UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

18 U.S.C. 1964(c) COMPLAINT FORM

GARY R. WALL, Rule 11 Pro se
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR. Pro se
STEPHEN MANOS, Pro se
Full name(s) of Plaintiff(s)
(Do not use et al.)

Case No. ________________________
(To be supplied by the Court)
v.

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
(LIUNA) CHARLES LECONCHE
ROBERT D. LUSKIN ROBERT CHEVERIE
VERE O. HAYNES PATRICK TOMASIEWICZ
LABORERS’ LOCAL 230 RICHARD WEISS
DOMINICK LOPREATO CONN. LABORERS PENSION FUND
JOHN PEZZENTI (CLPF)
Full names of Defendant(s)
(Do not use et al.)

Plaintiff GARY R. WALL is a citizen of Connecticut who presently resides at 60 Carriage Hill Drive, Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109.

ADDITIONAL “A. PARTIES”

PLAINTIFFS

(Plaintiff) WILLIAM COOKSEY SR is a citizen of CONNECTICUT who presently resides at 1097 Maple Avenue, Hartford, CT. 06114
(Plaintiff) STEPHEN MANOS is a citizen of CONNECTICUT who presently resides at 77 HALE ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CT.

DEFENDANT LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) “PERSON” “ENTITY” OF WASHINGTON, D.C. whose address is 905 16^TH STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-1765

ADDITIONAL “A. PARTIES” DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS

(Defendant) ROBERT D. LUSKIN (IN HOUSE PROSECUTOR “Operating Agreement” with D.O.J./General Executive Board Attorney (LIUNA) is a citizen of Washington, D.C. whose place of business is Laborers’ International Union, 905 16^th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006-1765.
(Defendant) VERE O. HAYNES is a citizen of Connecticut (SIGNATORY “Operating Agreement” with D.O.J./and at relevant times in this complaint 8^th, 4^th and 1^st V.P. LIUNA) whose place of business is Laborers’ International Union, 905 16^th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-1765 and LIUNA’S Office, 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114.
(Defendant) LOCAL 230 is an entity corporation involved in interstate commerce as is LIUNA its parent corporation 18 U.S.C. 1961(3) 1961(4) its business address is 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, CT. 06114.
(Defendant) DOMINICK LOPREATO is a citizen of Connecticut at relevant times in this complaint Secretary/Treasurer/Business Manager Local 230 and an associate in fact of the Coia Enterprise. He gave his last address in his deposition as “333 East River Drive, East Hartford, Connecticut 06108” (Cheverie Associates Address).
(Defendant) JOHN PEZZENTI is a citizen of Connecticut at relevant times in this complaint President, Secretary Treasurer, Business Manager Local 230 his business address is 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114.
(Defendant) CHARLES LECONCHE is a citizen of Connecticut at relevant times in this complaint President Secretary Treasurer, Business Manager Local 230 his business address is 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114.
(Defendant) ROBERT M. CHEVERIE, ESQ. is a citizen of Connecticut at relevant times in this complaint an “Associate in Fact” acting as General Counsel Local 230 his business address is 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, Connecticut 06108.
(Defendant) PATRICK TOMASICWICZ, ESQ. is a citizen of Connecticut at relevant times in this complaint defendant Tomasiewicz business address is 836 Farmington Avenue, Suite 109, West Hartford, CT. 06119
(Defendant) RICHARD WEISS is a citizen of Connecticut Director Connecticut Laborers Pension Fund his business address is 435 Captain Thomas Blvd., West Haven, CT. 06516-5896.
(Defendant) CONNECTICUT LABORERS’ PENSION FUND is incorporated in the State of Connecticut its business address is 435 Captain Thomas Blvd., West Haven, CT. 06516-5896.

1. JURISDICTION
   

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to: (list statute(s)
28 U.S.C. 1331 / 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)

1. NATURE OF THE CASE
   

Briefly state the background of the case:
This case is about preventing and restraining the subset federal criminal violations 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) and activities 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) of the Organized Crime Control Act 1970 (OCCA) RICO 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. Preventing and restraining the harm to the cited plaintiffs LMRDA, Federal Statutory, and Constitutional Property Rights. Preventing and restraining the 18 U.S.C. 1961 criminal violations by preventing and restraining violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) committed by individual defendants, wrongdoers and the (OCCA) RICO enterprise 18 U.S.C. 1961(4). Some of the 1962(d) racketeering schemes going back to in or about 1986 to present day (Open Ended). Preventing and restraining the criminal use of a Federal Statute by and through a Criminal Parallel Legal System known as the “Operating Agreement” (signatory D.O.J.) Obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503 in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint – the affect of a conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 U.S.C. 371, and prevent and restrain the defendants through the enterprise from using embezzled membership money in violation of (29 U.S.C. 501(c) pursuant to signed agreement with the D.O.J. to defend against the 1961(1,4,5)/1962(d)(b)(c) RICO crimes.

1. CAUSE OF ACTION
   

The plaintiffs allege that the following constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities or rights under a federal statute have been violated and that the following facts form the basis of the allegations.
CLAIM I: The following Constitutional Rights, Privileges and Federal Statutes have been violated: 5^th Amendment Right to Due Process by Obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503 – Multiple 1961(1) violations, 29 U.S.C. 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 664; 18 U.S.C. 1951; 18 U.S.C. 1512; 18 U.S.C. 1513; 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1343; 29 U.S.C. 530; 18 U.S.C. 2; “Privileges” 29 U.S.C. 401; 29 U.S.C. 411; 29 U.S.C. 501(a). All by violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating 1962(b)(c) – 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).
Supporting Facts: SEE ATTACHED RICO STANDING ORDER RULE 11 PLAINTIFF WALL

1. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
   

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demands:
Pursuant to: 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) “Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of Section 1962 of this Chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit including a reasonable attorney’s fee”.


Pursuant to: 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) “The district Courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of Section 1962 of this Chapter by issuing appropriate orders”.

In this instant (OCCA) RICO Complaint – In addition to the duty to protect the cited plaintiffs from Enterprise Racketeering Injuries – the district Court has a paramount duty and obligation to protect the laws of the United States by preventing and restraining the violations of Section 1962 committed as overt acts of a conspiracy to defraud the United States by the corrupt use of a Federal Statute (RICO).
Therefore: For the reasons illustrated and documented in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint and Standing Order – Multiple subset Federal Criminal violations committed directly against the plaintiffs by and through the associates in fact of an effective date (OCCA) RICO Enterprise 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5), coupled with the Title XII deficiency of RICO (See Pages 84-85 Standing Order). And in addition for reasons of the illustrated and documented Executive Branch and Judicial Branch political corruption in covering and protecting the D.N.C. crimes and bipartisan crimes of the D.O.J. documented in this complaint. For those just cited reasons inter alia, the plaintiffs respectfully request an additional Jury Demand that being access to a Federal Grand Jury to submit this (OCCA) RICO Complaint and give testimony. Please see Standing Order No. 20 at pages 98 –104 this (OCCA) RICO Complaint under Additional Jury Demand (Grand Jury Relief) showing the reasons the plaintiffs should be granted this fundamental public right to access to the protection, of the laws of the United States, through the (Red Flag) authority of Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 163
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.”

1. JURY DEMAND
   

Do you wish to have a jury trial? Yes X No ____
_________________________________Gary R. Wall
Rule 11 Plaintiff’s Original Signature – 60 Carriage Hill Drive, Wethersfield, CT. 06109
Telephone No. (860) 529-2651

_________________________________William Cooksey Sr.
Plaintiff Original Signature – 1097 Maple Avenue, Hartford, CT. 06114
Telephone No. (860) 956-8334

_________________________________Stephen Manos
Plaintiff Original Signature – 77 Hale Road, Glastonbury, CT. 06033
Telephone No. (860 ) 659-4266

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

The undersigned declare under penalty of perjury they are the plaintiffs in the above action, that they have read the above complaint and that the information contained in the complaint is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. 1746; 18 U.S.C. 1621.
Executed at__________________________ on _____________________________
_______________________________
My Commission Expires
Plaintiffs:
Rule 11 Plaintiff Gary Wall Pro se________________________________________
Plaintiff William Cooksey Sr.Pro se_______________________________________
Plaintiff Stephen Manos Pro se___________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GARY R. WALL, CASE NO :_____________________
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR, (To be supplied by the Court)
STEPHEN MANOS,
Plaintiffs Dated: January 20, 2004

v.

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION (LIUNA)
ROBERT D. LUSKIN,
VERE O. HAYNES,
LABORERS’ LOCAL 230,
DOMINICK LOPREATO,
JOHN PEZZENTI,
CHARLES LECONCHE,
ROBERT M. CHEVERIE, ESQ.,
RICHARD WEISS
CONNECTICUT LABORERS PENSION FUND (CLPF)
PATRICK TOMASIEWICZ, ESQ.
Defendants

STANDING ORDER CIVIL RICO

18 U.S.C. 1964(c)

STANDING ORDER CIVIL RICO

The 3d Circuit in Glessner v. Kenny 952 F.2d 702 defined the substance of a RICO case statement as elaborations of pleading. The follow is that, in a presentation of documented evidence.
STANDING ORDER NO. 1. “The alleged unlawful conduct that is claimed to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), (c) and or (d).”
There is no violation of tracer subsection 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) in this complaint. There are multiple violations in a pattern of racketeering of Subsection 1962(b)(c)(d).
The unlawful conduct that is claimed under Section 1962(b) is that the defendants member of an associates in fact enterprise through a pattern of racketeering including inter alia violations of RICO predicates under Section 1961 18 U.S.C. 1951; 29 U.S.C. 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 1341; and 18 U.S.C. 1343, 18 U.S.C. 1503; 18 U.S.C. 1513; 18 U.S.C. 1512 acquired and maintain control directly or indirectly of both enterprises, Laborers’ International Union (LIUNA) and Local 230, both enterprises activities affect interstate commerce 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5).
18 U.S.C. 1962(b) “It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect inter state or foreign commerce”

The unlawful conduct that is claimed under Section 1962(c) is that the associates in fact defendants who are employed by or associated with the associates in fact enterprises LIUNA and Local 230, conduct or participate directly or indirectly in violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961 through a pattern of racketeering which affects interstate commerce.
18 U.S.C. 1962(c) “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
The unlawful conduct that is claimed under Section 1962(d) is that the associates in fact defendants either by direct participation or indirect participation or by aiding and abetting conspired to violate and or did violate provisions of Subsection 1962(b)(c) of RICO multiple 1962(d) schemes – 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5).
18 U.S.C 1962(d) “It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of Subsection (a)(b), or (c) of this section”

STANDING ORDER NO. 2 “The identity of each defendants and the alleged misconduct and basis of liability of the defendant”

DEFENDANT LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION (LIUNA) is an entity corporation 18 U.S.C. 1961(3)(4) involved in interstate commerce. LIUNA has been an “associate in fact” organized crime controlled “Captive Labor Organization”, since the effective date of RICO October 15, 1970 and it still is an “associate in fact” Organized Crime Controlled “Captive Labor Organization” under the “Operating Agreement” between LIUNA and the Department of Justice. The present day in tact and protected Coia Governance Structure of LIUNA has been cited by two Presidents Crime Commission’s, President Richard M. Nixon’s and President Ronald Reagan’s Crime Commissions. The only difference is the sons who are cited in the crime commission reports have replaced the deceased fathers in control of the “Captive Labor Organization”. LIUNA is both a person entity under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3) and an associate in fact “union” enterprise under 18 U.S.C. 1961(4):
18 U.S.C. 1961(3) “person” “includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property”

18 U.S.C. 1961(4) “enterprise” “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.”

DEFENDANT ROBERT D. LUSKIN is as of February 13, 1995 “In House Prosecutor” pursuant to the “Operating Agreement” between Coia/LIUNA and the Department of Justice. Defendant Luskin was not an impartial outside attorney as the “Operating Agreement” required. Defendant Luskin was retained by Coia as a criminal defense attorney prior to the implementation of the “Operating Agreement”. Defendant Luskin drafted the “Operating Agreement.” Pursuant to the “Operating Agreement” defendant Luskin is a “racketeering investigator” in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(7).
18 U.S.C. 1961(7) “racketeering investigator” “means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General¹ and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this Chapter [18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.]”

