Albert L. Peia, Pro Se

P.O. Box 862156

Los Angeles, CA 90086

(213)219-7649

 

                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                    DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

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

     Albert  L. Peia,                                             )

                                    Plaintiff                          )      CASE NO.

                             -vs-                                        )

                                                                           )

    Richard M. Coan, Coan, Lewendon,         )

    Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC.,              )    

    John Doe Surety 1, John Doe Insurer 2,    )          

    John Does 3 – 10,                                         ) 

                                     Defendants                   ) 

                                                                           )                

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

 

                                    PLAINTIFF’S RICO STATEMENT

        

        

         THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962  

         1.  Employees of  and/or the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Conn-

         ecticut (hereinafter ‘USBC’), and defendant Richard M. Coan

         (hereinafterCoan’) and Timothy Miltenberger (hereinafter ‘Miltenberger’),

         Whitney Lewendon (hereinafter ‘Lewendon’- who filed a document on behalf of 

         defendant Coan with the U.S. Supreme Court), 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, , 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, has at all times attempted to evade process and avoid culpability and accountability  for his 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 U.S. Trustee) Hugh Leonard was placed on (bribe)

         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 USA bribe deal) vis-a-vis federal employee (and then

         U.S. Attorney)Sam Allito ,federal employee

         (and then Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defendant USA thereby)

         Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal” and as well, did obstruct

         justice by removing from the Office of the U.S. Attorney

         documents and/or file concerning drug money laundering and other

         federal law violations. Id. Federal employees in Virginia

         (and defendant USA thereby) illegally failed to consumate the

         Chapter 7 proceeding in Virginia in accordance with law, and

         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 USA thereby) did

         corrupt the federal judicial process obstructing justice in

         violation of Section 1503 thereby, and Section 1510 as a conse-

         quence thereof, even as substantial sums of (drug) money were

         being laundered, in violation of Section 1956, through

         her family’s/brothers’ casinos by RICO defendants before her,

         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 U.S. Attorney Christopher Droney, which further

         discovery may have yielded a similar conclusion consistent with

         said Trump modus operandi. Federal employee (and then U.S.

         Trustee, and USA thereby) Hugh Leonard was placed

         on (bribe) retainer by RICO defendants Dilena and companies,

         violative of the predicate act of bribery, Section 201, as well

         as obstructing justice, Section 1503, consistent therewith.

         Facts giving rise to what a trier of

         fact could reasonably infer from same, particularly when coupled

         with the similar scenario (a more direct “USA bribe deal”,

         Section 201) vis-a-vis federal employee (and then U.S. Attorney)

         Sam Allito, federal employee (and then Assistant U.S. Attorney, and USA

         thereby) who did “cut a bribe deal” (Section 201)

         and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing

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

         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 U.S. Attorney documents and/or file

         concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other

         federal law violations.  Federal employees in Virginia

         (and USA thereby) illegally failed to consummate the

         Chapter 7 proceeding in Virginia in accordance with law, and

         for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff (fraud in connection

         with a case under Title 11), and as well, obstructing justice

         (Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff sustained

         damage to his property and business (also damaging creditors,

         and committing bankruptcy fraud thereby).        

           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 California) who stole (bankruptcy) estate among

         other assets of plaintiff and against whom default (judgment)

         was ripe for entry (violations of Sections 1513, 102 and that

         concerning extortion would also have been appropriate) . Defen-

         dant Coan 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 USA has continuously and consistently

         engaged in innumerable enumerated acts of racketeering activity

         as set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section(l), most notably subpart (A),

         viz., dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as

         defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which

         is chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment

         for more than one year, and the concomitants of said racketeer-

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

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

         defendant USA also has been engaged in and violated the predicate

         acts of obstruction of justice (Section 1503), obstruction of

         criminal investigations (Section 1510), laundering of monetary

          instruments (Section 1956) , use of interstate commerce facilities

           in the commission of murder-for-hire (Section 1958), obstruction

           of state or local law enforcement (Section 1511), retaliation

           against a witness, victim, or informant (Section 1513), subpart

           (D) as regards the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving,

           concealment, buying, selling,or otherwise dealing in a controlled

           substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the

           Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the

           United States, and subpart (E) any act which is indictable under

           the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. As set

           forth and as pertains to paragraph #3 infra USA has

           violated Section 1962  vis-a-vis receipt of income through

           a pattern of racketeering, the investment of same in an

           enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby, causing

           damage to property and business by reason of said racketeering

           activity; and, Section 1962 , through a pattern of

           racketeering activity, acquired an interest in and/or maintained

           control of an enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby,

           causing damage to property and business by reason of said

           acquisition of interest in, maintenance of, and/or control of

           said enterprise.

           Defendant John Doe Insurer1, upon information and belief is licensed to do business in and transacts its affairs in the state of Connecticut. Upon information and belief, based upon reasonable inquiry, said corporation is a insurer which is engaged in the business of providing liability and/or professional liability coverage. Defendant John Doe Surety2, upon information and belief is licensed to do business in and transacts its affairs in the state of Connecticut. Upon information and belief, based upon reasonable inquiry, said corporation is a surety and/or which is engaged in the business of providing suretyship coverage.  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 in Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. Plaintiff at all times relevant hereto was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts/policies of surety/insurance insuring defendants herein. 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. 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. As a direct consequence of the aforesaid breaches of contract plaintiff has sustained substantial damages as set forth herein. Defendants JOHN DOE SURETY 1 AND JOHN DOE INSURER 2 are liable to plaintiff for the damages caused by said breaches of contract.

