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 )
) AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT L. PEIA
)
IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT,
) CONCURRENT
MOTION/APPLICATION
) FOR LEAVE, RICO STATEMENT, AND
---------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST FOR
CRIMINAL REFERRAL
OF THE DOCUMENTED FEDERAL
AMONG
OTHER CRIMES AND ILLEGAL
ACTS OF DEFENDANTS AND CO-
CONSPIRATORS AS SET FORTH HEREIN
AND BY REFERENCE HERETO.
I, Albert L. Peia, residing in Los Angeles, in the State of California,
of full age and being duly sworn according to law, hereby state the following
facts of my own knowledge under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. At all times
relevant hereto, U.S. GOVERNMENT CO-CONSPIRATORS /EMPLOYEES (CURRENT AND FORMER
- JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, AND EXECUTIVE)WITH KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL ACTS SET
FORTH HEREIN, acted in violation of federal statutes in furtherance of said
criminal acts, to obstruct justice, obstruct criminal investigations thereof,
retaliate against a witness/victim/informant, commit fraud in cases under Title
11, U.S.C., among other criminal acts set forth with specificity
hereinafter.
Calls To Defendants Coan, Lewendon, and Miltenberger
I
Stated that I Needed Information For Purpose of A Proper Affidavit Concerning
the following which was articulated to a secretary, by voicemail, and to
Timothy Miltenberger in a phone conference as set forth hereinafter. The precise areas that I indicated I believed
a court would want to see in such an affidavit given the totality of
circumstances (particularly the criminal activity, RICO among other) in this
case were articulated to secretarial personnel as messages to be relayed to
Miltenberger, voicemail messages to Miltenberger, and in a conversation with
Timothy Miltenberger himself , who referred to defendant coan as his “client”
(not “partner”) are as follows:
·
The
status of the judgment entered in my favor on or around 9-19-97 by Judge
Thompson, United States District Court, District of Connecticut, Docket
#3:93cv2065(AWT), copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”;
·
As
referenced in the 12-11-97 telephonic
examination (I was at the Los Angeles, California office of what I believe was
the bankruptcy trustee for this California district – defendant coan was in
Connecticut), the status of the David George Swann (DOB: 4-6-60 / self-admitted
junkie who had 4 guilty pleas to theft in less than 5 years in California)
matter, which was ripe for default and/or
judgment, [I had joined the trustee coan as plaintiff and indicated
Swann’s familiarity with theft as was so of my business/personal assets making
time of the essence in proceeding for recovery (replevin and damages the
remedies sought). Defendant coan purposefully/wrongfully had the bankruptcy
court dismiss same at the hearing on default saying he would decide whether to
bring same];
·
Anything
regarding the Adversary Proceedings which were ripe for the entry of
default/default judgment, assets, surplus funds yet unaccounted for, which
defendant coan wrongfully/illegally caused dismissal thereof, Exhibit B.
·
Anything regarding the disposition of the contents of
the storage unit in
·
Whether there
were any criminal proceedings/referrals for the documented RICO among other
criminal acts (which coincidentally caused me damages/harm/injury).
Not surprisingly, given the integral involvement of said defendants in
the criminal activity as herein, no response, clarification, or explanation was
forthcoming. The details concerning the calls are set forth immediately
hereinafter:
1-5-04 I initiated my
first call to Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, & Miltenberger subsequent to the
action of the
1-9-04 I called back
on January 9, 2004, was told he was not in, was asked whether I wanted to leave
a voicemail message, to which I responded that I needed to speak to him
personally concerning an affidavit I would be filing with the court, and set
forth the subject areas of concern in such an affidavit. I gave my name and
phone number and further stated I would call back on Friday, January 16, 2004.
1-16-04 I called back on January 16, 2004, was told
he was not in, was asked whether I
wanted to leave a voicemail message, to which I responded that I needed to
speak to him personally concerning an
affidavit I would be filing with the court, and set forth the subject areas of
concern in such an affidavit. I gave my name and phone number and further
stated I would call back on Friday, January 23, 2004.