The “Operating Agreement” is a “racketeering, investigation” in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(8):
18 U.S.C. 1961(8) “racketeering investigation” “means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this Chapter [18 U.S.C. 1961 et. Seq.”—

Defendant Luskin in his authority as General Executive Board Attorney and In House Prosecutor is in a double position of Trust. One trust to the 800,000 membership of a trade union, the other trust to the government of the United States and its citizens; to protect both the citizens of the United States and the members of a trade union from National Pensions Racketeers, which the associate in fact defendants in this complaint are.
Defendant Luskin negotiated the “Operating Agreement” in his switch capacity position as Arthur Coia’s criminal attorney, negotiating by stopping the Court filing of a 212 page RICO Complaint. The primary charges in the 212-page RICO complaint were pension racketeering charges committed in the furtherance of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) violations. To further this obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. 1503) wrong doer Coia visits the White House 126 times and donates 3.l million through the Democratic National Committee to President Clinton’s campaign.
For the purpose of supporting the credibility of that statement the plaintiffs quote an excerpt from an article printed in the Washington Monthly May 1996 by John Mullagan and Dean Starkman: BEGINNING OF EXCERPT
“But the odd case of Arthur Coia illustrates a less sanguine picture of unions in 1996: one of lingering corruption, mob ties, and political influence a volatile mix. On November 4, 1994, Coia was served with a 212-page draft racketeering complaint from the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. The document accused Coia of extortion, pilfering union funds, and ruthlessly crushing dissidents in his union. Charging that the Laborers’ International was under the mob’s thumb the Justice Department served notice of its intent to take over and throw Coia out.”
“But then something strange happened. The racketeering complaint was never filed. Instead, Coia hired Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. – Oliver North’s Iran-Contra Lawyer – plus a veteran of the Organized Crime Section to fend off prosecutors. Negotiations lasted three months and involved the Criminal Division Chief at Justice. The settlement when it came was an enormous victory for Coia. Not only did he keep his position atop the union, he also beat back reforms that would have brought real democracy to the laborers and handed power to the rank and file”.
“Coia’s story is one of great failure of law enforcement set in a rarified atmosphere of multi-million dollar campaign contributions and White House dinners. Federal law enforcement officials involved in the case who wanted Coia removed but were overruled, grumble about a link between the toothless settlement and Coia’s political friendship with the President.”

END OF EXCERPT
Defendant Luskin in his capacity as GEB Attorney and In House Prosecutor has violated from in or about 1994 to present day (“Open Ended”) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) in the furtherance of, and for the reason of, the unlawful conduct cited in 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)(c). Defendant Luskin conspired to violate 1962(b) and (c) in order to protect wrongdoer pension racketeer Coia². And in so doing protecting known pension racketeer Arthur Coia from his “pilfering of union funds” “extortion” and “ruthlessly crushing dissidents” (212-page Complaint) inevitably protecting, (Sub Rosa) Arthur Coia’s pension racketeer associates in fact, who are the cited defendants and wrongdoers in this complaint; and as a consequence of defendant Luskin’s multiple 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) violation caused direct proximate harm by the associate in fact enterprise defendants in the form of multiple predicate act violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (pleaded accordingly defendant by defendant as violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961 and 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).
Serious consideration by the Court should be given to any one or any group that can “Influence[d]” a Government Civil RICO Complaint involving prosecution memo, documented, pension racketeering acts (18 U.S.C. 1952; 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1951; 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1343 Inter Alia) – Federal criminal statutory acts committed by reason of violations of 1962(d)(b)(C). The plaintiffs in this matter are the proximate harm (result victims) of “Coia’s story is one of great failure of law enforcement”.


ENTERPRISE RACKETEERING INJURIES LUSKIN 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c)
MULTI SCHEME NO. ONE VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. 1341/ 1962(d)(b)(c)

(Rule 9(b) By letter dated July 24, 1996 addressed to Marc P. Mercier Esq., Beck & Eldergill, P.C. 447 Center Street, Manchester, Connecticut 06040 (Plaintiff Wall & Cooksey’s Attorney at the time) from Robert D. Luskin (Washington, D.C.) referring to a letter he wrote to defendant Cheverie July 16, 1996. Relevant Excerpts of letter quoted:
“I have directed Local 230 to permit Messers. Wall and Cooksey to exercise their right to readmission. For your information, I enclose a copy of my letter to Mr. Cheverie setting out my decision in this matter”

Said letter was part of a scheme in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) to cause plaintiff Wall and Cooksey to rely upon this false information for the purpose of time barring Wall & Cooksey suite in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud).
On May 15, 1997, Wall & Cooksey represented by Attorney Mercier filed Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH)³. On September 10, 1997 defendant Luskin’s reversed his position as to appellants’ right to readmission by entering a declaration in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) stating in it relevant fraudulent part:
“Upon review of LIUNA’s long established interpretation and application of its constitutionally based readmission right, I concur that the readmission right afforded members of LIUNA must be exercised within twelve (12) months of member’s dues delinquency, except where there is evidence that such delay was the result of conduct prohibited by LIUNA Ethical Practices Code, the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure, or the LIUNA Constitution”.

Not one example of the application of the fraudulent (12) month rule was given for Local 230 because it did not exist. See Chief Judge Winter’s addresses this scheme as intentional equitable estoppel in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 224 F.3d 168 at 173. The equitable estoppel scheme finding in 224 F.3d 168 was committed by and through enterprise racketeering injuries in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961, 18 U.S.C. 1341.
See United States v. Boffa 688 F2d. 919 “this Court held that the RICO predicate act of mail fraud 18 U.S.C. 1341 may encompass a scheme to deprive union members of the right to honest and faithful service of union officials as provided in Section 501 of the LMRDA”
See Kornfield v. First Jersey National Bank 638 F.Supp. 454
“Each individual use of the mails or wires in a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate offense even if part of one fraudulent scheme, for purpose of RICO requirements of multiple predicate offenses”.

MULTI SCHEME NO. TWO “ABSTRACT” AND “CONVERT” EMBEZZLEMENT TO DEFENDANT CHEVERIE AND LOPREATO VIOLATING 29 U.S.C. 501(c)/ 1962(d)(b)(c)

“501(c) Embezzlement of assets; penalty, any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than five years or both”


Defendant Luskin 29 U.S.C. 501(c) (embezzlement) “convert to the use of another”; regarding defendant Lopreato and defendant Cheverie by letter dated July 7, 1997 from Robert D. Luskin LIUNA a Washington, D.C. addressed to Gary R. Wall, 60 Carriage Hill Drive, Weth., CT. Three sentences in Letter:
“I am writing in response to your letter of June 25, 1997. Mr. Cheverie has been authorized to represent Mr. Lopreato in his official capacity, in order to protect the interest of Local 230 in the on going lawsuit, as you stated in your letter, you have sued Mr. Lopreato in his official and in his personal capacities.”

The capacities of defendant Lopreato in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) are irrelevant to the point of law of 29 U.S.C. 501(c). As part of the Hon. Judge Daley’s sentencing order in UNITED STATES v. LOPREATO ET AL 3-97CR00190(TFGD) May 8, 1996, Mr. Lopreato received 51 months in prison and paid a $250,000 fine⁴. Judge Daley barred Dominick Lopreato from all union activities pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 504. The Criminal Parallel Legal System “Operating Agreement” does not recognize Judge Daley’s 504 Order, a fearless disregard for the order of law. This complaint avers that act by defendant Luskin as unlawful conduct, violating 29 U.S.C. 501(c) by and through a violation of 1962(d) for the purpose of “control” (1962(b)) and participation (1962(c)) in a RICO “enterprise’s affairs” – “through a pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5). “Open Ended” predicate act violations; the only foreseeable end being this complaint.
See: Morrisey v. Curran 482 Fed. Supp. Id 31
“Union should not have paid for legal services rendered in defense of former union president in action under U.S.C.S 501 since former union president was principal beneficiary of misappropriation of union funds”

18 U.S.C. 1962(d) Conspiracy overt act facilitating
See: United States v. Local 560, 581 Fed Supp. 279 Id. 280
“An enterprise conspiracy under Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act may be established without personal conduct amounting to two (2) personal predicate offenses, instead, it is sufficient if government demonstrates agreement through defendants aiding and abetting in at least two (2) such offenses or through assent to commission by someone else or several others of at least two (2) such offenses”

See also for applicability of 18 USC 2 as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 Third Circuit in United States v. Local 560 780 F2d 267 Finding #9 at 269 the Court:

“Criminal standard for aiding and abetting applied to charge in Civil Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act [18 U.S.C.A., 1961 Et. Seq.] suit that union’s executive board aided and abetted other defendants extortionate acts 18 U.S.C.A. 2, 1962.”

MULTI SCHEME NO. THREE D.O.J./ LUSKIN SIGNED AGREEMENT

Defendant Luskin from in or about May 15, 1997 (LMRDA Complaint) and continuing on to present day (Open Ended) has violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) by aiding and furthering multiple violations of predicate offense 29 U.S.C.501(c) for the purposes of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and (c). Defendant Luskin’s 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) violations of 29 U.S.C. 501(c) are subject to RICO defendants LeConche, Pezzenti, Attorney defendant Cheverie, Lopreato and Attorney defendant Tomasiewicz, said 501(c) violations are subject to and are signatory to an agreement with the D.O.J. Quoted from “LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure” revised 4/01: in its relevant part:
---“in order to accomplish more fully the purposes of the LIUNA Ethical Practices Code, and the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the General Executive Board that union funds may not be used for the payment of the legal fees or expenses for the representation of any officer, member, or employee at any stage of a criminal matter or at any stage of a civil action claiming a breach of fiduciary duties prior to the resolution of the allegation or charge”

Please take notice of “at any stage of a civil action” consequently from in or about May 15, 1997 (LMRDA Complaint) Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) through the appeal in the LMRDA Case Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 99-7773 through the remand Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 224 F.3d 168 (2dCir. 2000) and to present day pending in the LMRDA Case 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) and Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al (Interlocutory Injunction) 03-6091 Second Circuit.
Defendant Luskin and the just cited RICO defendants are committing a continuous and open ended violation of 29 U.S.C. 501(c) and are conspiring to do so in violations of “18 U.S.C. 1962(d)” for the purposes of “control” 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) of a RICO enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and in so doing violating 18 U.S.C. 1961(5). Every payment “of the legal fees or expenses for representation” is a predicate act violate of both 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) and 29 U.S.C. 501(c). 29 U.S.C. 501(c) is a direct predicate act under 18 U.S.C. 1961(c) “relating to embezzlement from union funds”. “Embezzlement of union funds” is the gravaman of this complaint (Proximate Harm).
The RICO defendants in the complaint (associates in fact) have been violating 29 U.S.C. 501(c) since the effective date of RICO (October 15, 1970). See: United States v. LeRoy 687 F2d 610 (2d Cir. 1983) (Identifying 501(c) as a RICO predicate act and its interrelationship between the pattern of racketeering and conduct of the enterprise affairs under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)). The Coia Governance Structure of LIUNA was an objective target of the “Congressional statement of findings and purpose. Act Oct., 15, 1970 P. L. 91-452 1 84 Stat. 922”
The first finding of the Congressional Statement referred to Organized Crime as being “highly sophisticated” that was in 1970. The reason that the Coia Group (associates in fact) were considered “highly sophisticated” in 1970 was the millions in membership money that was embezzled 29 U.S.C. 501(c) to pay their “highly sophisticated” attorneys to protect their “extortion”, “pilfering of union funds” and “Crushing Dissidents”. That was the Congressional statement of finding in 1970. The present day showing and statement in this complaint shows the evolution of “highly sophisticated” effective date October 15, 1970 RICO enterprise to a much higher form of sophistication using the hundreds of millions in fund money generated every week by 800,000 members to criminally “Influence[d”] the Office of the President and First Lady (Documented 126 visits to the Clinton White House by Arthur Coia plus multiple trips with Hilary Clinton) and criminal Influence[d] the Organized Crime section of the Justice Department to this present day (“Open Ended”)⁵. This dangerous situation is what Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 163 was written for. Arthur Coia Jr. Has employed the top sophisticated attorneys in Washington D.C., Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., Robert D. Luskin, Patton and Boggs, and Williams and Connelly. He employed them all with embezzled membership money in order to protect him from the “pilfering” of millions in union funds and in so doing protecting his associates in fact RICO enterprise which the cited plaintiffs have proximate harm from.

MULTI SCHEME NO. FOUR EMBEZZLEMENT 29 U.S.C. 501(c) BY EXTORTION 18 U.S.C. 1951 CONTINUED AND FURTHERED BY THE OPERATING AGREEMENT

In or about the beginning of 1986 in a pattern of racketeering to present day RICO defendant Lopreato, LeConche, Pezzenti and Attorney Cheverie have violated 18 U.S.C. 1951 (Hobbs Act) by systematically creating an atmosphere of fear in Local 230 in order that any member would be afraid to question any of their expenditures legal or otherwise. During union membership meetings dating back to 1986 when Plaintiff Wall would attempt to inform the membership of how much (membership money was being spent on the pending (at the time) NLRB case Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 LIUNA, Lopreato, LeConche, Pezzenti 39 CB-827 – 39 CB-833⁶. From the podium the cited defendants and (Arthur Coia Sr. present many times on tape) would direct the membership to boo; Not after I spoke but as I tried to speak (extortionate tactic) stopping anyone from hearing or understanding what I was trying to say and in so doing making an example of a member who questions their actions. Fear of economic execution to the membership [Blanket Hobbs Act] unless they clap or boo on signal. Fear of economic execution or violence and actual economic execution and actual violence and threats of violence to the plaintiffs in this complaint; Embezzlement by extortion violating 18 U.S.C. 1951 in order to embezzle in the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 501(c); Conspiracy to do so in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) in multiple schemes against Wall and Cooksey 1986 to present day and against plaintiff Manos in or about 1995 to present day, exact same pattern in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5).
TOLLING RICO
The Second Circuit has articulated the preferred accrual rule for RICO for three reasons.
FIRST: It is the simplest to apply because it focuses on the plaintiffs actual or constructive discovery of its injury, which is keyed to the objective fact of injury and is readily determinable by a tier of fact.
SECOND: Commencement of the limitation period upon occurrence of the first injury does not leave a plaintiff without remedy – just without treble damages until the second predicate act occurs.
THIRD: If the second predicate act in the pattern occurs more than four years after the first, a RICO claim maybe stated upon occurrence of the second predicate act sec: Bankers Trust v. Rhoades 859 Fed. Rep. 2d 1096 United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit at 1102
--“statute of limitations which runs – where a substantive violation is alleged pursuant to subsection (a)(b) or (c) – from the time of the last predicate act of racketeering activity by the defendant, or where a conspiracy violation is alleged pursuant to subsection (d) – from the time the objectives of the conspiracy have been accomplished or abandoned”---

