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., ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
John Doe Surety
1, John Doe Insurer 2, ) UNDER THE
RACKETEER
John Does 3 –
10,
) INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
) (RICO)
----------------------------------------------------------
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL
OF THE DOCUMENTED FEDERAL
AMONG OTHER CRIMES HEREIN.
Albert L. Peia, of full age, residing at 611 E. 5th Street
#404, Los Angeles, in the
against defendants sets forth the following
averments under penalty of perjury and
says:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action arises out of a scheme to
defraud plaintiff of money and assets perpetrated by defendants/co-conspirators
herein, injuring plaintiff in his business and property within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), also damaging plaintiff’s bankruptcy estate and creditors
thereof. Annexed hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto is the Affidavit of Albert L.
Peia dated April , 2005, setting forth under penalty of perjury the
factual predicates of the crimes/wrongful/illegal conduct herein.
2.
Through their conduct as detailed below, defendants conducted or participated,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise through
a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and/or conspired to do so within the meaning
of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), in violation of
said provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq..
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff,
Albert L. Peia, Debtor of the Chapter 7 proceeding of which defendant(s) Coan
is Trustee, currently resides in the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, City of
5. Defendant
Richard M. Coan has at all times relevant hereto been the Chapter 7 Trustee in
the District of Connecticut, and a principal and/or employee of the firm Coan,
Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltenberger, LLC, whose acts appear to be within the
scope of his authority and/or employment.
6. Defendant
Whitney Lewendon has at all times relevant hereto resided in or transacted his
affairs or business in the state of Connecticut, and a principal and/or
employee of the firm Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltenberger, LLC, whose acts
appear to be within the scope of his authority and/or employment.
7. Defendant
Timothy Miltenberger has at all times relevant hereto resided in or transacted
his affairs or business in the state of Connecticut, and a principal and/or employee
of the firm Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltenberger, LLC, whose acts appear
to be within the scope of his authority and/or employment.
8. Defendant
Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltenberger, LLC, upon information and belief is
incorporated in and whose principal place of business is the state of
9. Defendant
John Doe Insurer1, upon information and belief is licensed to do business in
and transacts its affairs in the state of
10. Defendant
John Doe Surety2, upon information and belief is licensed to do business in and
transacts its affairs in the state of
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a)(2), in that plaintiff is a citizen of a foreign state,
defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, Coan,
Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., are citizens of Connecticut, and
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs. This court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1331 and 1367, in that the RICO claims arise under the laws of the
United States, and the state law claims are so related to the RICO claims that
they form part of the same case or controversy.
12.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(a),
since defendants reside in the District of Connecticut and a substantial part
of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of
Connecticut.
FACTUAL
BASIS FOR CLAIMS – WRONGFUL CONDUCT
13. Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property by reason
of defendants’ wrongful/illegal conduct within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
14. The fraudulent scheme of defendants/co-conspirators includes
offenses involving fraud connected with a case under Title 11 U.S.C. within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(d) in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
15.
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) .
16.
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).
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”.
17. 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,
said “quid pro quo” in the form of drug money flows constituted a violation of
Section 201 relating
to bribery.
18. 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.
19. Federal employee (and
then
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.
20. Facts giving rise to what a trier of fact could reasonably
infer from same,
particularly when coupled with similar scenarios herein (a more direct “
bribe deal”, 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.
21.
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.
22.
Federal employees in
the 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).
23.
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 has neither abandoned nor re-brought
same, violating
Section 1503 and
(defrauding) damaging plaintiff thereby.
24.
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 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,
USA/John Does also have 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
the
Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act.
25. Multiple and distinct
injuries to multiple parties have been caused by defendants' violation of Title
18 U.S.C. § 1962.
26. Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property by reason
of defendants' violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
27. The pattern of racketeering activity includes violations of the
following provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. as further detailed immediately
thereafter with factual specificity:
(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 “ B ”;
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
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
materially (relating to the 180 day bar to re-filing 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
plaintiff 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 defendant Shiff as set forth in part B, supra
the
proceeding here in
had already been consummated causing plaintiff damages.
D. On or about August 17, 1987, I initiated a R.I.C.O. action
Dkt. #87-2433(MTB) in the
the theft by RICO defendant Dilena of funds from a pension fund
to which plaintiff had a fiduciary duty - brought to my atten-
tion by and confirmed by then bookkeeper Peter Baratta (upon
information,
they/RICO co-conspirators had Baratta committed to a mental institution)
- 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 Barry, 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 Barry’s brother(s) Donald (and Robert). After conflicting
improper decisions (dictated by either potential 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
owing to said bankruptcy filing. In preparing a motion to recuse
Maryanne Trump Barry 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 Barry, which he refused despite the obvious
and egregious conflict of interest. Hugh Leonard left his
position as
and Bernstein) in
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
Assistant
federal building 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) . Lacey indicated they (the
documents)
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
said inculpating documents, the recipient at his
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
where I was “tauntingly greeted” by an agent uninterested in
said matter who smurkingly asked me “whether I was going to
the disco that night”.
