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, Coan, Lewendon, )
Gulliver, and Miltenberger,
LLC.,
)
John Doe Surety 1, John Doe Insurer 2, )
John Does 3 – 10, )
)
-----------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF’S
RICO STATEMENT
THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. 1962
1.
Employees of
and/or the
ecticut
(hereinafter ‘USBC’), and defendant Richard M. Coan
(hereinafter
‘Coan’) and Timothy Miltenberger
(hereinafter ‘Miltenberger’),
Whitney Lewendon
(hereinafter ‘Lewendon’- who filed a document on
behalf of
defendant Coan with the
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
retainer by
RICO defendants Dilena and companies, violative
of the
predicate act of bribery, as well as obstructing justice
consistent
therewith. Facts giving rise to what a trier of fact
could reasonably
infer from
same, particularly when coupled with the similar scenario (a more
direct
(and then
Assistant
Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal” and as well, did obstruct
justice by
removing from the Office of the
documents
and/or file concerning drug money laundering and other
federal law
violations. Id. Federal employees in Virginia
(and
defendant
Chapter 7 proceeding in
for the
purpose of defrauding plaintiff, and as well, obstruct-
ing
justice thereby, by reason of which plaintiff sustained
damage to his
property and business (also damaging creditors,
and
committing bankruptcy fraud thereby).
Defendant Coan
did consistent with the aforesaid perpetrate
a fraud
(connected with a case under Title 11) upon the estate
of plaintiff
and purposefully and with the intent to damage
plaintiff did
cause the dismissal of proceedings, obstructing
justice
thereby, by reason of which plaintiff sustained injury
to his
property and business. Exhibit”A”.
The aforesaid defendants also did
violate Section 1962(d) by
conspiring to
violate Section 1962(c) by and during during the
course of the
conspiracy*, consistent with the object of the
conspiracy in
relation to the overt acts in futherance thereof,
did conspire
to commit a fraud in connection with a case under
Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby,
with knowledge of
the
commission predicate acts as set forth in #2, infra, were
a part of the
racketeering activity activity by which plaintiff
sustained
injury to his property by reason of said overt pre-
dicate
acts. It should be noted that in conspiring to violate
section 1962
(c) by reason of which violations plaintiff
sustained
injury to his business and property, evinced intent
to injure
plaintiff and benefit (former) RICO/adversary
proceeding
defendants, and as well did obstruct justice (and
criminal
investigations thereof) .
It should also be noted that in
conspiring to violate section 1962 (c)
by reason of
which violations plaintiff sustained injury to his business
and property,
with intent to injure plaintiff and benefit
(former)
RICO/adversary proceeding defendants, the aforesaid
defendants
did violate (federal) substantive law in addition
to the RICO
violations; ie., in prima facie tort, negligence,
and (purposeful) breach of fiduciary duty for which punitive
damages are
appropriate owing to the malice, hatred, and ill
will toward
plaintiff as exhibited by said defendants’ outrageous
and illegal
conduct.
THE DEFENDANTS, THE MISCONDUCT, AND
THE BASIS OF LIABILITY
FOR EACH DEFENDANT
2.
Defendants/co-conspirators, at times relevant hereto, said
conducted
and/or participated in the affairs of an
enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity, affecting
and having a
nexus to interstate commerce thereby, with the
intent to
damage and defraud plaintiff and obstruct justice
thereby, by
reason of which violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1961 et seq., plaintiff sustained
injury to his property and
business.
Specifically, Alan Shiff purported Chief Judge at
USBC fraudulently misrepresented the
date of dismissal
of a
proceeding over which he himself had presided perpetrating a fraud
connected
with a case under Title 11 as proscribed in Title 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961(1) (D); and further,
brought a (retaliatory against a
witness/victim/informant violative of Section l5l3)spurious
contempt
proceeding against plaintiff, obstructing justice thereby in
violation of
Section 1503 (and additionally was without
jurisdiction
to legitimately do so). Quite simply, he lied
(materially
false fraudulent representation); knew he lied
(scienter);
lied with the intention of deceiving; that the lies
were relied
upon (ie.,government, courts, etc.); said fraud
in connection
with a case under Title 11 directly causing damage
to
plaintiff’s property and business (and as well to plaintiff’s
estate and
creditors thereof) . Defendants did utilize the mails in
perpetrating
said fraud (on courts, creditors, plaintiff, etc.)
constituting
the RICO predicate violation of mail fraud thereby,
violative
of Section 1341 (discussed infra at paragraph # ).