THE ENTERPRISE CONSPIRACY
The plaintiffs in the complaint believe that the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit sitting En Banc has best defined the RICO element of enterprise conspiracy in U.S. v. Elliot 571 Fed. Rep. 2d 880 at 902.
---“against this background, we are convinced that, through RICO, Congress intended to authorize the single prosecution of a multi-faceted conspiracy by replacing the inadequate “wheel” and “chain” rationales with a new statutory concept: the Enterprise” “[9-11] to achieve this result, Congress acted against the back drop of horn book conspiracy law, under the general federal conspiracy statute – in the context of organized crime, this principle inhibited mass prosecutions because a single agreement or “common objective” cannot be inferred from the commission of highly diverse crimes by apparently unrelated individuals. RICO help to eliminate this problem by creating a substantive offense which ties together these diverse parties and crimes. Thus, the object of a RICO conspiracy is to violate a substantive RICO provision here, to conduct or participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity – and not merely to commit each of the predicate crimes necessary to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity”

Defendant Luskin has liability in this extortion/embezzlement scheme in accordance with his authority as G.E.B. attorney, quoting page 24 LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure citing the authority of Luskin as G.E.B. attorney:
“As long as the offending conduct at issue is deemed to be relevant to an accused’s current membership in or service to, the union the G.E.B. attorney may bring charges, regardless of when the conduct at issue occurred”

The F.B.I (Chicago Office) pursuant to their investigation of plaintiff Wall and Cooksey (at the direction of defendant Luskin) were given tape copies of membership meetings 1986 through 1989 (defendant Haynes and Coia Sr present majority of times). Plaintiff Wall wore the tape recorder in order to protect him from being framed for crimes (which it ultimately did). The tapes clearly show the extortionate control the same (to this day) Governance Structure of Local 230 has over the membership. Said tapes were later subpoenaed back from the F.B.I. in Chicago By Wall. Defendant Luskin had full knowledge without the tapes that the Coia (Sr. & Jr.) Governance Structure controlled Local 230 through fear. The tapes just document that fact. Said tapes are almost indistinguishable from the tape recordings that plaintiff Manos recorded nine (9) years later; That being, booing before plaintiff Manos or Gene Julian tried to speak (not after they spoke) an extortionate silencing tactic used in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) for control in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and “participation in the affairs” of a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). In addition to the “Common Objective” finding in Elliot En Banc Supra see United States v. Turkette 452 U. S. 576 “The [enterprise] is proved by evidence of an on going organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the associates function as a continuing unit.”
Professor Clyde W. Summers who drafted the LMRDA, comprehends and explains the affect of Blanket Hobbs Act the best in U. S. v. Local 560 Supra 581 F. Supp at 321:
Professor Summers At 321: “This sense of fear within the Local – causing members to believe that it is not safe to protest or organize – is so overwhelming that it is not likely to correct itself in the foreseeable future.”

DEFENDANTS LUSKIN VIOLATING 18 USC 1962(d)(b)(c) PLAINTIFF MANOS – LUSKIN MULTI SCHEME NO. FIVE

From on or about 1996 and continuing to this present day defendant Luskin has violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) with the cited defendants and wrongdoers in this complaint, And in so doing “injured” plaintiff Manos’s LMRDA and Constitutional Rights (Property Rights) by causing TERMINATION of said Rights committing multiple counts of Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. 1503). Defendant Luskin has also “Injured” plaintiff Manos’s Federal Right of Protection against violations of Federal Criminal Statutes by TERMINATING said rights through a Criminal Parallel Legal System (“Operating Agreement”) by and for reasons of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)(c).
THE THIRD CIRCUIT CONCURRING WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN Shearin v. E. F. Hutton 885 F2d 1162 at 1169:
---“Taking into account all the provisions of Section 1962, either racketeering activity or classic overt conspiracy act may qualify as “predicate acts” to a RICO violation that causes injury. Sedima further indicates that classic conspiracy acts not only may, but should so qualify. This accords with RICO’s plain meaning. Section 1964(c) states that a person need only sustain an injury “by reason of a violation of Section 1962”---

See also U. S. v. Local 560, 581 Fed. Supp 279 Id. 289

“Individuals may be charged under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act as “persons” while being grouped collectively as a “enterprise” under the well-established association in fact doctrine 18 USCA 1961-1968”

Defendant Luskin’s violations of 1962(d) through aiding and abetting 1961 violations by the associate in fact enterprise including inter alia multiple Hobbs Act violations 18 U.S.C. 1951 (Pleaded under Standing Order No 4); 18 U.S.C. 1513 retaliating against a witness; (pleaded under Standing Order No. 4) 29 U.S.C. 530 LMRDA assault (pleaded under Standing Order No. 4) 18 U.S.C. 1503 Obstruction of Justice (pleaded under Standing Order No. 4) 18 U.S.C. 1341 mail fraud (pleaded under Standing Order No. 5(c) in compliance with F.R.C.P. 9(b).
In addition to the just demonstrated multiple violations of RICO defendant Luskin in his dual positions of GEB Attorney and in house prosecutor has invalided and corrupted LIUNA’s constitution and has invalided the Constitution of the United States to the membership of LIUNA and Local 230. The (Obstruction of Justice) control comes from the following signatory provisions of the Operating Agreement. Quote relevant excerpt from “Summary of LIUNA Agreement” 1995 (Open Ended):
“This agreement is a first-of-its-kind in the history of union-government partnering – it is completely different from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters situation, which was an example of government takeover and control of a union.”

Unlike the Teamster Consent Decree, defendant Luskin controls discipline in the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(5) and 29 U.S.C. 529. In the Teamster Consent Decree, discipline in the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(5) and 29 U.S.C. 529 was controlled by a Federal Court. Also under the “Operating Agreement” unlike the Teamsters Consent Decree, defendant Luskin controls enforcement of Federal Statutes, including but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5), 18 U.S.C. 1962(b,c,d) violations. A Criminal Parallel Legal System – Quote Page 6 of the 1995 “Operating Agreement” Page 7 of the revised 2001 “Operating Agreement” relevant part:
“Anyone, including a union officer, representative, member, contractor or vendor, or law enforcement organization may refer a complaint against a union official or member by filing it with the G.E.B. attorney. The G.E.B. attorney or the Inspector General will investigate it and decide whether charges should be brought.”

These two provisions which are signatory to the Department of Justice, gave defendant Luskin the authority and ability to insulate and protect an Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) RICO enterprise.
DEFENDANT VERE O. HAYNES
Defendant Haynes was appointed 8^th V.P. LIUNA in or about 1986 by Arthur Coia, Sr. Defendant Haynes at relative times in this complaint has also held 3^rd V.P. and 1^st V.P. positions in LIUNA. Defendant Haynes mailing address is 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut and Laborers’ International Union, 905 16^th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-1765. Defendant Haynes is liable for multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. 1503, 18 U.S.C. 1341, 28 U.S.C. 501(c) 18 U.S.C. 1951 of 411 Rights committed by reason of violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) in the furtherance and reason of violating of 1962(c). Defendant Haynes was a signatory with the Department of Justice in the first phase of the “Operating Agreement”, February 13, 1995 to February 2000. At the time of the signing defendant Haynes was First V.P. LIUNA. Defendant Haynes has always been a part time V.P. He also is some type of male nurse at the Hebrew Home. Defendant Haynes was picked by Luskin and Coia to be signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with the Department of Justice because he will sign anything they put in front of him. Defendant Haynes was questioned on this same subject matter (for purposes of RICO Mens Rea) in a deposition taken by Wall & Cooksey in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) at Room 320, Federal Building, Hartford, Connecticut on November 26, 2001.
ENTERPRISE RACKETEERING INJURIES HAYNES 18 U.S.C. 1503/ 1962(d)(c)
Defendant Haynes violating RICO predicate 18 U.S.C. 1503 Obstruction of Justice by injuring the cited plaintiffs Rights to the remedial purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) (Civil RICO) injuring also the cited plaintiffs Rights to the remedial purposes of our LMRDA and Statutory Rights of Protection. Doing so in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) in a 1961(5) pattern of racketeering. In support of that Civil RICO charge, the plaintiffs enter relevant excerpts from the Haynes deposition Page 19:
Wall: “Let’s go to page 51 of that book. It says summary of LIUNA Agreement. That’s the Operational Agreement; correct?”
Haynes: “Yep”
Wall: “Now, your signature – we’re going to go back to your signature in the back”
Haynes: “Yes”
Wall: “Your signature is”—
Haynes: “Yes my signature is there”
Wall: “that says you’re Third Vice President. You told me now you’re First Vice President?”
Haynes: “Yes”
Wall: “You see for the United States it says JoAnn Harris; did you know her?”
Haynes: “No”
Wall: “James B. Burns; he’s from the United States Attorneys’ Office. Did you ever meet him?
Haynes: “No”
PAGE 20
Wall: “Paul E. Coffey; did you ever meet him?”
Haynes: “No”
Wall: “John Serpico is on here, he didn’t sign it, and Samuel Caivano, he didn’t sign it. How come they didn’t sign it?”
Haynes: “I don’t recall why they didn’t”
Wall: “Could you tell me what your understanding is of the Operational Agreement between the United States and LIUNA?”
Haynes: “I usually leave that up to the counsel”
Wall: “What counsel”?
Haynes: “The general executive board counsel” (defendant Luskin)
Wall: “So you don’t know?”
Haynes: “(shakes head)”
Wall: “You shook your head no. That’s a no?”
Haynes: “Ask me the question”
Wall: “You don’t know what the concept of the Operational Agreement is – what the purpose of it was?”
Haynes: “I don’t remember”
Wall: “You don’t remember”
Haynes: “No”
Later in the deposition plaintiff Wall shows defendant Haynes a copy of the face of the 212-page RICO Complaint.
Testimony in its relevant part at page 27:
Wall: “Do you realize that those people are well-known, high ranking organized crime figures?”
Haynes: “I really don’t know, Sir.”
Wall: “So this is news to you. That you’re mentioned in a draft complaint – a RICO draft complaint with these individuals, that’s what you’re saying? This is the first time you’re being informed of this?”
Haynes: “that I knew”
It became very evident during the deposition why Luskin and Coia⁷ used defendant Haynes in their 1962(d) conspiracy to Obstruct Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503. Defendant Haynes violating RICO Predicate 29 U.S.C. 501(c) doing so by violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) Haynes deposition quoted again in its relevant part: page 21
Wall: “Do you know Mr. Dominick Lopreato”.
Haynes: “Yes, I know Dominick Lopreato”.
Wall: “Do you consider him a barred individual?”
Haynes: “No”
Wall: “No”
Haynes: “No”
Wall: “Do you realize that membership money is representing him at this – in this case?”
Wall: “In other words, Dominick is not paying lawyer’s fees here. The membership of Local 230 is paying do you realize that”
Attorney Tomasiewicz and Attorney Fussell objects to the question defendant Haynes later answer the question on page 22:
Wall: “You didn’t realize that”
Haynes: “No”

In addition to the fact that defendant Haynes was also using membership money (29 U.S.C. 501(c)) in said depositions in violation of the LIUNA/DOJ agreement. In addition to that fact 29 U.S.C. 504 was drafted to protect members from convicted Labor/Pension Racketeering. Defendant Haynes has obstructed Justice in his signatory capacity and V.P. capacity in violation of 1962(d) violating 1962(c) violating both 29 U.S.C. 501(c) and obstructing and injuring the cited plaintiffs remedial right to the protection of 29 U.S.C. 504 by and through a Criminal Parallel Legal System (“Operating Agreement”).
DEFENDANT HAYNES 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) FOR REASONS OF VIOLATING AIDING AND ABETTING 18 U.S.C 2 EXTORTION 18 U.S.C. 1951 IN BOTH CAPACITIES AS V.P. LIUNA, AND SIGNATORY TO D.O.J.