[ 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 U.S. 258 (1992)(Plaintiff governmental agency subrogated to the claims of defunct brokerage); Federal Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 760 F.Supp. 1118(E.D. Pa. 1990)(Subrogated surety's monetary loss flowing from RICO predicate acts "constitutes an injury to plaintiff" (surety) " 's business sufficient to satisfy the requirements for standing under the Federal RICO statute"; accord General Accident Ins. Co. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co., 598 F.Supp. 1223 (D. Md. 1984) and Levey v. E. Stewart Mitchell, Inc., 585 F.Supp. 1030 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff'd mem., 762 F.Supp. 998 (4th Cir. 1985). In re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificate Secs. Litig., 636 F.Supp. 1138 (C.D. Cal. 1986) (RICO claims are assignable)].

           THE WRONGDOERS OTHER THAN THOSE SET FORTH IN #2

           ABOVE AND THEIR MISCONDUCT

           3. The defendants as set forth in that matter designated as

         Docket #92cv0l66, U.S. District Court for the District of

         Connecticut, originally assigned to Judge Daley who had

         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). Id. There came a point in time when said

        defendants/entities became a controlled operation and source (laundered drug money)

         to USA/employees/contractors which accorded “protection” to same. Id.

         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., U.S. Trustee Hugh Leonard, etc. as set

         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. Olympia Brewing Co.,

         878 F.2d 589 (2d Cir. 1989), cert.denied, 493 U.S. 1024 (1990);

         In re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool, 636 F.Supp.

         1138 (C.D.Cal. 1986); Pennsylvania v. Ciafrani, 600 F.Supp.

         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. Rogers, 834 F.2d 1297,1310,

         (7th Cir. 1987) , cert. denied, 492 U.S. 917 (1989)]. 

         There is no general claim-of-right defense to extortion with

         regard to the illegal taking of plaintiff’s property, U.S. v.

         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 U.S. Attorney Christopher Droney, which further

         discovery may have yielded a similar conclusion consistent with

         said Trump modus operandi. Id. Federal employee (and then U.S.

         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 “USA bribe deal”,

         Section 201) vis-a-vis federal employee (and then U.S. Attorney)

         Sam Allito, PVC at page(s) 14, federal employee

         (and then Assistant U.S. Attorney) Jonathon Lacey did

         cut a bribe deal” (Section 201) and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503)

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

         concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other

         federal law violations. Id. Federal employees in Virginia

         illegally failed to consummate the Chapter 7 proceeding in Virginia in accordance

         with law, and for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff (fraud in connection

         with a case under Title 11), and as well, obstructing justice

         (Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff sustained

         damage to his property and business (also damaging creditors,

         and committing bankruptcy fraud thereby). 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 California) who stole (bankruptcy) estate among

         other assets of plaintiff and against whom default (judgment)

         was ripe for entry (violations of Sections 1513, 102 and that

         concerning extortion would also have been appropriate). Defen-

         dant Coan has neither abandoned nor rebrought same, violating

         Section 1503 and (defrauding) damaging plaintiff thereby.

         [Defendant Coan has neither executed on nor abandoned a sub-

         stantial (non-RICO related) judgment entered for plaintiff by

         the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

         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 USA’s control of and concurrent involvement

         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 U.S. 479,

         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 United States

         Supreme Court, see, e.g., Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc.,

         473 U.S. 479 (1985); H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone

         Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989), continuity (threat of continuing

         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); United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d

         1370 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 907(1989). Moreover,

         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”); United States

         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”); United States

          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 ENTERPRISE(S) 

           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 U.S. 915, 96 L.Ed.2d 675, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 83,

         484 U.S. 822, 98 L.Ed.2d 45, the Court enunciated the well

         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.”Id.

         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 U.S. Trustee (ie., Leonard, Beary, etc.) is, upon belief,

         an office/agency/department of USA. Defendants Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon,

         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 ENTERPRISE(S)

           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

         USA was also engaged(discussed supra) .The aforesaid (racketeering/

         illegal)activity consistent with said illegal object and purpose,

         accordeddefacto 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, United States v. Turkette, 452 U.s. 576 (1981),

         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”, United States v.

         Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir.),cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840 (1983).

         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”. United States

         v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S.

         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”. United States v. Weinstein, 762 F.2d 1522

         (11th Cir. 1985) , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1110 (1986)    

             THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ENTERPRISE AND THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING

           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

         Clinton scandals involves the pardon of a substantial drug

         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 U.S.

         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 U.S. government

        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 america’s rapid decline under their

        (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 USA and Coan who are

         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 USA. Plaintiff

         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. Co., 750 F.Supp. 774 (E.D.La.l990), and as

         well, future damages in accordance with Bankers Trust Co. v.

         Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir.l988), cert. denied, 490 U.S.

         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 Riverside(-$1,500)  50,000

         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 U.S. 1110 (1995); Hecht v. Commerce

         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.

           PENDANT STATE CLAIMS

           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 United States

         District Court Case #3:93cv02065(AWT), #92cv0l66(JBA), Bky.Case

         #95-51862 and the Adversary Proceedings filed therein, District

         of Connecticut, particularly the subject matter thereof, as

         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.,

           495 Orange St.
           New Haven, Ct.

          

Dated:                                 Signed:______________________________      

                                                                      Albert L. Peia

 

                                                _____________

         *The decision of the U.S. Supreme in Rotella v. Wood,

         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 america today and the pervasiveness of the

         schemes/crimes as herein to cover same up and to preclude detection

         therof and accountability therefore.