Defendants/co-conspirators utilized
false hearing
dates to
wrongfully dismiss adversary proceedings, defrauding
plaintiff and
creditors thereby, Exhibit
“C”, and violative
of Section 1503, utilizing the mails
in
perpetuating said scheme in violation of Section 1341
did
feloniously remove filed federal court documents for the purpose of
defrauding
plaintiff, covering up various crimes connected thereto, obstructing
justice in
violation of Section 1503 thereby, causing damages to
plaintiff’s
property and business.
Exhibit “B”.
In addition to the foregoing, federal employee
Maryanne Trump (Barry) (and
corrupt the
federal judicial process obstructing justice in
violation of
Section 1503 thereby, and Section 1510 as a conse-
quence
thereof, even as substantial sums of (drug) money were
being
laundered, in violation of Section 1956, through
her
family’s/brothers’ casinos by RICO defendants before her,
which if not
for the obstruction of justice therein, through
discovery
likely would have yielded “quid pro quo” in the form
of increased
drug money flows from which a trier of fact could
have
reasonably concluded to have constituted a violation of
Section 201 relating
to bribery. (It should
also be noted
that at or around the time of the retaliatory
and spurious
contempt proceeding, late 1992/early1993 , Trump had “retained”
the brother
of then
discovery may
have yielded a similar conclusion consistent with
said Trump
modus operandi. Federal employee (and then
Trustee, and
on (bribe)
retainer by RICO defendants Dilena and companies,
violative
of the predicate act of bribery, Section 201, as well
as
obstructing justice, Section 1503, consistent therewith.
Facts giving rise to what a trier of
fact could
reasonably infer from same, particularly when coupled
with the
similar scenario (a more direct “
Section 201) vis-a-vis
federal employee (and then
Sam Allito,
federal employee (and then Assistant
thereby) who
did “cut a bribe deal” (Section 201)
and as well,
did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing
from the
Office of the
concerning
drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other
federal law
violations.
Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal”
(Section 201)
and as well,
did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing
from the
Office of the
concerning
drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other
federal law
violations. Federal employees in
(and
Chapter 7 proceeding in
for the
purpose of defrauding plaintiff (fraud in connection
with a case under Title 11), and as well, obstructing
justice
(Section 1503) thereby, by reason of
which plaintiff sustained
damage to his
property and business (also damaging creditors,
and
committing bankruptcy fraud thereby).
Defendant Coan
did consistent with the aforesaid perpetrate
a fraud
(connected with a case under Title 11) upon the estate
of plaintiff
and purposefully and with the intent to damage
plaintiff did
cause the dismissal of proceedings, obstructing
justice
(Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff
sustained
injury to his property and business.
and Exhibit
“A”. The same violations apply to the adversary
proceeding
concerning junkie and thief, David George Swann
(DOB 4-6-60; three guilty pleas to
theft in less than 5 years
residence in
other assets
of plaintiff and against whom default (judgment)
was ripe for
entry (violations of Sections 1513, 102 and that
concerning
extortion would also have been appropriate) . Defen-
dant
Coan and defendant CLGM thereby, has neither
abandoned nor
rebrought
same, violating Section 1503 and (defrauding) damaging plaintiff
thereby. The
aforesaid defendants, along with defendants Miltenberger
and Lewendon also did violate Section 1962(d) by
conspiring to
violate Section 1962(c) by and during during the
course of the
conspiracy, consistent with the object of the
conspiracy in
relation to the overt acts in furtherance thereof,
did conspire
to commit a fraud in connection with a case under
Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby,
with knowledge of
the
commission of predicate acts as set forth herein, were
a part of the
pattern of racketeering activity by which plaintiff
sustained
injury to his property by reason of said overt pre-
dicate
acts. It should be noted that in conspiring to violate
section 1962
(c) by reason of which violations plaintiff
sustained
injury to his business and property, defendants evinced
intent to
injure plaintiff and benefit (former) RICO/adversary
proceeding
defendants, and as well did obstruct justice (and
criminal
investigations thereof). It should be noted as documented
therein that
co-conspirator
engaged in
innumerable enumerated acts of racketeering activity
as set forth
in 18 U.S.C. Section(l), most notably subpart (A),
viz., dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as
defined in
section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which
is chargeable
under state law and punishable by imprisonment
for more than
one year, and the concomitants of said racketeer-
ing
activity set forth in said subpart, namely, murder, bribery,
and
extortion. In furtherance thereof, as is relevant herein,
defendant
acts of
obstruction of justice (Section 1503), obstruction of
criminal
investigations (Section 1510), laundering of monetary
instruments
(Section 1956) , use of interstate commerce facilities
in the
commission of murder-for-hire (Section 1958), obstruction
of state or
local law enforcement (Section 1511), retaliation
against a
witness, victim, or informant (Section 1513), subpart
(D) as regards the felonious
manufacture, importation, receiving,
concealment,
buying, selling,or otherwise dealing in a controlled
substance
or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act),
punishable under any law of the
the
Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. As set
forth and
as pertains to paragraph #3 infra
violated
Section 1962 vis-a-vis
receipt of income through
a pattern
of racketeering, the investment of same in an
enterprise,
affecting interstate commerce thereby, causing
damage to property and business by reason of
said racketeering
activity;
and, Section 1962 , through a pattern of
racketeering
activity, acquired an interest in and/or maintained
control of
an enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby,
causing
damage to property and business by reason of said
acquisition
of interest in, maintenance of, and/or control of
said
enterprise.