See Local 560 Supra Re: Civil RICO “18 U.S.C.A. 2 1962”
PHASE ONE PLATFORM EXTORTION SCHEME
From in or about 1986 to 1990 defendant Haynes has violated plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey LMRDA Right to Freedom of Speech (29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2)) by aiding and abetting the extortion (18 U.S.C. 1951) of said LMRDA Right by LIUNA officers, Local 230 officers and the Executive Board Members in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reason of 1962(c).
Explanation: At consecutive monthly membership meetings from in or about 1986 through 1990 in a “pattern of racketeering” (1961(5)), defendant Haynes “participate[d]” “In the conduct of” this effective date RICO “enterprise’s affairs” (1962(d)(c)) – by “directly” being involved in the extortion of plaintiff Wall’s and plaintiff Cooksey’s LMRDA Freedom of Speech Rights (29 U.S.C. 411 (a)(2)) by standing up out of his chair as all of the officials LIUNA and Local 230 officers did as they shouted down any attempt by plaintiff Wall or plaintiff Cooksey to speak when plaintiff Wall would request from the floor for the officers of Local 230 to total up the membership money being spent on the pending NLRB case. Defendant Haynes participated in the shoot down with the associates in fact. By standing and clapping while other, defendants and wrongdoers, shout down Freedom of Speech enabled, assisted, encouraged and incited Hobbs Act Extortion of plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey LMRDA Rights. Defendant Haynes continues his involvement from the platform in an identical pattern of extortion repeated in or about 1996 to 1998 against plaintiff Manos, and extortion victim Mr. Gene Julian, being shouted down by the same defendants and wrongdoers “function[ing] as a continuing unit” Turkette Supra.
PHASE TWO PLATFORM EXTORTION SCHEME
In 1996-1998 defendant Lopreato is not involved in the second platform extortion scheme. He is barred by his indictment (The Honorable Judge Daley is alive Lopreato is barred!!).
Present now at membership meetings (’96 – ’98 scheme) is Coia and Luskin’s hand picked investigators investigating Coia’s 30 year associates in fact (Local 230) RICO associates, rather than investigating by participating in the (continuing) second phase extortionate “affairs” of a RICO enterprise. Defendant Haynes from in or about 1986-1990 in his capacity of 8^th V.P. – and from in or about 1996 – 1998, defendant Haynes in his capacity as 3^rd V.P., 1^st V.P., and Signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with the D.O.J. enabled, assisted, and encouraged the extortion of plaintiff’s Wall, Cooksey and Manos LMRDA Rights by the same method and for the same common goal. The two extortionist schemes in violation of (1962(d) violating 1962(c) by extortion (18 U.S.C. 1951) of the cited plaintiffs LMRDA 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2) Freedom of Speech Rights, in a pattern of racketeering in violation of 1961(5)⁸.
See: United States v. Indelicato EnBanc 865 Fed. Rep. 1370 Finding No. 3 at 1370
“Necessary relatedness between RICO predicate acts may be established by proof of their temporal proximity, common goals, similarity of methods, or repetitious 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,5).”

DEFENDANT HAYNES 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) CONTINUING VIOLATION OF EXTORTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHTS TO THE “FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY” OF 29 U.S.C. 401 ET. SEQ.

April 1996 Membership Meeting Enterprise Racketeering Scheme

In or about the April 1996 Local 230 membership meeting, Local 230, with defendant Haynes present in his dual capacity as 1^st V.P. and Signatory “Operating Agreement” with the United States – defendant Haynes participated in an open extortion of plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey Federal Protected Rights by abetting defendant LeConche’s reading of a letter dated April 9, 1996 out loud to the membership fraudulently composed by the defendants and others accusing plaintiff Wall of very serious violent crimes with plaintiff Cooksey being with Wall when these crimes were committed a “majority of the times” (proven fabricated in depositions). These fabricated allegations were meant to label both Wall and Cooksey as criminally barred through the purview of the “Operating Agreement” (discipline) and to create an unsafe membership environment and unsafe work environment. An open act of extortion of the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1) (“Equal Rights”) (a)(2) (“Freedom of Speech and Assembly”)(a)(5) (“Safeguards against improper disciplinary action”).
July 1997 Executive Board Meeting Enterprise Racketeering Scheme
Defendant Haynes at a Local 230 Executive Board Meeting enabled multiple Hobbs Act violations being committed against plaintiff Manos and an actual 29 U.S.C. 530 assault being committed against plaintiff Manos in violation of 1962(d), all on tape with defendant Haynes at same table. Examples (CL: defendant LeConche SM: plaintiff Manos):
CL: “why’d you call Ted Grabowski and try to solicit a vote against John Silva, asshole!”
SM: “Because I’m a member and I have a right – I have a right to lobby”
CL: “You don’t have a right” (Hobbs Act violation)
CL: “Steve, you’re about that fuckin’ close for me ripping your fuckin’ throat out personally!” (Hobbs Act violation)
CL: “Fuck you! It ain’t a threat, it’s a fuckin’ promise!” (Hobbs Act violation)

Manos is attacked blind-sided by Sergeant-At-Arms, Frank Freeman (tape still recording) thrown violently over a chair onto the ceramic tile concrete floor, and then thrown out the fire exit door opened by the owner of the restaurant where the Ex. Board Meeting was being held 29 U.S.C. 530 assault for reasons of 18 U.S.C. 1959(a) and 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (See Salerno Supra footnote 7 page 19). Frank Freeman now holds plaintiff Manos former position as V.P. Local 230. Doctor reports showed multiple contusions to Manos leg, chest and arms, right shoulder sprain – left wrist sprain. Manos flees to his car and is pursued. At Manos car in the street, defendant LeConche states (tape still recording).
CL: “Do yourself a favor. Don’t show up for a while! We own you Fucker! (Hobbs Act).

“We own you” is what the Hobbs Act was written for. The statement “We Own You” shows clearly that Local 230 its Executive Board and its International are captive labor organizations controlling the membership through fear. See: Second Circuit in U. S. v. I.B.T. 708 F. Supp 1388 at 1398”. The Hobbs Act, unlike the mail or wire fraud statutes, was enacted specifically to address labor racketeering”, see also U. S. v. I.B.T. at 1405 “Civil RICO Actions usually allege conduct that is either identical to or a subset of criminal allegations”. See making a distinction between the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. 1951) and an LMRDA Assault (29 U.S.C. 530) see U. S. v. Local 560, 780 F2d 267 at 282.
“While the Hobbs Act, as evidenced by its explicit and unambiguous language, was designed to combat extortion – Section 530 of the LMRDA makes no mention of “extortion” and rather appears to focus on prohibiting physical assaults on members in connection with a union’s internal affairs and in the exercise of their statutory right” ---

See Also: Indelicato Supra at 1370 Finding No. 5:
“Multiple acts of racketeering activity are not excluded from reach of RICO simply because they achieve their objective quickly or because they further but a single scheme 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1, 5).

See Also: U.S. v. Local 560 581 F. Supp. 279 at 333:
---“aided and abetted by the defendant officers and business agents of Local 560, unlawfully affected commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by extorting certain intangible property rights, rights to union democracy under 401 of the LMRDA – from the membership of Local 560, in repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1951”


March 25, 1998 Membership Meeting Enterprise Racketeering Scheme
In another act of open extortion of the plaintiffs membership rights with defendant Haynes participating in the affairs of an enterprise by enabling and abetting the reading out loud to the membership of a fabricated letter on March 25, 1998⁹. As stated in the footnote, this letter was a different letter than the April 9, 1996 letter. This letter was dated March 2, 1998. Said letter was addressed to Robert D. Luskin, Washington, D.C. and signed by defendant LeConche, defendant Pezzenti; Butch Granell Recording Secretary; Thaddeus Grabowski President; Wayne Silva Exec. Board Member; James Lawson Exec. Board member. Said letter intentions were extortion of membership rights by fear in the meaning of Hobbs Act to the membership and furthering said extortion by using the mail and wire to do so 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1343 Boffa Supra (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) at Standing Order 5(c)). The reading out of the March 2, 1998 letter on March 25, 1998, labeled plaintiff Manos to the membership as barred for “associating with Mr. Gary Wall”--- extorting plaintiff Manos’s 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2) right to “Freedom of Speech and Assembly” said reading out of letter also labeled plaintiff Manos barred to the membership for filing an affidavit in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) and for participating in the “Litigation against the Local Union” and for “accompanied Mr. Wall to Court in Bridgeport on Tuesday February 24, 1998” (Federal District Court), violating plaintiff Manos, Cookseys and Walls 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(4) right “Protection of the Right to Sue”; Doing so, by violating Manos, Cooksey and Wall’s 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(5) right to “safeguards against improper disciplinary action”¹⁰ willful, flagrant extortion of plaintiffs Manos, Cooksey and Wall’s LMRDA rights and an example (Blanket Hobbs Act) to the membership not to question any action of the leadership of Local 230. Also sending the message that the Courts are not open to you the membership (“Captive Labor Organization”) of Local 230. Defendant Haynes participation violating 18 U.S.C.1503 (Obstruction of Justice) 18 U.S.C. 1951 (Extortion of Membership Right) doing so by violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c).
18 U.S.C. 1503/ 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) NOVEMBER 2001
In a deposition taken of defendant Haynes dated November 2001 in Hartford, Connecticut, defendant Haynes enables, aided and abets the extortion scheme and assault by giving false testimony in said deposition stating said Hobbs Act violations and the assault never happen and obstructing Justice as a signatory with the United States. Said fraudulent statements were mailed December 3, 2001 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 (stated with particularity under Standing Order No. 5(c)).
See: United States v. Boffa 688 F2d 919 this Court held that the RICO predicate act of mail fraud 18 U.S.C. 1341 may encompass a scheme to deprive union members of the right to honest and faithful service of union officials as provided in Section 501 of the LMRDA”

See United States v. Davidson 760 F2d 97 “reasonably anticipate that the mails would be used” violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reason of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
See United States v. Field 432 Fed. Supp 55 “the language of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) clearly contemplates prolonged course of conduct and like Statute of Limitations for conspiracy, which runs from date of last overt act, Statute of Limitations of violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) runs from date of last act of racketeering activity”

See also: United States v. Torress Lopez 851 F. 2d 520” Statute of Limitations for RICO conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) should not begin to run until accomplishment of or abandonment of objectives of conspiracy”—

See also: Bankers Trust Supra EnBanc 2d Cir. at 1102 “Statute of Limitations which runs” --- “where a conspiracy violation is alleged pursuant to subsection (d) from the time the objectives of the conspiracy have been accomplished or abandoned”---

See also Agency Holding v. Malloy – Duff 483 U. S. 143
“The 4 year statute of limitations applicable to Clayton Act Civil enforcement actions, 15 U.S.C. 15(b) applied in RICO civil enforcement actions”

DEFENDANT LUSKIN AND DEFENDANT HAYNES 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) CONSPIRACY LUSKIN VIOLATING 1962(b)(c) HAYNES VIOLATING 1962(d)(c)

From in or about February 1995 to in or about February 2000 (within the 4 year statute of limitations), defendant Luskin and defendant Haynes conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) by multiple acts of obstructing justice (18 U.S.C. 1503) 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5,) in their dual capacity as LIUNA officials and signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with the United States.
Defendant Luskin and Defendant Haynes are the only two defendants Civil Rico charged with 18 U.S.C. 1503 (obstruction of justice) inter alia. Because they are the only two signatories to the “Operating Agreement” with the United States, a racketeering scheme in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5). In their capacity as signatories with the United States and as officials of LIUNA – both defendants have by either participation, authorization or ratification violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) with each other and with the other defendants in violation of multiple direct predicate RICO acts 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).
Repeating the important distinction in this complaint, only defendants Luskin and Haynes are being Civil RICO charged with 18 U.S.C. 1503 as an “activity” of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). For defendant Luskin for reasons of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) “control” and 1962(c) “participation affairs of an enterprise”. For defendant Haynes, violation 1962(d) for reason of 1962(c) “participation affairs of an enterprise”. The 1961(5) “Operating Agreement’ obstructed a 212-page RICO complaint, it obstructed the remedial protection of multiple predicate act violations of 1961 committed against the plaintiffs and it directly harmed the plaintiffs LMRDA and Statutory Property Rights.
Discovery in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) has documented that the “Operating Agreement” has obstructed the Executive Branch of government and the Judicial Branch of government. Quote page 6 of the 1995 Agreement page 7 of the revised 2001agreement in its relative part:
“Anyone, including a union officer, representative, member, contractor or vendor, or law enforcement organizations may refer a complaint against a union official or member by filing it with the G.E.B. attorney. The G.E.B. attorney or the Inspector General will investigate it and decide whether charges should be brought”.

Quote relevant excerpts from “Summary of LIUNA Government Agreement”
“This agreement is a first – of – its – kind in the history of union – government partnering” --- “ it is completely different from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters situation, which was an example of government take-over and control of a union”.

The key difference between the “Operating Agreement” for LIUNA and the Consent Decree for I.B.T. is the “Operating Agreement” has no judicial jurisdiction. The Consent Decree was consent by I.B.T. for Judicial jurisdiction. Also officials of I.B.T. had no power to “discipline”. Under the Consent Decree, “discipline” is the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court. “Discipline” and discretion to discipline under the “Operating Agreement” is “controlled” by defendant Luskin and his hand picked Inspector General both hand picked and paid for by Arthur Coia Jr.
The foregoing demonstration shows multiple 1962(d) schemes committed by defendant Haynes. Some dating as far back as 1986 and continuing to present day in his capacity as 8^th, 3rd and 1^st V.P. and one major 1962(d) scheme (18 U.S.C. 1503) dating from February 13, 1995 to February 2000 in his capacity as signatory to the United States, all violating 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).
DEFENDANT LOCAL 230 is an entity corporation 18 U.S.C. 1961(3)(4) involved in interstate commerce; Local 230 has been a “Captive Labor Organization” for over three decades and continues to be maintained and controlled by the same “Governance Structure” by and through the “Operating Agreement” with the Department of Justice, from February 13, 1995 to present day, with no determinable completion date. Arthur Coia Sr. with three of the defendants (Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzenti) acquired “control” of Local 230 through filing fraudulent LM15 and LM 16 trusteeship forms in or about 1970. And the pattern of racketeering continues “Open Ended” to this day with “evidence that the associates function as a continuing unit” Turkette Supra 452 U.S.576; 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5).
DEFENDANT LOPREATO: Defendant Lopreato has been Business Manager of Local 230 at relevant times in this RICO complaint. He has also been a hierarchal associate in fact of the Coia enterprise at all times relevant in this RICO Complaint 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5). Defendant Lopreato is also a defendant in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH). Defendant Lopreato gave his mailing address in deposition as 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. 06108 (Attorney Cheverie office address).