1-23-04 I called back
on January 23, 2004, was told he was not in, was asked whether I wanted to leave a voicemail message, to
which I responded that I needed to speak
to him personally concerning an affidavit I would be filing with the
court, and referenced the prior articulated subject areas of concern for such
an affidavit. I gave my name and phone number and further stated I would call
back on Friday, January 30, 2004.
1-30-04 I called back on January
30, 2004, was told he was not in, and immediately transferred to Timothy Miltenberger’s
voicemail wherein I referenced the prior message which the receptionist had
indicated had been given to Mr. Miltenberger and briefly reiterated those
subject areas of concern for the affidavit.
2-2-04 I called back on February
2, 2004, was told there had been some kind of a power problem by one who
identified herself as a new receptionist, Lisa, and that Timothy Miltenberger
had been called into a meeting. I gave my name and phone number and further
stated I would call back on Friday, February 6, 2004.
2-6-04 I called back on February 6, 2004, no one was
in and at the prompt I left a voicemail message wherein I referenced the
prior messages which the receptionist
had indicated had been given to Mr. Miltenberger and briefly reiterated those
subject areas of concern for the affidavit.
2-13-04 I
called back on February 13, 2004 and had occasion to speak with Mr.
Miltenberger.
I
Stated that I Needed Information For Purpose of A Proper Affidavit and
articulated the precise areas that I indicated I believed a court would want to
see in such an affidavit given the totality of circumstances (particularly the
criminal activity, RICO among other) in this case as follows:
The status of the judgment entered in my
favor on or around 9-19-97 by Judge Thompson, United States District Court,
District of Connecticut, Docket #3:93cv2065(AWT), copy of which is annexed
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
As referenced in the 12-11-97 telephonic examination (I was at the Los
Angeles, California office of what I believe was the bankruptcy trustee for
this California district – defendant coan was in Connecticut), the status of
the David George Swann (DOB: 4-6-60 / self-admitted junkie who had 4 guilty
pleas to theft in less than 5 years in California) matter, which was ripe for
default and/or judgment, [I had joined
the trustee coan as plaintiff and indicated Swann’s familiarity with theft as
was so of my business/personal assets making time of the essence in proceeding
for recovery (replevin and damages the remedies sought). Defendant coan
purposefully/wrongfully had the bankruptcy court dismiss same at the hearing on
default saying he would decide whether to bring same];
Anything regarding the Adversary
Proceedings which were ripe for the entry of default/default judgment, assets,
surplus funds yet unaccounted for, which defendant coan wrongfully/illegally
caused dismissal thereof, Exhibit B;
Anything
regarding the disposition of the contents of the storage unit in
Danbury, Connecticut (including as
related in the 12-11-97 telephonic examination what remained of my art
collection which I indicated had
probably gone up in value);
Whether there were any criminal
proceedings/referrals for the documented RICO among other criminal acts (which
coincidentally caused me damages/harm/injury).
In this phone
contact with Miltenberger for which I meticulously made record of his response
to my statement of Judge Chatigny, U.S.D.C.J., District of Connecticut, having
incorporated in his decision my stated intent to sue defendant coan for which
no prior leave of court was to be necessary,
Timothy Miltenberger responded that same was his recollection as well,
although contrary to the position he had
taken in papers filed on behalf of defendant coan, his “client/partner”.
I gave my phone
number and further stated I would call back on Friday, February 20, 2004.
2-20-04 I called back on February
20, 2004 and was told to call back on Monday, February 23, 2004.
2-23-04 I called back on February
23, 2004, and was told that Mr. Miltenberger was not in and I gave my phone
number and further stated I would call back on Friday, February 27, 2004.
2-27-04 I called back on February
27, 2004, was told he was not in, and I gave my name and phone number for a
return call and further stated I would call back on Friday, March 5, 2004 at
the same time.