Defendant John Doe Insurer1, upon
information and belief is licensed to do business in and transacts its affairs
in the state of
[ It Should Be Noted That the Insurer and the Surety Would Be Subrogated To
Any and All Rights/Claims/Causes of Action Upon Payment. It Should Also Be
Noted That Rico Claims are Assignable. Holmes v. Security Investor
Protection Corp., 530
THE WRONGDOERS OTHER THAN THOSE SET
ABOVE AND THEIR MISCONDUCT
3. The defendants as set forth in
that matter designated as
Docket #92cv0l66,
stayed same
owing to the bankruptcy (and “parallel” adversary)
proceedings
(and upon whose passing, then transferred to Judge
Thompson, and then
to Judge Arterton). PVC at
pages 16 and 17.
Notably, RICO defendants Dilena and companies, engaged in
unlawful
conduct violative of 18 U.S.C. 1962 Sections (c) and
(d), and as well, Section 1962(a).
defendants/entities
became a controlled operation and source (laundered drug money)
to
USA/employees/contractors which accorded “protection” to same.
First Fidelity Bancorporation,
with close ties to Dilena and companies, among other
defendants
set forth in said action, engaged in unlawful conduct
violative of RICO, sections 1962
(c) and (d), and which unlawful
conduct
included racketeering (section 1952), extortion,
retaliation
against a witness/victim/ informant (section 1513),
obstruction
of justice (section 1503), fraud, fraud in connection
with a case
under Title 11 (section 1961(1)(D), as set forth
in more
plenary fashion therein, and PVC along with Exhibits
A thru C thereto, which are
incorporated herein by reference
thereto. The
bribes paid to federal employees including but
not limited
to, ie.,
forth supra,
were among the the Section 1962(a) violations
in addition
to violations of the apposite 1962 Sections (c)and(d).
THE VICTIM AND INJURIES
4. The victim is plaintiff herein.
In addition to the person-
al injuries
within the province of the (federal) substantitive
law claims (ie., prima facie tort, negligence, breach of fidu-
ciary
duty, etc.), plaintiff’s injury to his property and
business by
reason of the RICO violations include the seizure!
theft of
assets both real and personal(business), loss of use
and/or access
to same, particularly impacting extent legal
proceedings, ie., software, legal documents including
“proof s”,legal books, etc.), and importantly, fraud connected
with a
case(s) under Title 11.
The RICO proscribed acts of defendants
have dama-
ged
plaintiff to the extent of $5,000,000 (trebled under RICO,
$15,000,000), substantial legal fees
(time/in excess of a decade
of my life),
and costs. The same is set forth in greater detail
in #17,
infra. Plaintiff has sought punitive damages as to
defendants Coan, CLGM, Lewendon and Miltenberg in the (federal)
substantivelaw
(and RICO) claims, and as to said defendant(s) for the
malice,
willful, hateful toward plaintiff, and egregiously unlawful
conduct. The
law supports the award of punitive damages in a
civil RICO
action (RICO being remedial legislation to effectu-
ate
Congressional intent), see, e.g., Corn-Tech Assocs. v.