RICO ENTERPRISE BACKGROUND 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c)
Defendant Lopreato is an effective date (Oct. 15, 1970) RICO defendants. Defendant Lopreato acquired control of Local 230 in or about 1970 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) through an unlawful conspiracy in violation of 1962(d) with Arthur Coia Sr., defendant LeConche and defendant Pezzenti by filing fraudulent LM 15 and 16 trusteeship forms with the United States Department of Labor.
ENTERPRISE RACKETEERING INJURIES LOPREATO 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c)
From in or about 1986 to 1990 defendant Lopreato participated in the affairs of an enterprise in the extortion of the plaintiffs LMRDA 401; 411; and 501 Property Rights See quotation Platform Extortion Scheme at pages 19, 20, 21. In addition, defendant Lopreato interfered with by extortion plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey’s Right to Work, See NLRB Case Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230/LIUNA et al 39-CA-3046. From in or about Late 1991 early 1992, defendant Lopreato in his position as Business Manager and pension trustee participated in the fraudulent depletion of plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey’s pension in violation of 18 U.S.C. 664. See Under Defendant Connecticut Laborers Pension Fund at pages 52-59 of this RICO Complaint. From in or about 1992 to 1995 defendant Lopreato participated in the affairs of an enterprise by committing multiple acts of mail fraud 18 U.S.C. 1341 See Boffa Supra, pleaded in compliance with F.R.C.P. 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c).
On or about December 2002 defendant Lopreato gave false testimony in the furtherance of a scheme to deprive the plaintiffs of their Section 401, 411, 501 LMRDA Rights See Boffa Supra doing so by committing mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341) in the mailing of the deposition see United States v. Davidson 760 F. 2d 97 (reasonably anticipate that the mails would be used) for reason of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(b,c) pleaded in compliance with F.R.C.P. 9(b) in Standing Order No. 5(c).
From in or about July 1996 to present day defendant Lopreato has participated in the affairs of an enterprise by violating 29 U.S.C. 501(c) see at pages 7, 8,9 of this RICO Complaint MULTI SHCEME NO. TWO “ABSTRACT” AND “CONVERT” EMBEZZLEMENT TO DEFENDANT CHEVERIE AND LOPREATO”. Defendant Lopreato has committed the 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) violations by violating 1962(d) for reasons of violating 1962(b)(c) to this day open ended. Defendant Lopreato is a Hierarchical associate in fact of the Sub Rosa 1961(4) RICO enterprise that controls Local 230, with no regard for Honorable Judge Daley’s 29 U.S.C. 504 Barring Order.
DEFENDANT JOHN PEZZENTI defendant Pezzenti has been Business Manager, President and V.P. of Local 230 at relevant times in this RICO Complaint. He has also been an associate in fact of this Coia enterprise at all relevant times in this RICO Complaint. Defendant Pezzenti is also a defendant in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97CV-00942(JCH). Defendant Pezzenti’s business address is 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114.
ENTERPRISE BACKGROUND PEZZENTI
Defendant Pezzenti is an effective date (Oct. 15, 1970) RICO defendant. Defendant Pezzenti participated in the acquired control of Local 230 in or about 1970 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) through an unlawful conspiracy with Arthur Coia Sr. and defendant Lopreato and LeConche by filing fraudulent LM 15 and 16 trusteeship forms with the United States Department of Labor.
ENTERPRISE RACKETEERING INJURIES PEZZENTI
From in or about 1986 to 1990 defendant Pezzenti participated in the affairs of an enterprise in the extortion of the plaintiffs LMRDA 401, 411, 501 Property Rights see “Platform Extortion Scheme at pages 20, 21, 22. In addition, defendant Pezzenti interfered with by extortion plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey’s Right to Work. See: NLRB Case Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 LIUNA et al 39-CV-3046. From in or about 1986 to present day defendant Pezzenti has extorted 18 U.S.C. 1951, plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey’s 29 U.S.C. 401(b) Employment Rights by intentionally and fraudulently labeling out loud to the membership, plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey as the persons who committed the baseball bat assault against him – from 1986 to 1995 identifying plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey as black balled members because of the crime – from 1995 to present day identifying plaintiff Wall and Cooksey as “barred” members pursuant to the “Operating Agreement” harming by this extortion scheme the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 411 Rights. See: United States v. Dillard 101 F.2d 829 “where utterances were repeated again and again for a period of eighteen (18) months they were continuous enough to be a scheme”. The only difference between Dillard Supra and this instant RICO scheme is the degree of harm in this RICO scheme and the duration of the scheme. This is the beginning of the 18^th year of this continuous scheme not 18 months as in Dillard Supra.
On November 26, 2001, defendant Pezzenti gave intentional false testimony concerning the Hobbs Act violations and 530 assault committed against plaintiff Manos on July 30, 1997, furthering the 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) racketeering pattern, violating 1961(5). See July 1997 Executive Board Meeting extortion schemes at page 23, 24 of this RICO Complaint. On November 26, 2001, defendant Pezzenti gave perjured testimony continuing the July 1997 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) conspiracy. Relevant excerpts taken from Pezzenti deposition November 26, 2001:
Page 31:
Wall: “Do you remember how Stephen Manos left that meeting”
Pezzente: “I mean there was a lot of commotion, there was a lot of yelling. Steve was yelling. There was a lot of yelling and all I know is they just showed him the door, and he went out the door and that was it.”
Wall: “They just what?”
Pezzente: “He went out the side door, and that was it. That’s all I know.”
Wall: “The side door?”
Pezzenti: “Yea”
Wall: “Not the front door?”
Pezzente: “Wall, it was a patio restaurant. There was a side door there, and he just went out the side door”
Wall: “that’s a fire exit?”
Pezzente: “yes”
Wall: “So he just go up, said I’m leaving walked out the fire exit”
Page 35:
Pezzente: “Well, what happened with him is he was doing a lot of yelling. There was a faucet there, and he turned on the water, and he slipped on the water and fell down” and Frankie just helped him get up, and he took him to the door and there was a lot of yelling and hollering, and a lot of commotion and that was it”
Wall: “He slipped on the water?”
Pezzenti: “He slipped on the water, because the water flooded the whole floor, and somebody finally shut the water off.”
Wall: “And then Frankie – who’s Frankie?”
Pezzenti: “Frankie Freeman is a Vice-President of the Laborers’ Union now”
Wall: “And he helped him out the fire exit?”
Pezzente: “He helped him up. He fell down, he picked him up. That was it.”
Wall: “Were you ever questioned about that by anybody?”
Pezzente: “Yeah, I guess people from Washington came down, Inspectors came down, yeah. And I told them the same thing.
Wall: “You told them that he slipped on the water?”
Pezzente: “Well, I said he fell down. I don’t recall the water, but I do recall he fell down in the water.”
Page 36:
Wall: “Was that from Robert Luskin’s office, the Inspector?”
Pezzente: “Yes, I guess so.”
Wall: “It wasn’t F.B.I. Agents?”
Pezzente: “No. I think it was from Luskin’s Office.”

This testimony also shows defendant Luskin’s 18 U.S.C. 1503 scheme to divert and direct the Chicago, U. S. Attorney’s Office and the F.B.I. from substantive criminal investigation in the District of Connecticut and in so doing replacing them with (his) investigators, in order to cover Federal crimes and protect Arthur Coia Jr’s associate in fact enterprise (18 U.S.C. 1503).
The following illustration is the exact wording of two affidavits entered in 3:97-CV-02502(JCH) Dkt. #100 affidavit of Judith Dobrich dated August 30, 1999.
“l. I am over the age of 18 and understand and believe in the obligation of an oath.”
“2. My name is Judith Dobrich and I reside at 77 Hale Road in Glastonbury, CT.”
“3. I am a member of the International union of North America”
“4. I have been a member of Local 230 since 1994.”
“5. I was present during a meeting of Stephen Manos and assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Oswald and F.B.I. Special Agent Ernest Luera” (Chicago U. S. Attorney’s Office)”
“6. This Spring of 1997 meeting was held at the F.B.I. offices located in Meriden, CT.” (Before the 29 U.S.C. 530 assault).
“7. I expressed concern for the safety of Mr. Manos. Regarding his association with union bosses of Local 230”
“8. I specifically stated: “I am afraid that they are going to kill Steve and nobody will know why, because they’re all going to lie”
“9. U. S. Attorney Oswald stated: “If anyone so much as musses a hair on his [Manos’s] head, we will swoop down”
“10. After Mr. Manos was brutally assaulted on July 30, 1997 and while he was still in the hospital, I immediately contacted the Chicago Office of the Department of Justice”
“11. Soon thereafter, that same office cut off all communication with me with no explanation.”

Second Affidavit Stephen Manos dated also August 30, 1999 exact wording:

“1. I am over the age of 18 and understand and believe in the obligation of an oath.”
“2. My name is Stephen Manos and I reside at 77 Hale Road in Glastonbury, CT.”
“3. I am a retired member of Laborers’ International Union of North America” (retired because of fear Hobbs Act)
“4. I was Vice-President of Hartford Local 230 from June 1995 to June 1998.”
“5. In March of 1997, I personally met with Assistant U. S. Attorney General Oswald and F.B.I. Agent Ernest Luera in the F.B.I. offices in Meriden, Connecticut.” (Before the 29 U.S.C. 530 assault).
“6. Oswald and Luera work out of the Department of Justice in Chicago, Illinois.”
“7. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss racketeering activity occurring inside of Local 230.”
“8. I personally told Oswald and Luera that I was concerned about my physical safety because of my providing information to them.”
“9. Assistant U. S. Attorney Oswald responded with the following statement: “If anyone musses a hair on your head, we will swoop down.”
“10. I was physically assaulted by union officials at a Local 230 Executive Board Meeting held on July 30, 1997.”
“11. I reported this assault to Oswald and Luera and was subsequently abandoned by their department with all communication cut off and never an explanation.”

18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) PEZZENTI
In or about December 27, 1985, defendant Pezzenti knowingly filed a fraudulent Police Report in collusion with defendant Lopreato. The 1341 violation occurred in or about July or September 1986 via a subpoena to the Newington Police Department from Attorney David Kamins, Hartford, Connecticut. The fraudulent police report was mailed back to Attorney Kamins. Said fraudulent police report identified the baseball bat assault, as plaintiff Wall, and making the baseball bat assault union related knowing the mails would be used. In or about April 9, 1996, defendant Pezzenti “participated” in an 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343 scheme to identify Wall and Cooksey as barred members (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c)). In or about March 2, 1998, defendant Pezzenti participated in an 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343 scheme to identify plaintiff Wall and Manos as barred members. (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c)). In or about October 1997 defendant Pezzenti participated in a 18 U.S.C. 1341 scheme to the membership 740 Counts of mail fraud stating “there was no assault during the July Executive Board Meeting”---a continuation of the extortion of plaintiff Manos LMRDA Rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c)). Defendant
As just illustrated, in or about November 26, 2001, defendant Pezzenti gave intentional fraudulent statements in a sworn deposition, concerning the July 1997 extortion and assault committed against plaintiff Manos, with reasonable knowledge the mails would be used, violating 18 U.S.C. 1341 violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c). Defendant Pezzenti also gave on November 26, 2001, intentional fraudulent statements in sworn depositions concerning the December 1985 baseball bat assault knowing the mails would be used in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) see: Pleaded under “Demonstration Associate in fact 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) defendants Cheverie, Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzente Scheme” at pages 41 – 46 in this RICO Complaint.
DEFENDANT CHARLES LECONCHE defendant LeConche has been President and Business Manager of Local 230 at relevant times in this RICO Complaint. He has also been an associate in fact of the Coia enterprise at all relevant times in this RICO Complaint. Defendant LeConche is also a defendant in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH). Defendant LeConche’s business address is 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114.
ENTERPRISE BACKGROUND LECONCHE
Defendant LeConche is an effective date (Oct. 15, 1970) RICO defendant. Defendant LeConche participated in the acquired control of Local 230 in or about 1970 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) through an unlawful conspiracy with Arthur Coia Sr., defendant Lopreato and defendant Pezzenti by filing fraudulent LM 15 and 16 Trusteeship Forms with the United States Department of Labor.
ENTERPRISE RACKETEERING INJURIES LECONCHE

