated”
in their own but effective way. The
Trumps appear to have
gotten a “free ride” regarding same,
but as documented supra,
are very much a part of that which
occurred herein, though not
germane to the actionable RICO claims
herein at this juncture.
The affidavits as previously referenced, of
FBI agent Taus and
CIA agent Tatum which are annexed
hereto as Exhibits “D“ and
“E“, respectively, corroborate the
integral involvement of the
government by way of employees/contractors
in the corrupt illegal
scheme violative of RICO involved
herein and causing substantial
damages to my business and property.
The direct involvement by
Bush and Clinton, among many other
operatives/employees/contractors in the
illegal drug trade as well as
private persons/interests as set forth
therein, is indicative of the magnitude
and pervasiveness of the corrupt and
illegal scenarios as are involved in
in the instant case and help explain
(and familial) tenures of office.
THE NEXUS TO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE
10. The aforesaid associated-in-fact
enterprise, ie., USBC
and defendants Coan, purchase
substantial “goods” in and through
interstate commerce; also using the
mails and wire across state
lines to perpetrate the (bankruptcy)
fraud herein; also impacting
creditors and property interstate.
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1962(a) VIOLATIONS
11. a) & b) N/A except as set
forth in #1 thru #3 hereof
as background hereto; and to the
extent that bribes/graft
were paid from income derived from a
pattern of racketeering,
involved herein.
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1962(b) VIOLATIONS
12. N/A
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1962(c) VIOLATIONS
13. a) USBC and defendants herein, Coan, are
part of the associated-in-fact
enterprise involved herein.
b) None of the above are both
“person” and “enterprise”
within the meaning of RICO. Rather as
set forth supra, the
defendants herein constituted an
associated-in-fact enterprise
by reason of which enterprise’s
predicate RICO violations
plaintiff sustained substantial
injury/damage to his property
and business. It should be noted that
at times relevant hereto
defendant USBC is a RICO enterprise
and part of the associated-
in-fact enterprise, along with
defendants
RICO persons under the statute.
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1962(d) VIOLATIONS
14. Conspiracy to violate Section
1962 (c) set forth in
detail in #2,5,6, supra.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND
PROPERTY
15. The following are approximations
derived from the notice
of claim as a guideline as filed with
defendant
will respectfully supplement the
within prior to time of trial
by way of expert report (and
testimony) as to lost profits as
a consequence of the predicate acts
involved herein, see, e.g.
Sound Video Unlimited, Inc. v. Video
Shack, Inc., 700 F.Supp.
127 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Advanced Business
Sys., Inc. v. Phillips
Information Sys.
well, future damages in accordance
with Bankers Trust Co. v.
Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir.l988),
cert. denied, 490
1007 (1989) . As such, plaintiff
stands behind the $5,000,000
damage demand, trebled to $15,000,000,
plus reasonable attorneys
fee and costs of suit.
Adversary Proceeding/Matter Estimated Value
96-5011 - Dilena $1,000,000
Nissan/First Fidelity 100,000
Breiner/Brick 150,000
Hess/West Orange 450, 000
Crestmont/Seaside Heights 350,000
McDonald/Montclair 150,000
96-5008/Robert Beck Trust 100,000
96-50l8/Mascott- settled as to
Crassus Group/O ‘Gorman 120,000
Donohue 20,000
Swann 10,000
Approx Sub
Total 2,500,000
*Est.Lost
Profits 1,650,000
*Est.Future
Damages 850,000
$5,000,000
Trebled pursuant to
RICO $15,000,000
Approx.Reasonable Attorneys
Fee 1,500,000
Approx.Costs of Suit 160
Punitive
Damages 10,000,000
Estimated Grand Total $26,500,160
*an expert will be secured
THE DIRECT CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE RICO VIOLATIONS
AND PLAINTIFF’S INJURY/DAMAGE
16. The RICO pattern as set forth
hereinabove is and has been
the substantial factor in causing
plaintiff’ injury/damage,
said injury being reasonably
foreseeable as a natural consequence
of said acts. See, Cox v.
Administrator, 17 F.3rd 1386 (11th
Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513
Clearing House, Inc., 879 F.2d 21 (2d
Cir.1990).
LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS FOR DAMAGES
17. Joint and several liability as
to all defendants/
co-conspirators herein.
OTHER FEDERAL STATUTORY CAUSES OF
ACTION
18. fraud, aiding and abetting,
misprision of felony.
19. N/A – fraud/negligence/breach of
fiduciary duty/contract
I, Albert L. Peia, hereby certify to the foregoing upon reasonable
inquiry
in accordance with the Court’s Standing
Order concerning such certification pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
Dated: Signed:______________________________
Albert L. Peia
REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule
of Evidence 201,
plaintiff respectfully requests
Judicial Notice of
District Court Case #3:93cv02065(AWT),
#92cv0l66(JBA), Bky.Case
#95-51862 and the Adversary
Proceedings filed therein, District
of
well as the Exhibits thereto.
Dated:
Signed:______________________________
Albert L. Peia
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I, Albert L. Peia, hereby certify
that copies of the within and foregoing
RICO Statement have been served along
with Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint,
Application, and Affidavit of Albert
L. Peia with exhibits thereto as indicated
therein, as set forth in the
certificate of service of the process server which is
appended immediately hereto.
Those served are:
Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney
Lewendon,
Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and
Miltenberger , LLC.,
Dated:
Signed:______________________________
Albert L. Peia
_____________
*The decision of the
120 S.Ct. 1075(2000) suggests that the
rigors of Rule 9(b),
Fed.R.Civ.P., could be relaxed in
racketeering litigation based
on “the flexibility provided by Rule
11(b) (3), allowing
pleadings based on evidence reasonably
anticipated after fur-
ther investigation or discovery.” 120
S.Ct. at 1083. Similarly,
in the instant case, plaintiff
reasonably anticipates that
discovery will reveal additional and
similar fraud, corruption
(bribes, etc.) underlying, motivating,
and facilitating the
predicate acts of defendants as set
forth in # , infra,
including obstruction of justice. In
that same decision, Justice Sutter
talks about the notion of “private
attorneys general” in the context of the
RICO Statute. That is a “cruel joke”
and laughable given the ubiquitous
crime and corruption in
schemes/crimes as herein to cover same
up and to preclude detection
therof and accountability therefore.