Computer Assocs.
Int’l, Inc., 753 F.Supp.
1078 (S.D.N.Y.1990),
aff’d
on other grounds, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir.199l) (“this
Court is of the view that at least at
the pleading stage,
a claim for
punitive damages should be allowed to stand... “)
Ross v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc.,
No. 2:85-2425-1, 1991 u.s.
Dist. LEXIS 13585 (D.5.C. Sept.4,l99l) (awarding actual damages
of $440,000,
trebled to $1.32 million, plus punitive damages
totaling
$l3.625 million); and Al-Kazemia v. General Acceptance
& mv. Corp., 633 F.Supp. 540 (D.D.C.l986) (awarding both puni-
tive
and treble damages). It should also be noted that plaintiff
was defrauded
out of $800 by the fraud connected to a case under
Title 11 perpetrated by defendant USBC
in addition to that set
forth
hereinabove and as set forth infra in #17.
A partial good faith payment toward
settlement was made ($300)
by one of the
RICO defendants (in default)in the subject parallel
adversary
proceedings) as set forth in greater detail in #17.
Such(amount towards,or) settlement would merely be deducted from
the total
award won from the remaining defendants. Importantly,
the deduction
is to be made from the total trebled award, and
is not to be
taken before trebling. See, e.g., Morley v. Cohen,
888 F.2d 1006 (4th
Cir. 1989); Singer v.
878 F.2d 589 (2d Cir. 1989), cert.denied, 493
In re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool, 636 F.Supp.
1138 (C.D.Cal. 1986);
1364 (E.D.Pa.
1985) . The same rule is applicable to setoffs
(ie., the value of returned goods) and which should be deducted
after
trebling. Liquid Air Corp. v.
(7th Cir. 1987) ,
cert. denied, 492
There is no general claim-of-right
defense to extortion with
regard to the
illegal taking of plaintiff’s property,
Agnes,753
F.2d 293 (3rd Cir. 1985), defendants were further
aware of
other defendants’ illegal activities,ie., fraud,
taking of
property, etc., vis-a-vis the subject proceedings
including adversary proceedings (PVC, Exhibit A, and plain-
tiff
reasonably anticipates in accordance with Rule 11(b) (3)
and Rotella other such similar illegal and
fraudulent acts to
obstruct
justice as well as aid and abet said predicate acts),
and
defendants Coan, Miltenberger,
Lewendon, and CLGM thereby,
did by their
unlawful conduct aid and abet the predicate acts applicable herein;
including,
for example, Sections 1503 (obstruction
of justice);
1513 (relating to retaliation against a witness,
victim, or
informant). Such aiding and abetting civil liability
is not
inconsistent with liability for operation or management
of a RICO
enterprise, Fidelity Federal Sav.and Loan Ass’n v.
Felicetti,
830 F.Supp. 257
(E.D.Pa.l993), where as in this
case, there
is an independent wrong, knowledge of
said wrong,
and substantial assistance on the part of the
aider
or abettor (defendants thereby) to
effectuate
that wrong. Wiley v. Hughes Capital Corp., 746 F.Supp.
1264
(D.N.J.1990).
THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
5. The predicate acts and statutes
violated including
the following
(as set forth, PVC, COUNTS 1 and 2, pages
10-18 and 19-24):
Exhibits a thru c
As to Coan,
Miltenberger, Lewendon, and
CLGM, at times relevant hereto,
said
defendant conducted and/or participated in the affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity,
affecting
and having a
nexus to interstate commerce thereby, with the
intent to
damage and defraud plaintiff and obstruct justice
thereby, by
reason of which violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1961 et seq., plaintiff sustained
injury to his property and
business.
Specifically, Alan Shiff purported Chief Judge at
USBC fraudulently misrepresented the
date of dismissal of a proceeding
over which he
himself had presided perpetrating a fraud connected with a case
under Title
11 as proscribed in Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1)
(D); and further, brought a
(retaliatory against a witness/
victim/informant
violative of Section 15l3) spurious contempt
proceeding
against plaintiff, obstructing justice thereby in
violation of
Section 1503 (and additionally was without
jurisdiction
to legitimately do so). Quite simply, he lied
(materially
false fraudulent representation); knew he lied
(scienter);
lied with the intention of deceiving; that the lies
were relied
upon (ie.,government, courts, etc.); said fraud
in connection
with a case under Title 11 directly causing damage
to
plaintiff’s property and business (and as well to plaintiff’s
estate and
creditors thereof).PVC at page(s) 11,12,20-24. USBC employees
and Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon, and CLGM thereby,
did utilize
the mails in the course of perpetrating said fraud (on courts,
creditors,
plaintiff, etc.) constituting the RICO predicate
violation of mail fraud
thereby, violative of Section 1341 on or about June 4, 1996. PVC at
12, 19-23.