From in or about 1986 to 1990 defendant LeConche participated in the affairs of an enterprise in the extortion of the plaintiffs’ LMRDA 401, 411 and 501 Property Rights. See: Platform Extortion Scheme at pages 20, 21, 22. In addition defendant LeConche interfered with by extortion plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey’s Right to Work. See: NLRB Case Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230/LIUNA et al 39-CV-3046. From in or about 1992 to 1996 defendant LeConche participated in a mail fraud scheme “indirectly” and “directly” in or about January 1996 against plaintiff Wall and Cooksey (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c)). On July 30, 1997, defendant LeConche committed multiple Hobbs Act violations and aided a 29 U.S.C. 530 assault against plaintiff Manos 29 U.S.C. 411 Rights see “July 1997 Executive Board Meeting Enterprise Racketeering Scheme” at pages 23 - 24 of this RICO Complaint. On March 17, 1998 defendant LeConche filed a complaint against plaintiff Manos in the district of Hartford LeConche Laborers’ Local 230 v. Manos 3:98-CV-00489(AWT) disguised as a tort action against plaintiff Manos for having a tape recorder on his person “for the purpose of a tortuous act against plaintiff” (LeConche) “in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2510”. In actuality said federal action LeConche Local 230 v. Manos Supra was an intentional act of extortion 18 U.S.C. 1951 fear of economic execution. Said extortion was also meant as “retaliating against a witness, victim” 18 U.S.C. 1513/1961(1) ¹¹. The 18 U.S.C. 1951/1513 Scheme was stopped because plaintiff Manos defended himself pro se and plaintiff LeConche and Local 230 withdrew the complaint about a year later because they could not go to discovery. All of the associates in fact defendants in this case have heard and know the contents of the July 1997 Manos tape. The defendant, Attorney (Tomasiewicz) in LeConche Local 230 v. Manos Supra criminal intentions Mens Rea were “the improper and tortuous use of legitimately issued Court process to obtain a result that is – unlawful” (abuse of legal process). On its face a legitimately issued Court process a RICO Sub Rosa Scheme – In actuality, participating in the conduct and affairs of an enterprise violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) by violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) defendant Tomasiewicz and defendant LeConche. Defendant LeConche harmed plaintiff Manos Federal Property Rights violating 18 U.S.C. 1951/ 18 U.S.C. 1513 “(retaliating against witness victim)”. Defendant Tomasiewicz harmed plaintiff Manos Federal Property Rights by violating 18 U.S.C. 1951/18 U.S.C. 1512 “(tampering with a witness, victim)” in a pattern of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5).
In or about June 21, 2002, in a second deposition conducted of defendant LeConche, defendant LeConche continued committing multiple acts of perjury in a scheme to harm plaintiffs Manos, Wall and Cooksey’s LMRDA Rights. See Boffa Supra 688 F.2d 919 reasonably anticipating the mails would be used see Davidson Supra 760 F.2d 97 (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c)) violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) 1961(1) 1341(5).
DEFENDANT ROBERT M. CHEVERIE
Defendant Robert M. Cheverie is General Counsel Local 230. Defendant Cheverie was appointed to that position in or about 1987 by Arthur Coia Sr. Defendant Cheverie has participated in the affairs of the enterprise since his appointment in or about 1987. In 1986 and continuing until 1990, attorney Cheverie participated in the extortion (Phase One) of plaintiff Wall and Cooksey 29 U.S.C. 411 through the Platform Extortion Scheme. From in or about 1996 to 1998, defendant Cheverie participated in the extortion (Phase Two) of plaintiff Manos 29 U.S.C. 411 Rights through the Platform Extortion Scheme, see pages 20, 21 and 22 of the RICO Complaint (Phase One and Two of the Platform Extortion Scheme).
In or about April 9, 1996, defendant Cheverie participated in the affairs of the enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) by composing, signing and causing the mailing and wiring of a fraudulent letter dated April 9, 1996 to the Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961, 1341, 1343. Said letter was a Boffa Supra Scheme to deprive and harm plaintiff Wall and Cooksey’s LMRDA Rights (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order 5(c)).
In or about March 2, 1998, attorney Cheverie composed and caused the mailing and wiring of a fraudulent letter from the district counsel to Local 230, to the Inspector General in a scheme to deprive and harm plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Manos 29 U.S.C. 411 Rights violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c), 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343 (pleaded in compliance with Rule 9(b) under Standing Order No. 5(c)).
From in or about July 1997 in a continuing “Open Ended” pattern of extortion of membership money (dating back to 1986), Attorney Cheverie violated with defendant Luskin and defendant Lopreato 29 U.S.C 501(c) see in this RICO Compliant at pages 7 through 9:
“MULTI SCHEME NO. TWO “ABSTRACT” AND “CONVERT” EMBEZZLEMENT TO DEFENDANT CHEVERIE AND LOPREATO VIOLATING 29 U.S.C. 501(c) 1962(d)(b)(c)”

See also page 9 through 11:
“MULTI SCHEME NO. THREE D.O.J. LUSKIN SIGNED AGREEMENT”
See Pages 11 through 12:
“MULTI SCHEME NO. FOUR EMBEZZLEMENT 29 U.S.C. 501(c) BY EXTORTION 18 U.S.C. 1951 CONTINUED AND FURTHERED BY THE OPERATING AGREEMENT”

DEPOSITION DEFENDANT CHEVERIE APRIL 25, 2002 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1962(d)(b)(c)

On April 25, 2002, defendant Cheverie continued a scheme dating back to 1985 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) to deprive and harm plaintiff Wall and Cooksey’s LMRDA Property Rights by committing multiple acts of perjury in a deposition knowing the mails would be used in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 violating 18 U.S.C. 1961(5). Because of the longevity of this 1962(d) associate in fact conspiracy, a summary showing is demonstrated.
APRIL 9^TH 1996 LETTER FABRICATED COURTROOM THREATS OF VIOLENCE

During the deposition of defendant Cheverie, April 25, 2002, plaintiff Wall questioned defendant Cheverie about a statement in the April 9, 1996 letter accusing plaintiff Wall of threatening Attorney Cheverie that being “I was personally threatened by Mr. Wall during the Court proceeding” for the Court’s convenience excerpts page 15-16
Wall: “And it said you were personally threatened by me in a Court proceeding?”
Cheverie: “That’s correct”
Wall: “Where was that”
Cheverie: “At the Nations Labor Board”
Wall: “while the court was in proceeding?”
Cheverie: “That’s correct”
Wall: “the Court was going on?”
Cheverie: “That’s Correct”
Wall: “What did the Judge do”
Cheverie: “The Judge took a recess and called all the lawyers in the back and he said to me “Mr. Cheverie, if you have any further questions for Mr. Wall, I’m concerned for your safety and I will not allow anymore questioning because I think Mr. Wall is going to attack you. Unless we have two federal Marshal’s between you and him, I’m not going to allow any further questions”. I said ‘Your Honor as long as you know what I’m dealing with, I have no further questions’. We came back out and said.
Wall: “Who was that? Wallace Nations?”
Cheverie: “Yes”
Wall: “How come nobody ever mentioned that to me?”
Cheverie: “It was off the record. We went in closed doors, just the lawyers. If your lawyer didn’t tell you, that’s between you and him.”
Wall: “My lawyer? I didn’t have lawyer”

We were proceeding without a lawyer because just before the trail started our attorney had a severe personal problem that caused him to go out of business. Also in addition to the fact that Judge Nations would never tolerate threats of violence in his Courtroom. He would never have Ruled in favor of plaintiffs (18 out of 18 counts) if he even thought for one second that I would attack someone in his Courtroom and he needed U.S. Marshals to protect Cheverie from me.
Pending in the District of Columbia in subpoena case Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 02-MS-354(TPJ) is a motion to compel the National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. to submit and allow the Hon. Judge Nations to answer the following Rule 31(a)(2) question.
“Was there any ex-parte meeting between Your Honor and Attorney Cheverie because you feared for physical safety because of Gary Wall yes_____ no_________”
DEMONSTRATION ASSOCIATE IN FACT 1962(d)(b)(c) DEFENDANT CHEVERIE, LOPREATO, LECONCHE AND PEZZENTI SCHEME

To start with, defendant Attorney Cheverie on April 25, 2002 was being questioned on the April 9, 1996 letter that he signed address to Inspector Lill Inspector General Office, Washington, D.C. Said deposition was by leave of the Court in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-CV-00942(JCH). The subject matter of the deposition of defendant Cheverie was restricted by the Court to only the contents of the April 9, 1996 letter, which included the baseball bat assault of John Pezzenti (1985) and other alleged assaults and Hobbs Act violations allegedly committed by plaintiff Wall – stating also “during the majority of these incidents William Cooksey accompanied Mr. Wall” ALL of the allegations in the April 9^th letter have been proven false in depositions in 942(JCH).
In order to show the reckless flagrant frauds committed against plaintiff Wall and Cooksey in this one continuance 1962(d) conspiracy the plaintiffs will quote relevant excerpts from a police report and mail fraud mailings.
First Quote excerpt is from a Newington Police Report dated 12/27/85:
“Later in the interview Pezzente stated that on Friday afternoon he was at the Cane Mobil on Franklin Ave Hartford, and at about 1515 hrs he stated that he observed Gary Wall with a person known to Pezzente as one Sonny Castagna. According to Pezzente both Wall and Castagna got into a vehicle that was parked in front of 174 Franklin Ave. Hartford. The composites will be given out at the construction site (50 State St Hartford) and an interview with Lopreato is forth coming”.

50 State Street is where plaintiff Wall was employed at the time. In addition to the composites, the union posted a $10,000 dollar reward on the job site that was also put into the Hartford Courant.
Next excerpt is from the April 9, 1996 letter (signed by defendant Cheverie):
“In this regard, Wall was observed by Pezzente in the presence of Grasso shortly before the beating occurred. The attack done by individuals in ski masks wielding baseball bats, without any provocation or words exchanged, has been viewed as a “professional job”. This attack also was in close proximity to instances where Wall and Grasso attempted to run then Business Manager Dominick Lopreato off the road”.

Please compare the next excerpts from the March 2, 1998 letter with the April 9, 1996 letter and the excerpt from the 12/27/85 police report all on this page. Please take notice that in 1985 plaintiff Wall’s accomplish is Sonny Castagna. In 1989, Sonny Castagna went into the witness protection program so the defendants change the accomplish to Mr. Grasso who is now dead in 1996, and they put ski masks on the assailants because one composite looks like Sonny Castagna, then after plaintiff Wall raises that discrepancy in or about 1997 the defendant go back to Sonny Castagna. See Next Excerpt March 2, 1998 letter:
“Finally, Mr. Wall was observed in the presence of Mr. Castagna shortly before the beating of Business Agent John Pezzente at his home on December 27, 1985. Mr. Pezzente could not make a positive identification, but he clearly described individuals meeting Mr. Wall and Mr. Castagna’s general description in police reports, copies of which are attached.”

The act of mailing and wiring again in or about March 2, 1998 “police reports, copies of which are attached” continues the 18 U.S.C 1962(d) mail and wire fraud conspiracy from 1985 to 1998 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, for reasons of violating 1962(b)(c) and continuing into the Pezzente deposition November 26, 2001.
Next excerpt from deposition of defendant Pezzenti taken in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) at Room 320, Hartford Federal Building, November 26, 2001:
Page 28:
Wall: “Did they have ski masks on?”
Pezzenti: “did they have what?”
Wall: “Ski masks?”
Pezzenti: “No. no ski masks no.”

Page 19:

Wall: “You remember saying that you saw Mr. Sonny Castagna and I, on Franklin Avenue?”
Pezzenti: “Yes, I do. That’s one thing I remember real good.”

Page 20

Wall: “Yea?”
Pezzenti: “On a Friday at 3:15 am at 3:15 pm there was a booking place across the street, where RICO Petrillo and all those bookies go there. And you walked out of that bookie, down Elliot down Franklin Avenue, up Elliot Street, and you got into a gray Buick. And at my house about 20 minutes to five, I don’t know who informed you where my house was, but you came running out. I got hit over the head several times, somebody yelling like a maniac and I was full of blood, and got up and yelled and I fell down, and then I ended up in the hospital. And I got one disc down here, and another one up here, which causes me to get dizzy and everything. And I got a separated stomach. You know what a separated stomach is? Well, I’ll show you, I exercise every day. Here’s that separated stomach (lifts shirt up). See that? (Hits self in stomach) that needs to be operated on. A big operation, on account of those clubs. And believe me, if I knew it was you. You wouldn’t be sittin there”

For the Courts understanding, defendant Pezzenti is a subordinate defendant placed purposely in hierarchal positions as a hierarchal actor in unlawful conduct dating back to Arthur Coia Sr 1970 to present day – because he will repeat and or do whatever the Hierarchal defendants tell him to do. He is sometimes used as Business Manager in election schemes. Defendant Pezzenti is semi illiterate that is one of the reasons he is used, the same common purpose defendant Luskin uses defendant Haynes. He will sign anything or say anything. During defendant Pezzenti’s deposition he constantly positively identifying plaintiff Wall as one of the assailants and then in an inconsistent fashion, infers plaintiff Wall is the assailant. At membership meetings, he yells out to members positively it was plaintiff Wall including plaintiff Cooksey in the crime. The associate in fact defendants in this RICO case will do anything to stop him from being exposed to a jury or a judge.
ADDITIONAL COMPONENT PART ENTERPRISE RACKETEERING SCHEME (IN APRIL 9, 1996) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)

Please take notice on the previous page the sentence (in April 9, 1996 Letter):

“This attack also was in close proximity to instances where Wall and Grasso attempted to run then Business Manager Dominick Lopreato off the road”

Before reading the excerpts from the following depositions (Cheverie, LeConche, Lopreato), please take notice of the word instances (Plural), intentionally plural for reasons of framing plaintiff Wall for 18 U.S.C. 1951/1961(5) predicates. In addition, take into consideration that there is an agreement between the D.O.J. and the Operating Agreement to use the Operating Agreement’s investigations as Grand Jury material.
DEPOSITION DEFENDANT CHEVERIE APRIL 25, 2002
Page 14:
Wall: “Dominick Lopreato said that Mr. Grasso and I tried to run him off the road?”
Cheverie: “Correct”
Wall: “when you say Charlie, Charlie said it to?”
Cheverie: “Charlie related it to me, and then I spoke with Dominick.”
Wall: “Okay, and no one called the F.B.I. of this huh?”
Cheverie: “I don’t know”

Deposition defendant LeConche (Second deposition) taken June 21, 2002:

Page 50:
Wall: “then quote: This attack also was in close proximity to where Wall and Grasso attempted to run then business manager Dominick Lopreato off the road. Did Dominick ever tell you that?”
LeConche: “Yes, he did.”