F. In filing the subsequent
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
filed in September, 1989, just prior to the dismissal of said
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
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
have caused my estate and creditors thereof substantial damage;
G. A Notice of Federal Tort Claim was served upon then
Attorney General William Barr via Fedex in late 1991. Having
received no response I filed a R.I.C.O. and damage action
in the
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 “A” annexed hereto, Judge Arterton dismissed the RICO
action, Dkt. # 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 small partial settlements effected
with some of said defendants;
H. The use by the Shiff (
conflicting notices of hearing, ie., as set forth in Exhibit “C” is
another way RICO coconspirators 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 law, constituting misprision of felony thereby.
J. J. Matz in
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. [FEDEX Corp. is also in contempt
of a subpoena regarding transmissions by plaintiff to Attorneys
General (former) Barr and
sanctions/enforcement].
FIRST COUNT – RICO
28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the
averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if set forth at length
herein.
29. At all times relevant
hereto, plaintiff was a “person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§
1961(3) and 1964(c).
30. At all times relevant
hereto, defendants Richard M. Coan,
Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and
Miltenberger, LLC., John Doe Surety 1
and John Doe Insurer 2, and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Connecticut were “persons” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3)
and 1964(c).
31. At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy
Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, and Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC., and the
32. At all relevant times, this enterprise was engaged in, and its
activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of
RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
33. 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.
34. 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 engaged in “racketeering activity" within the
meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) by engaging in the acts set forth above.
The acts set forth above constitute a violation of one or more of the following
statutes:
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] .
35. Defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,
Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Connecticut and the other conspirators each committed
and/or aided and abetted the commission of two or more of these acts of
racketeering activity.
36. The acts of racketeering activity referred to in the preceding
paragraph constituted a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the
meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). The acts alleged were related to each
other by virtue of common participants, a common victim (plaintiff Albert L.
Peia), a common method of commission, and the common purpose and common result
of damaging/defrauding plaintiff and benefitting/enriching the conspirators to
plaintiff’s detriment while concealing the conspirators’ fraudulent/wrongful
activities/conduct. The aforesaid defendants/conspirators and defendant Coan
since becoming Chapter 7 trustee in May, 1996, have continued their fraudulent
scheme, attempting to evade legal process and accountability for their wrongful
and illegal conduct.
37. As a result of defendant Coan’s and the
other Conspirators’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), plaintiff has been
damaged in his business and property as a direct consequence of said offenses
involving fraud connected with a case under Title 11, U.S.C..
38. As a result of their misconduct, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger,
Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC., are liable to plaintiff for
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
39. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), plaintiff is entitled to recover
threefold his damages plus costs plus reasonable attorneys’ fees from the
aforesaid defendants.
SECOND COUNT – RICO CONSPIRACY
40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments contained in
paragraphs 1 through 39 as if set forth at length herein.
41. At all times relevant hereto, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy
Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC., John Doe Surety 1 and John Doe Insurer 2, and the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Connecticut were “persons” within the meaning of
RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
42. At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy
Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, and Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC., and the
43. At all relevant times, this enterprise was engaged in, and its
activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of
RICO,18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
44. At all relevant times, defendants 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).
45. At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy
Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC., the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, and
the other conspirators each were associated with the enterprise and agreed and
conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), that is, conduct and participate,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through
a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
46. Defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney
Lewendon,Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., and the other
conspirators committed and caused to be committed a series of overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy and to affect the objects thereof, including but
not limited to the acts set forth above.
47. As a result of defendant Coan and the
other Conspirators’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), plaintiff has been
damaged in his business and property.
48. As a result of the conspiracy, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger,
Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC., are liable to plaintiff for
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
49. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), plaintiff is entitled to
recover threefold his damages plus costs plus reasonable attorneys’ fees from
the aforesaid defendants.
THIRD COUNT -
NEGLIGENCE/BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments contained in
paragraphs 1 through 49 as if set forth at length herein.
51. On or about May 1, 1996, defendant Richard M. Coan succeeded to the
interests of the estate of plaintiff herein in his capacity as Chapter 7
Trustee, said case having originated under Chapter 13 of Title 11, U.S.C., and
designated as Case No. 95-51862, United States Bankruptcy Court, in the
District of Connecticut.
52. At all times relevant hereto, Richard M. Coan had a fiduciary duty
to said estate, creditors thereof including the U.S. government, which duty he
breached through wrongful and otherwise
negligent and culpable conduct.