3-05-04 I called back on March 5,
2004, and was told that Mr. Miltenberger was not in and that they did not know when he would be
back I gave my phone number and further
stated I would call back on Friday, March 12, 2004 at the same time.
3-12-04 I
called back on March 12, 2004, was told he was not in and that he would not be
returning for the rest of the day. I gave my name and phone number for a return
call and further stated I would call back in one week on Friday, March 19, 2004
and that I needed a response.
3-19-04 I called back on March 19,
2004, was told he was on the line and that I should call back in about an hour.
I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would
call back in about an hour. I called back a bit over an hour later, was told
Mr. Miltenberger was on the line, and stated that I would hold for him. Mr.
Miltenberger finally picked up and related to me that his client had not gotten
back to him, to which I responded that I would call back in one week.
3-26-04 I called Timothy Miltenberger
on March 26, 2004, was told he was on the line and that I should call back in
about twenty minutes. I gave my name and phone number for a return call and
further stated I would call back accordingly. I called back about twenty
minutes later, was told Mr. Miltenberger was on the line, and to call him back
on Monday or Tuesday in the afternoon, to which I responded
affirmatively.
3-29-04 I
called Timothy Miltenberger on March 29, 2004, was told he was in court.
I gave my name and phone number for a return call and further stated I would call
back on Friday, April 2,
2004.
4-2-04 I called Timothy
Miltenberger on April 2, 2004 and was told he was not answering his line. I
gave my name and phone number for a return call, also left my new P.O. Box (
4-5-04 I called Timothy Miltenberger on April 5,
2004, and was told he was not in, and to
try calling him on Thursday, 4-8-04. I
gave my name and phone number for a return
call and further stated I would call back on Thursday, April 8, 2004.
4-8-04 I called Timothy Miltenberger on April 8,
2004, was told he was in conference and to call him back Friday, April 16,
2004, to which I responded affirmatively.
4-16-04 I called back on April 16,
2004 and was told he was not in. I left my name and phone number for a return
call and further stated I would call back in one week on Friday, April 23, 2004
and that I needed a response.
4-23-04 I called Timothy Miltenberger
on April 23, 2004 and was told he had stepped out and in response to my query
stated he would be back in 15-20 minutes. I called back in about 25 minutes and
was told he was not anwering his line. I gave my name and phone number for a
return call, also left my P.O. Box (
4-30-04 I called back on April 30,
2004, and was immediately transferred to Timothy Miltenberger’s voicemail
wherein I referenced the prior messages which the receptionist had indicated
had been given to Mr. Miltenberger, which I had discussed with him, and as
well, left as voicemail messages,
briefly referencing those subject areas of concern for the affidavit. I
further stated the need for a response for the affidavit, that a resolution of
the matter would be wise in light of the substantial illegal activities (of
defendants/co-conspirators), that I had diligently kept a record of my calls,
and that I would call back in one week.
5-7-04 I called Timothy Miltenberger
on May 7, 2004 and was told he had left for the day. I left my name and phone
number for a return call, also left my
P.O. Box (
5-10-04 I called Timothy
Miltenberger on May 10, 2004 and was told he was out to lunch. I stated that I
would call back on Friday, 5-14-04, that I had already begun drafting the
papers and that it would take some time and hopefully the matter would resolve,
that this was never about being litigious but rather about protecting my
interests, and that this would get very nasty (in light of the substantial
illegal/fraudulent acts by defendants/co-conspirators). I left my name and
phone number for a return call, and also left my P.O. Box (
5-14-04 I called Timothy Miltenberger on May 14, 2004
and was told he was out to lunch. I stated that I had already begun drafting
the papers and that their insurer and surety would be John Doe defendants, but
that hopefully the matter would resolve since it would be in the best interests
of the parties . I left my name and phone number for a return call, and also
left my P.O. Box (
2. Defendants/co-conspirators, at
times relevant hereto, said
conducted and/or participated in the
affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity, affecting
and having a nexus to interstate
commerce thereby, with the
intent to damage and defraud plaintiff
and obstruct justice
thereby, by reason of which violations
of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1961 et seq., plaintiff sustained
injury to his property and
business. Specifically, Alan Shiff
purported Chief Judge at
USBC fraudulently misrepresented the
date of dismissal
of a proceeding over which he himself
had presided perpetrating a fraud
connected with a case under Title 11
as proscribed in Title 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961(1) (D); and further,
brought a (retaliatory against a
witness/victim/informant violative of
Section l5l3) spurious contempt
proceeding against plaintiff,
obstructing justice thereby in
violation of Section 1503 (and
additionally was without
jurisdiction to legitimately do so).