Page 51:
LeConche: “Right. We were informed; right. I was informed”
Wall: “You were informed, it says we?”
LeConche: “By Mr. Lopreato?”
Wall: “By Mr. Lopreato?”
LeConche: “That’s correct.”

Deposition defendant Lopreato December 7, 2002:

Page 23:
Wall: “Got some wild stories here, boy. Here is another one. “This attack” on page 2 of that same April 9 Letter. “This attack also was in close proximity to instances where Wall and Grasso attempted to run then business manager Lopreato off the road”. Did you make that statement?”
Lopreato: “No”
Wall: “You never made that statement?”
Lopreato: “No”
Wall: “We never, Mr. Grasso and I never tried to run you off the road?”
Lopreato: “Not me.”
Wall: “That is what I mean you would have called the F.B.I. wouldn’t you?”
Lopreato: “I don’t know if I would’ve called the F.B.I.”
Wall: “But you would do something?”
Lopreato: “I probably would have done something”

Also regarding the Cheverie deposition of April 25, 2002
Page 9:
Wall: “Okay. Finally the brutal beating of John Pezzente at his home two days after Christmas is undoubtedly linked to Mr. Wall’s criminal associations” I’m reading from the letter. If I say something that you don’t agree with, correct me, please. In this regard Wall was observed by Pezzente in the presence of Grasso shortly before the beating occurred “who relayed that to you?”
Cheverie: “John Pezzente”
Wall: “And I was seen with Mr. Grasso shortly before the beating occurred?”
Cheverie: “That’s what he told me?”

PEZZENTE DEPOSITION NOVEMBER 26, 2001
Page 27:
Wall: (reading from April 9, 1996 letter) “In this regard Wall was observed by Pezzente, in the presence of Grasso, shortly before the beating occurred”
Pezzente: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Wall: “Well, I’m just telling you what it says in the letter here”
Pezzente: “I don’t know nothing about it.”

Also in the Cheverie deposition of April 25, 2002 at Page 5:
Wall: “Would you explain why it’s your opinion that Mr. Cooksey and I are barred?”
Cheverie: “Yeah. I think my opinion based upon what was told to me by members of the Laborers’ Local 230 of your association with Billy Grasso, an organized criminal figure, by extension Mr. Cooksey’s association with you, and my opinion would render you both barred.”¹²

DEFENDANT CHEVERIE MAIL FRAUD 18 U.S.C. 1341 FABRICATION AND ISSUANCES OF FRAUDULENT FEDERAL SUBPOENAS ONE DATED MAY 11, 1998 THE OTHER DATED JANUARY 24, 2002

On January 24, 2002 plaintiff Cooksey was deposed in Room 320, Federal Building, Hartford, Connecticut by Attorney Robert M. Cheverie, Attorney Patrick Tomasiewicz and Attorney John T. Fussell in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH), plaintiff Wall present during the deposition plaintiff Cooksey realizes that the defendants attorneys have his psychiatric records.
Page 111:
Cooksey: “Can anybody tell who was given the medical records.”
Cheverie: “They were subpoenaed”.
Cooksey: “From the Fund?”
Cheverie: “Yes what happened was your disability pension records were subpoenaed as part of your disability pension record.”
Cooksey: “they didn’t have to notify me at all?”
Cheverie: “Not of the subpoena.”
Wall: “I didn’t get a copy of the subpoena”
Cooksey: “I was never notified they are my medical records, absolutely only use of these records are inside the fund, absolutely. I signed a declaration to that.”

Later in the deposition defendants entered defendants 44 and 45 Connecticut Laborers Pension Fund Pension print out forms. Upon review of the documents, plaintiff Wall noticed at the top of both documents a fax log which printed “01/24/2002 11:41 203-933-1083 CT Laborers page 2/4” on defendants 44 and a fax log on defendants 45 which printed “01/24/2002 11:41 203-933-1083 CT. Laborers page 3-4 page 4-4”. The fax number 203-933-1083 is the fax number of Connecticut Laborers Pension Fund. Just prior to that plaintiff Wall noticed that Attorney Fussell was making calls on his cell phone and going into the hallway waiting for someone. Finally, when plaintiff Wall thought he had seen enough, he politely confronted the attorneys about their racketeering scheme.
Page 130:
Wall: “Can I ask you a question here?”
Cheverie: “Not me, its not my – I am done with the document”

Page 131:

Wall: “I can’t ask you a question here?”
Cheverie: “No, I don’t know that I could answer it even if you did”.
Wall: “It’s a very simple question, I want to know if you, if you subpoenaed this document at the same time you subpoenaed the other thing.”
Cheverie: “of course.”
Wall: “You did”
Cheverie: “I would presume we did”
Wall: “Why was it just faxed to you today at 11:41 from the pension office, area code 203-983-1083? Let the record reflect that”
Cheverie: “Okay”
Attorney Tomasiewicz: “Let the record also reflect that Mr. Cheverie said I presume that it was subpoenaed versus, hold on sir, versus an intention on his part to record further reflect that during these proceedings an administrative assistant from Mr. Cheverie’s office came in here and let the record further reflect that during the questioning of Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Cheverie at all times was questioning was not outside the room, was not using the telephone to contact his office”

Page 132

And let the record further reflect that it is possible that this was faxed today that Mr. Cheverie made a mistake. Let’s go forward.”
Wall: “Let the record reflect also here that Mr. Fussell made a phone call 11:22, 11:29 and 11:53”.
Attorney Tomasiewicz: “that’s fine.” That’s fine”.
Wall: “and if anybody believes that you people aren’t working with the pension to rob our money, then we might as well watch cartoons”.

See next in this 1962(d) racketeering scheme – excerpts taken from deposition of Mr. Richard Weiss Executive Director of the Laborers Pension Funds April 29, 2002, Room 320 Hartford, Connecticut at page 67 – Wall is reading off the Cooksey deposition of January 24, 2002:
Wall: “Let the record reflect also here that Mr. Fussell made a phone call at 11:22, 11:29, 11:53. Now, I am going to stop reading this and ask you a question, Mr. Weiss, Do you recall Mr. Fussell calling your fund on the 29^th those three times?’
Director Weiss: “I have a general recollection that he did call on or about that date”
Attorney Paris: For the Fund and Weiss, (Murtha and Cullina): Ms. Paris “I would like to say that I know Mr. Cheverie’s Office represents the fund; is that correct?”
Director Weiss: “yes he does”
Ms. Paris: “So that discussions of conversation between Fussell and Mr. Weiss may be privileged and since they are not here, I would”
Wall: “They waived on the record”
Ms. Paris: “That may well be. But I am in a position where I am representing someone, and I believe there is an attorney/client privilege there. I don’t know what the extent of that is. I will at this point of this deposition, will not allow Mr. Weiss to say what the conversations with Mr. Fussell were”.
Att. Tomasicwicz: “I would absolutely join in with that objection”

INCRIMINATING FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUANCE OF (AFTER THE FACT) FRAUDULANT SUBPOENAS MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1343

FRAUDULENT SUBPOENA – dated May 11, 1998 3:97-CV-02502(JCH)

Defendant Cheverie stated on the record that he relied on an attorney who was no longer affiliated with Attorney Cheverie for the issuance of the May 11, 1998 subpoena. Said attorneys name was Mr. David McCarry. Both Attorney Cheverie and Attorney Fussell said they had no idea how to contact Attorney McCarry. The plaintiffs found attorney McCarry through their own initiative. He was employed at a Bridgeport, Connecticut Law Firm. Attorney McCarry submitted an affidavit stating he had no recollection of issuing a subpoena. Attorney McCarry could not have a recollection of issuing the May 11, 1998 subpoena. Because he did not file an appearance in 3:97-CV-02502(JCH) until May 20, 1998 the subpoena was fraudulently dated May 11, 1998.
Also as of the date, May 11, 1998, Mr. Cooksey was a proposed plaintiff in 3:97-CV-2502(JCH) – Attorney Cheverie was a defendant as of May 11, 1998. Mr. Cooksey was a proposed plaintiff by motion dated 8/4/98 entry date 8/5/98 Dkt. #53 2502(JCH). The Court by Ruling dated September 24, 1998 entry date September 25, 1998 2502(JCH) (Dkt. #58 Granted the plaintiffs motion to add additional parties. Quoting the Court in its relevant part. The court: ---“Grants the plaintiff’s motion to add additional parties [Dkt. No. 53] in particular, the plaintiff may add, as plaintiffs William Cooksey and Steven Manos”… The Court can see by this illustration that at the time of the issuance of the fraudulently fabricated Federal Subpoena, Mr. Cooksey was a proposed plaintiff in 3:97-CV-02502(JCH) and Attorney Cheverie was a defendant and Attorney McCarry had not filed an appearance as of that date.
FRAUDULANT SUBPOENA DATED JANUARY 24, 2002 3:97-CV-00942(JCH)
In order to simplify and make apparent the fact that the January 24, 2002 subpoena which was issued under the LMRDA case 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) was fabricated and fraudulently mailed on February 14, 2002 – the plaintiffs repeat again the testimony of Attorney Cheverie on January 24, 2002 at or about 12:30 – 1:00
Wall: “It’s very simple question, I want to know if you subpoenaed this document at the same time you subpoenaed the other thing.”
Cheverie: “Of course”
Wall: “You did”
Cheverie: “I would presume we did”
Those statements by Attorney Cheverie are illogical and incriminating concerning the January 24, 2002 fraudulent fabricated, after the fact, Federal Subpoena. The January 24, 2002 subpoena dated under “date and time” “January 24, 2002” “9:00am”. The “issuing officer signature” is that of Robert M. Cheverie. That would mean that in a time frame of (3) to (4) hours, Attorney Cheverie forgot he issued a subpoena for “all records pertaining to William Cooksey, Sr.’s pension”. This is what substantive subsection 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) was written for (unions and their pensions) in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) “and any union or group of individuals associate in fact although not a legal entity.” Multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343 in a racketeering scheme to “Ruthlessly Crush” the plaintiff Rights and in so doing defraud the Court and the Judicial System.

After filing motions, which included documented Exhibits showing the serious fraud committed against plaintiff Cooksey – Oral Argument was held on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction before Judge Hall on March 28, 2003. Included in the relief was a request for the Court to protect the plaintiffs from this serious breach of our Rights and for the Court to protect the integrity of the Court – said relief was requested in motion form and at the oral argument.
Page 87 Oral Argument
Wall: “Your Honor, and also, I think the Court should address the fraudulent subpoenas that Mr. Cheverie” ---
The Court: “I doubt that I would be addressing that”
Wall: “Why?”
The Court: “Because you’ve asked me to Grant a motion for Preliminary Injunction. I’m going to address that.”
Wall: “But that should be in there, also.”
The Court: “I’m glad that that’s what you think. I will look at it when I take it under advisement.”