USBC employees utilized false hearing
dates to
wrongfully dismiss adversary proceedings, defrauding
plaintiff and
creditors thereby, PVC at page(s) 17-18 and Exhibit
“C” thereto, and violative
of Section 1503, utilizing the mails
to perpetuate
same in violation of Section 1341, USBC
employees did
feloniously remove filed federal
court
documents for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff,
covering up
various crimes connected thereto, obstructing justice
in violation
of Section 1503 thereby, causing damages to plain-
tiff’s
property and business. PVC at page(s) 17-23
and Exhibit
“B” thereto.
In addition to the foregoing,
federal employee Maryanne Trump (Barry)
did corrupt
the federal judicial process obstructing justice in
violation of
Section 1503 thereby, and Section 1510 as a conse-
quence
thereof, even as substantial sums of (drug) money were
being
laundered, in violation of Section 1956, through her
family’s/brothers’
casinos by RICO defendants before her in
or around
1987 to 1989 and upon information beyond said dates,
which if not
for the obstruction of justice therein, through
discovery
likely would have yielded “quid pro quo” in the form
of increased
drug money flows from which a trier of fact could
have
reasonably concluded to have constituted a violation of
Section 201 relating
to bribery. PVC at page(s) 12-15. (It should
also
be noted that at or around the time of the retaliatory
and spurious
contempt proceeding, Trump had “retained” the
brother of
then
discovery may
have yielded a similar conclusion consistent with
said Trump
modus operandi.
Trustee) Hugh Leonard was placed
on (bribe)
retainer by RICO defendants Dilena and companies,
violative
of the predicate act of bribery, Section 201, as well
as
obstructing justice, Section 1503, consistent therewith.
PVC at page(s) 13.
Facts giving rise to what a trier of
fact could
reasonably infer from same, particularly when coupled
with the similar
scenario (a more direct “
Section 201) vis-a-vis
federal employee (and then
Sam Allito,
PVC at page(s) 14, federal employee
(and then
Assistant
“cut a bribe
deal” (Section 201) and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503)
by removing
from the Office of the
concerning
drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other
federal law
violations. Id. Federal employees in Virginia
illegally
failed to consummate the Chapter 7 proceeding in
with law, and
for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff (fraud in connection
with a case
under Title 11), and as well, obstructing justice
(Section 1503) thereby, by reason of
which plaintiff sustained
damage to his
property and business (also damaging creditors,
and
committing bankruptcy fraud thereby). PVC at page(s) 14.
Defendant Coan
and CLGM did consistent with the aforesaid perpetrate
a fraud
(connected with a case under Title 11) upon the estate
of plaintiff
and purposefully and with the intent to damage
plaintiff did
cause the dismissal of proceedings, obstructing
justice
(Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff
sustained
injury to his property and business. PVC at page(s) 17-23
and Exhibit
“A”. The same Violations apply to the adversary
proceeding concerning
junkie and thief, David George Swann
(DOB 4-6-60; three guilty pleas to
theft in less than 5 years
residence in
other assets
of plaintiff and against whom default (judgment)
was ripe for
entry (violations of Sections 1513, 102 and that
concerning
extortion would also have been appropriate). Defen-
dant
Coan has neither abandoned nor rebrought
same, violating
Section 1503 and
(defrauding) damaging plaintiff thereby.