53. To wit, 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.
54. All of said matters were meritorious, substantial, some without
defense, as well as some for which partial settlements and/or payments had been
made.
55. Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as Trustee 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.
56. As a direct consequence of the aforesaid negligent, wrongful and
culpable breaches of fiduciary duty the subject adversary proceedings were
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in Exhibit “A“, annexed hereto and
incorporated herein by reference thereto, causing and resulting in great damage
to plaintiff herein.
57. Defendant Richard M. Coan is liable to plaintiff for the damages
caused by said negligent, wrongful and culpable breaches of fiduciary duty, in
amounts compensatory and punitive, to be determined at trial.
FOURTH COUNT - FRAUD AND
AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD
58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments contained in
paragraphs 1 through 57 as if set forth
at length herein.
59. Defendants aided and abetted the
aforesaid fraud inasmuch
as
(1) they were
associated with the wrongful conduct;
(2) participated in
it with intent to bring it about; and
(3)
sought by their actions to make it succeed, which efforts continue to this day
and are a sham and fraud upon the court causing plaintiff damage thereby.
60. As a result of defendants’ and the other
coconspirators’ aiding and abetting the aforesaid fraud and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),
plaintiff has been damaged in his business and property as a direct consequence
of said offenses involving fraud connected with a case under Title 11, U.S.C..
61. As a result of their misconduct, aiding and abetting the aforesaid
fraud and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),
defendants are liable to plaintiff for damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
FIFTH COUNT – JOHN DOE
SURETY 1 AND JOHN DOE INSURER 2 /
CONTRACT
62. Plaintiff repeats and
realleges the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 61 as if set forth at length herein.
63. At all times relevant hereto defendants JOHN DOE SURETY 1 AND JOHN
DOE INSURER 2 provided contracts/policies of surety/insurance insuring
defendants herein for the types of culpably wrongful conduct as set forth and
documented under penalty of perjury herein.
64. Plaintiff at all times relevant hereto was a third-party
beneficiary of the contracts/policies of surety/insurance insuring defendants
herein.
65. Despite reasonable diligence and inquiry, plaintiff has been able
to discern only the existence of said applicable coverages, but not the names
of the subject companies providing same.
66. At all times relevant hereto,
defendants JOHN DOE SURETY 1 AND JOHN DOE INSURER 2 are in technical
though not, upon information and belief, willful breach of said
contracts/policies of surety/insurance insuring defendants herein for the types
of culpably wrongful conduct as set forth and documented under penalty of
perjury herein.
67. As a direct consequence of the aforesaid breaches of contract
plaintiff has sustained substantial damages as set forth herein.
68. Defendants JOHN DOE SURETY 1 AND JOHN DOE INSURER 2 are liable to
plaintiff for the damages caused by said breaches of contract in amounts to be
determined at trial.
SIXTH COUNT - JOHN DOES 3 - 10
69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments contained in
paragraphs 1 through 68 as if set forth
at length herein.
70. At all relevant times, plaintiff has been reasonably diligent but
unable to discern other co-conspirators owing to the culpable cover-ups and
culpably wrongful conduct as set forth and documented under penalty of perjury
herein.
71. At all relevant times, defendants
JOHN DOES 3 – 10 along with the other conspirators associated with the
subject enterprise, conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the
conduct of the subject 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).
72. Defendants JOHN DOES 3 – 10 aided and
abetted the aforesaid violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and fraud inasmuch as (1) they were associated with the wrongful conduct (2) participated in it with intent to bring
it about and (3) sought by their actions to make it succeed, which
efforts continue to this day and are a sham and fraud upon the court causing
plaintiff damage thereby.
73. As a result of defendants JOHN DOES 3 – 10 and other Conspirators’ violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c), plaintiff has been damaged in his business and property as a
direct consequence of said offenses involving fraud connected with a case under
Title 11, U.S.C..
74. As a result of their misconduct, defendants JOHN DOES 3 – 10 are
liable to plaintiff for damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
75. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), plaintiff is entitled to
recover threefold his damages plus costs plus reasonable attorneys’ fees from
the aforesaid defendants JOHN DOES 3 – 10.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff
prays for judgment against defendants for:
(A) compensatory damages in the amount of $5 million ($5,000,000),
trebled pursuant
to
RICO;
(B) punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
(C) costs, fees, and other expenses, including attorney's fees, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §
1964(c);
(D) such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se
DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
I, Albert L.
Peia, plaintiff in the within action hereby demand trial by jury.
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se
CERTIFICATION AND
VERIFICATION
I, Albert L. Peia, hereby certify that the
averments in the foregoing Complaint are
true under
penalty of perjury.
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se