Quite simply, he lied
(materially false fraudulent
representation); knew he lied
(scienter); lied with the intention of
deceiving; that the lies
were relied upon (ie.,government,
courts, etc.); said fraud
in connection with a case under Title
11 directly causing damage
to plaintiff’s property and business
(and as well to plaintiff’s
estate and creditors thereof) .
Defendants did utilize the mails in
perpetrating said fraud (on courts,
creditors, plaintiff, etc.)
constituting the RICO predicate
violation of mail fraud thereby,
violative of Section 1341 (discussed
infra at paragraph # ).
Defendants/co-conspirators utilized
false hearing
dates to wrongfully dismiss adversary
proceedings, defrauding
plaintiff and creditors thereby,
Exhibit “C”,
and violative of Section 1503,
utilizing the mails
in perpetrating said scheme in
violation of Section 1341
did feloniously remove filed federal
court documents for the purpose of
defrauding plaintiff, covering up
various crimes connected thereto, obstructing
justice in violation of Section 1503
thereby, causing damages to
plaintiff’s property and business. Exhibit
“D”.
3. In addition to the foregoing,
federal
employee Maryanne Trump (Barry) (and
corrupt the federal judicial process
obstructing justice in
violation of Section 1503 thereby, and
Section 1510 as a conse-
quence thereof, even as substantial
sums of (drug) money were
being laundered, in violation of
Section 1956, through
her family’s/brothers’ casinos by RICO
defendants before her,
said “quid pro quo” in the form of
drug money flows constituted a violation
of
Section 201 relating to bribery.
4. At or around the time of the
retaliatory
and spurious contempt proceeding, late
1992/early1993 , Trump had “retained”
the brother of then
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.
5. Facts giving rise to what a
trier of fact
could reasonably infer from same,
particularly when coupled
with the similar scenario (a more
direct “
Section 201) vis-a-vis federal employee (and then
Sam Allito, federal employee (and then
Assistant
did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing/having removed
from the Office of the
concerning drug money laundering
(Section 1956) and other
federal law violations.
6. Jonathon Lacey did, upon
information/facts giving rise to what a
trier of fact could reasonably infer
from same and belief, “cut a bribe
deal”(Section 201) and as well, did
obstruct justice (Section 1503) by
removing from the Office of the
concerning drug money laundering
(Section 1956) and other
federal law violations. Federal employees in
(and defendant
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).
7. Defendant Coan did consistent
with the aforesaid perpetrate
a fraud (connected with a case under
Title 11) upon the estate
of plaintiff and purposefully and with
the intent to damage
plaintiff did cause the dismissal of
proceedings, obstructing
justice (Section 1503) thereby, by
reason of which plaintiff
sustained injury to his property and
business.
and Exhibit “B”. The same violations
apply to the adversary
proceeding concerning junkie and
thief, David George Swann
(DOB 4-6-60; three guilty pleas to
theft in less than 5 years
residence in
other assets of plaintiff and against
whom default (judgment)
was ripe for entry (violations of
Sections 1513, 102 and that
concerning extortion would also have
been appropriate) . Defen-
dant Coan has neither abandoned nor
rebrought same, violating
Section 1503 and (defrauding) damaging
plaintiff thereby.