[Defendant Coan
has neither executed on nor abandoned a sub-
stantial
(non-RICO related) judgment entered for plaintiff by
the
3:93cv02065(AWT)]
The aforesaid defendants also did
violate Section 1962(d) by
conspiring to
violate Section 1962(c) by and during during the
course of the
conspiracy, consistent with the object of the
conspiracy in
relation to the overt acts in futherance thereof,
did conspire
to commit a fraud in connection with a case under
Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby,
with knowledge of
the
commission of predicate acts as set forth above, were
a part of the
racketeering activity activity by which plaintiff
sustained
injury to his property by reason of said overt pre-
dicate
acts. It should be noted that in conspiring to violate
section 1962
(c) by reason of which violations plaintiff
sustained
injury to his business and property, evinced intent
to injure
plaintiff and benefit (former) RICO/adversary
proceeding
defendants, and as well did obstruct justice (and
criminal
investigations thereof). PVC at page(s) 10-18,18-23.
d) There have been no criminal
convictions as to any pre-
dicate
acts inasmuch as criminal proceedings, not surprisingly,
given
in same and
criminal proceedings are warranted and should be
brought
against defendant Coan and federal employee Shiff among
others for
their criminal acts as set forth herein. It should
be noted that
there is no prior-conviction requirement for the
commencement
of a civil RICO action for the underlying predicate
acts. See, Sedima, S.P.R.I v. Imrex
Co., Inc., 473
493 (1985)
e) N/A
f) The predicate acts form a
“pattern of racketeering acti-
vity”
in accordance with the case law construing same in terms
of
“relatedness”; viz., in terms of time, space, proximity,
nature of
crimes, victims-plaintiff, and repetition. Indeed,
while
somewhat nebulous in terms of the parameters set forth
in the
seminal decisions construing same by the
Supreme Court, see, e.g., Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex
Co., Inc.,
473
Co., 492
activity)
plus relationship (acts “that have the same or similar
purposes,
results, participants, victims, or methods of commis-
sion,
or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing character-
istics
and are not.isolated events”), the pattern
requirement
is readily
satisfied in the instant case. Specifically, various
predicate
acts (pattern of racketeering activity) including those
of the associated-in-fact
enterprise (including
USBC and employees/contractors of
same, ie.,
defendants Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon, and CLGM) occurred
over a period
of approximately 16 years beginning in or around
1988, and accruing on December 5,
1996, when plaintiff sustained
substantial
injury and damage to his property and business by
reason of the
RICO predicate violations of defendants herein.
(The matter concerning junkie/thief
David George Swann as discus-
sed
supra did accrue at a later point in time). Said predicate
acts as set
forth above were committed by defendants herein,
agents/”contractors”/employees on
behalf of the associated-in-
fact
enterprise(s) and RICO predicate act violators/co-conspira
tors
as set forth supra.
The subject predicate acts were said
enterprise’s
regular way
of “conducting business” and constituting an open-
ended pattern
of racketeering activity thereby, constituting
the threat of
continued misconduct. Indeed, said fraud in con-
nection
with a case under Title 11 would also, in light of the
serious
predicate acts involved (in proceedings) therein, be
sufficiently
serious crimes to project a threat of continuing
misconduct.
See generally, Olive Can Co., Inc. v. Martin, 906
F.2d 1147 (7thCir.1990);
1370 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498
Defendant Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as Trustee, and
defendant Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., thereby,
along defendants Timothy Miltenberger,
Whitney Lewendon have at all times
attempted to
evade process and avoid culpability and accountability for defendants’
wrongful and
illegal conduct.
Similarly, the fraud in connection
with a case under Title
11 as perpetrated USBC employee Alan Shiff and defendants’ complicity and cover-up
thereof, is
consistent with a pattern (of racketeering activity) as set forth herein [and
documented in
the record and by way of numerous transmissions to the FBI (including
the office of
Director Freeh as per instruction and as well to
the office of
former Attorney General Reno] defendants/co-conspirators
had
knowledge/constructive knowledge and/or was aware of said
defendants’
illegal activities and RICO predicate violations.
Plaintiff reasonably anticipates in
accordance with Rule 11(b) (3)
and Rotella other
such similarly unlawful attempts to ob-
struct
justice as well as aid and abet said predicate acts,
and did as
set forth aid and abet the predicate acts applicable
thereto, as
well as aid and abet the commission thereof, and
by the
retaliatory and spurious contempt proceeding predicated
upon fraud,
did violate Title 18, Sections 1503 (obstruction
of justice) ;
1513 (relating to retaliation against a witness,
victim, or
informant), by reason of which plaintiff sustained
injury to his
property and business.
The aforesaid USBC, and defendants Coan, Miltenberger, Lewendon,
and CLGM did
constitute an associated-in-fact RICO enterprise for the
purpose of
injuring/damaging plaintiff as set forth supra and benefiting
the RICO
defendants, co-conspirators, and to cover-up significant
illeg