8. The aforesaid defendants also
did violate Section 1962(d) by
conspiring to violate Section 1962(c)
by and during during the
course of the conspiracy, consistent
with the object of the
conspiracy in relation to the overt
acts in furtherance thereof,
did conspire to commit a fraud in
connection with a case under
Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby,
with knowledge of
the commission of predicate acts as
set forth herein, were
a part of the pattern of racketeering
activity by which plaintiff
sustained
injury to his property by reason of said overt predicate acts.
9. Specifically, At all relevant times, defendants Richard
M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, and Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver,
and Miltenberger, LLC., the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Connecticut and the other conspirators associated with this enterprise,
conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of this
enterprise's affairs through a "pattern of racketeering activity"
within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), in violation of RICO, 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c). Specifically, Defendant Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as
successor plaintiff was ordered by the court to file papers consistent with his
capacity and duty as successor plaintiff and Trustee, in a number of adversary
proceedings brought by debtor/plaintiff herein for which the entry of default
had been requested and the entry of default judgment appropriate inasmuch as
proper service had been made with some matters being without defense, ie.,
properties (outside the state of Connecticut, ie., New Jersey) sold during the
pendency of the automatic stay pursuant to §362 of Title 11, U.S.C.,
unaccounted for substantial funds (in New Jersey) generated from said wrongful
acts, theft of personalty/business assets (in California, New Jersey, and
Connecticut), loss of rents (in New Jersey, California, and Connecticut), among
other causes and damages, including a substantial fraud on debtor/plaintiff
herein perpetrated by R.I.C.O. defendants/co-conspirators involved in
laundering drug money through the Trump (of New York) casinos (in New Jersey)
along with other criminal activities covered by and violative of federal law.
All of said matters were meritorious, substantial, some without defense, as
well as some for which partial settlements and/or payments had been made.
Defendant Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as Trustee, and Coan, Lewendon,
Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., thereby, and to cover-up various criminal
activities including, inter alia, illegal drug money laundering,
bribery, fraud, theft, other violations of federal law including §362 of Title 11, U.S.C., and the illegal,
wrongful and culpable failure to conclude the 1989 Virginia Chapter 7 proceeding
under Title 11 in accordance with federal law, among others, wrongfully,
negligently, and culpably failed to file any document whatsoever. Defendant
Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as Trustee, and defendant Coan, Lewendon,
Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., thereby, along defendants Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney
Lewendon have at all times attempted to evade process and avoid culpability and
accountability for defendants’ wrongful
and illegal conduct.
10.
It should be noted that in
conspiring to violate
section 1962 (c) by reason of which
violations plaintiff
sustained injury to his business and
property, defendants evinced
intent to injure plaintiff and benefit
(former) RICO/adversary
proceeding defendants, and as well did
obstruct justice (and
criminal investigations thereof). It
should be noted as documented
therein that co-conspirator
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,
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.
A. Felonious removal of filed
federal court documents by
federal employees of the bankruptcy
court over which Alan Shiff
presides, among others; viz., on or about March 4, 1993 a motion
to file nunc pro tunc pre-trial memoranda was illegally removed
from the court file; the courtesy copy
delivered by hand said
day to defendant Shiff’s law secretary
who identified himself
as ‘David’ and who indicated same
would be given to defendant
Shiff that same day, Exhibit “D”;
B. Fraudulent and otherwise false
statements by federal
employee, Alan Shiff concerning a
dismissal date upon which
spurious contempt proceedings were
predicated and which caused
great damage to plaintiff before said
spurious proceedings were
dismissed on the government’s own
motion owing to mistake
of fact and law; specifically, on or
about January 18, 1993
defendant Shiff did make a false
representation regarding the
date he dismissed a prior
stating said date to have been October
8, 1992, upon
which a spurious contempt proceeding
against plaintiff was