The Court never addressed the fraudulent subpoenas or took it under advisement when Ruling against the plaintiff Rule 65 Injunction nor did the Court address the embezzlement 29 U.S.C. 501(c).
Wall At Page 86 Oral Argument
Wall: “Your Honor, I would appreciate it if, in your opinion, you do address Attorney Cheverie and you do address the embezzlement of union funds under 501(c) – and we are going to appeal, Your Honor, if”
The Court: “I assume if I rule for you, you wouldn’t appeal”

The avoidance of these issues i.e. fabricated after the fact, fraudulent Federal Subpoenas and embezzlement by abstraction of union funds for legal fees in violation of a signed agreement with the D.O.J. – are not issues of discretion, discretion in the meaning of, does Judge Hall have the discretionary right not to address those issues. She does not. Those issues inter alia caused and are causing severe proximate harm to the plaintiffs and severe harm to the membership and sever harm to the integrity of a Federal Courtroom. In addition, the defendants committing these 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) crimes do not only harm the plaintiffs, in addition, by Judge Hall refusing to address these crimes – Judge Hall emboldened and encourages the defendants and their attorneys to continue their flagrant disrespect for the Courtroom and its Rules. See in addition wrongdoer No. 9 District Judge Janet C. Hall at page 78 of this RICO Complaint.
DEFENDANT CONNECTICUT LABORERS FUNDS 435 Captain Thomas Boulevard – P. O. Box 569, West Haven, Connecticut 06516. From in or about 1992 (in this Civil RICO Complaint) to present day, the Connecticut Laborers Fund has been “Influenced” and “Controlled” by the 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) associate in fact enterprise that also controls LIUNA and Local 230 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating 1962(b)(c).
DEFENDANT RICHARD WEISS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONNECTICUT LABORERS FUNDS

From in or about January 15, 1992 and continuing to present day, defendant Weiss participated in the affairs of an enterprise (18 U.S.C. 1961(4) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) by conspiring with defendants LeConche and Lopreato (union trustees) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) to embezzle plaintiff Wall’s and plaintiff Cooksey’s pension by an act of fraudulent depletion (plaintiff Wall’s entire pension) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 664 see: United States v. San Tiago 528 Fed. Rep. 2d 1130(2d Cir. 1976)
“Id. 1130 --“and that instruction that use by defendants of welfare fund monies for purposes other than those which the contributors intended meant same thing as conversion to defendants own use or to the use of another was not prejudicially erroneous”. Also see Finding No. 1 Id 1131 “General fund of union falls within meaning of term “another” as used in statute proscribing the conversion to one’s own use or to the use of “another” the funds or assets of a welfare fund 18 U.S.C. 664”

On January 15, 1992 both plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey signed for amounts to be appropriated into their pensions “Backpay Agreement” signed by Michael s. Bearse for Local 230, Peter B. Hoffman National Labor Relation Board, Wall signing for 13,420.74 and Cooksey signing for 11,364.92. Said “Backpay Agreement” stated in it relevant part “Full and complete performance by Laborers Local 230 of its obligations under this agreement shall constitute full and complete compliance by Laborers Local 230 of its backpay obligation”.
The plaintiffs’ quote now relevant excerpts of defendant Weiss deposition taken January 7, 2002, 450 Main Street, Hartford, CT. :
Page 9:
Wall: “Did Mr. Cooksey receive 11,364.92 in his pension?”
Weiss: “Well, I would have to go back and look.”
Wall: “Take your time. I am going to go get a drink of water.”
Attorney Paris: “He is ready”
Weiss: “I believe that the record reflects that the pension fund did receive that amount of money in connection with Mr. Cooksey.”
Page 10:
Wall: “That is not the question I asked you. The question I asked, did Mr. Cooksey receive 11,364.92 in his pension fund?”
Weiss: “No he did not.”
Now to page 11 Re: plaintiff Wall’s pension
Page 11:
Wall: “Now, that is also signed by Michael Bearse, I believe. Peter Hoffman, and that is my signature, Gary Wall. That also states full and complete performance by Laborers Local 230 of its obligation under this agreement shall constitute full and complete compliance by Laborers Local 230 of its backpay obligation to Wall. Do you see the amount 13,420.94? Did Wall receive $13,420.94 in his pension?”
Weiss: “No, he did not”
Later in the deposition of defendant Weiss plaintiff Wall is reading off documents subpoenaed from the fund for the deposition of January 7, 2002.
Page 27
Wall: “For example here, pension total for 0087 for Gary Wall $13,420.94 correct?”
Weiss: “Yes, it is.”
Wall: “Yes it is”
Wall: “So why does that come off my figure for 13,420.94? Someone puts money in the pension plan, doesn’t your pension plan grow by its interest? Why should I be penalized for that? What is the answer to that?”
Weiss: “Those were the arrangements agreed upon between counsel for the fund and the NLRB.”
That was January 7, 2002. On March 21, 2003, plaintiff Wall filed with the Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D. C. 20570, an NLRB 102.118 request that was granted by John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, on April 28, 2003. The principle question of the 102.118 request was directed to the (at that time) compliance lawyer NLRB Region 34 Hartford, now Assistant Regional Director Chicago NLRB Ms. Gail Moran.
Principle Relevant Question:

1. “Did you have knowledge of the after signing deduction of $4,092.49 by the pension?”
   

1. “I do not entirely understand your question. To the extent that you are asking if I knew, in early 1992, of any intended “after signing deduction” by the Pension Fund of monies to be credited to your account, my answer is no.”
   

TIME LINE SHOWING OF CONSPIRACY TO “INTERFERE” AND “OBSTRUCT” BY CORRUPTLY ADMINISTRATING AND PROCURING THE CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970 (RICO)

Said signing LIUNA, D.O.J. was signed February 13, 1995. The basic essential point of the signed agreement with the Department of Justice was that the G.E.B. attorney (In house prosecutor) be an outside attorney. By defendant Luskin’s own statements before Congressman William McCollum Subcommittee on Crime, July 25^th 1996, clearly show that defendant Luskin was not an outside attorney. The following are relevant excerpts from that hearing.
Congressman McCollum: “You first came into contact with representing LIUNA, as I understand it from somebody calling you by the name of Anthony Triani I believe is his”-Mr. Luskin: “Traini”
Mr. Luskin: “Mr. Traini called me I think the week – early the week of November 7” [1994] “and told me that the Justice Department had delivered a draft complaint to LIUNA and asked whether I would be prepared to review that draft complaint and talk to Mr. Coia about whether or not I would be retained to represent the union in connection with discussions with the Department of Justice which the Department had apparently invited”

The time line just illustrated shows clearly that defendant Luskin was not an outside attorney as required by the “Operating Agreement”. Also, when asked by Congressman McCollum how Mr. Luskin met Mr. Traini – Mr. Luskin stated as follows:
Mr. Luskin: “ I had met Mr. Traini several years before in connection with an investigation involving a fee that he had accepted from another client, not anyone associated with or related with LIUNA in anyway; that had commenced in the summer of 1992 and ended with the Justice Department”----
Congressman McCollum: “That was $250,000 of drug money from a client that he allegedly has failed to properly report to the IRS, is that correct”

Defendant Luskin represented Anthony Traini and made a deal with the Department of Justice that only charged Traini with failing to file a timely report under 26 U.S.C. 6050(D) (Attorney monetary transaction report). Traini entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and paid a $100,000 fine. Corresponding in nature and character, defendant Luskin on May 8, 1998 (time period he was G.E.B. attorney and in house prosecutor) paid a forfeiture of $245,000 to the United States to settle a fee seizure matter. On January 23, 1998 Rhode Island U. S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse asked U. S. District Judge Ernest Torres of Rhode Island to order Luskin and four other lawyers to give the government 1.9 million in fees that they were paid in the Rhode Island money laundering case. Mr. Luskin acknowledged he was paid $674,125 in fees and expenses for three years work on behalf of his client in the form of 45 Gold Bars delivered to his office by anonymous third parties valued at $505,125 as well as Swiss wire transfer of $169,000. U.S. Attorney Whitehouse also charged in his motion that Luskin exhibited “willful blindness” to the possibility that his payment were connected to illegal activity.
Wrongdoer Coia used Mr. Traini as the first lawyer to file an appearance in Connecticut for defendant Lopreato in U.S. v. Lopreato 3:94-CR-00190(TFGD), even though Attorney Traini appeared for Lopreato, his primary purpose was to protect Coia from his involvement in 3:94-CR-00190(TFGD). Defendant Luskin and Wrongdoer Coia also used Attorney Traini as “outside counsel” in an internal investigation conducted by Luskin as G.E.B. attorney/In House Prosecutor attacking the credibility of a government witness (Mr. Ron Fino) printed in a memorandum dated 3/10/99, titled: “Laborers’ President Investigated for Alleged Mafia Ties”. Said memorandum stated: “The investigation, aimed at uncovering evidence to attack Fino’s credibility was conducted by outside counsel Anthony Traini”. In addition in or about November, October 1994, there was also a White House meeting in the Oval Office participants were Arthur Coia, Jr., President Clinton, and former LIUNA Attorney Harold Ickes, then serving as President Clinton’s No. 2 White House Aide. In close proximity to this November October Oval Office Meeting, was another meeting in the State of New York participants were Arthur Coia, Jr., Robert Luskin, Victor Cambor, Harold Ickes and a woman named Lois Yates.
In close proximity to those two meetings – Arthur Coia, Jr. donates $3,076,000(million) through LIUNA to the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee] for the 1995-1996-election cycle. The Justice Department, which had drafted a 212 page RICO Complaint which had to come from a Grand Jury Referral, and had to be written off a prosecution memo, and first and foremost, incorporated in the 212 page RICO Complaint had to be under statutory law and case authority. The “significant unifying link” = The Coia “Enterprise”. 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5).
See: U. S. v. Indelicato (2d Cir. En Banc) 865 Fed Rep. 2d 1370 Id. 1375 Citing U.S. v. Weisman 624 F.2d 1118 (2d Cir.)
“The enterprise itself supplies a significant unifying link between the various predicate acts specified in Section 1961(1) that may constitute a [RICO] Pattern”

See also: U. S. v. International Teamsters 708 F. Supp. 1388 (S.D. N.Y.) Id 1405
“A RICO claim requires proof of (1) an enterprise, and (2) either participation in the enterprise or the acquisition or maintenance of an interest or control of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering.”

See also: Sedima v. Imrex 473 U.S. 479 Id. 496
“A violation of 1962(c) the section on which Sedima relies requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity”

On March 8, 1999, Mr. Coia was cleared of all racketeering counts in the 212 page RICO Complaint. That was never filed in a District Court and cannot be seen by anyone. No Mention of an “Enterprise”, the only charge failing, to pay taxes on a $450,000 Ferrari he’d bought at a cut rate with help from a union vendor and was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine. The affect of the 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy between Coia, Luskin and Haynes (and others) are the overt act violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) in the form of Obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503 violating directly or indirectly multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) harming the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 411, 529 property right also violating the plaintiffs due process rights (5 Amen.) The Enterprise Governance Structure of Coia Enterprise 1961(4) (associates in fact) are still intact, supported, protected, added and conspired with, Sub Rosa by Luskin’s criminal conspiracy to “interfer[ence]” with and “obstruction of lawful government functions”. That being: The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (RICO) causing the cited plaintiffs to be severely harmed physically (Manos on tape), statutorily and causing a severe breach of the Plaintiffs Fundamental Rights as Citizens of a nation of laws and a Constitution – Harmed by Enterprise Racketeering Injuries.
For the Court’s information relevant to defendant Luskin, sometime in or about the middle of the 1990’s, defendant Luskin published in St. John’s Law Review page 779 [Vol. 6 of 779] a Law Review Article titled:

“BEHOLD, THE DAY OF JUDGMENT IS THE RICO PATTERN REQUIREMENT VOID FOR VAGUENESS?”
Robert D. Luskin* [Footnote}

*[Footnote] A.B. 1972, Harvard University; J.D. 1979 Harvard Law School. Robert D. Luskin is a partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Powell, Goldstein, Frazier and Murphy. Mr. Luskin was formerly Special Counsel to the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, where he co-authored the Department’s RICO guidelines. He now serves as Vice Chairman RICO Committee Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association.”
__________________
The intention of said article is realized by reading the first two paragraphs – quoted:
“Twenty years of judicial interpretation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) has cast a pall of confusion over the statute’s “pattern of racketeering activity” requirement. In H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., four Justices of the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the depths of confusion to which the Court’s have sunk, observing that the majority’s muddled exegesis of RICO’s pattern requirement “bode[d] ill for the day” when a vagueness challenge to the statute was properly before the Court.”

As the British historian A. J. P. Taylor observed “nothing is inevitable until it happens”. Nevertheless, in the history of RICO jurisprudence, the “age of the vagueness challenge “surely dawns. What is astounding is that it has taken lawyers and Courts twenty years to ask whether the statute makes sense. Equally astounding is that we are about to embark upon a serious debate over whether a “person of ordinary intelligence” is capable of understanding terms so opaque that the search for their true meaning has generated “the widest and most persistent circuit split” in recent times”.

In reading the two paragraphs, it becomes evident that defendant Luskin’s interpretation and impression of the RICO statute is that it should be void. Defendant Luskin can use that argument in RICO cases in the nature of Sedima v. Imrex and H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell. He could not use that argument “confusion over the statute’s pattern of racketeering activity” with his client Arthur Coia Jr. Arthur Coia Jr. with his father and the same governance structure of the enterprise, were the target of two President’s Crime Commissions. There is no confusion over the “pattern of racketeering activity” when it comes to the “affairs of an enterprise” of this nature.
The unlawful pattern of racketeering in this RICO Complaint is objectively what the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 was written for. The only way for defense Attorney Luskin to save Coia Jr. from the 212 page RICO Complaint was to (conspire to commit an offense against the United States and conspire to defraud the United States) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, which defendant Luskin did using his impressive credentials of public trust to hide a serious Federal conspiracy. Behold the Judgment Day, [Luskin, Coia, Haynes] to conspire to “void” the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 by “defrauding the United States”, and Behold the Judgment Day for the United States if for political reasons let it happen.
For the Court’s knowledge relevant to Wrongdoer Coia; In President Reagan’s Crime Commission Report Section Six: The Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) is referred to as “A Case Waiting to be Made” at pages 161, and 162 of the report both Coia Sr. and Coia Jr. are targets. At page 160 is a heading, quote:
“A weak government response” “the government has done little to end organized crime’s hold over LIUNA”. At page 162 important reference is given by the commission to the “Leadership or governance structure”.
Quote: “the Waiting Case” “The commission believes there is little chance that LIUNA membership will be able to eliminate organized crime’s influence or control their union, if the current leadership or governance structure remains intact.”

Under the criminal parallel legal system known as the “Operating Agreement”, the exact individuals the commission was referring to as leadership and governance structure have “remain[ed] intact” Terrence O’Sullivan Jr. has replaced his father. Both were targets of the commission report. Armand Sabitini Jr. replaced his father. Armand Sabitini Sr also a target of the commission report. And, Arthur Coia Jr replaced his father. Arthur Coia Sr both targets of the commission report. The entire “leadership”, “Governance Structure”, “associates in fact” of the Coia Enterprise in Local 230 “remains intact”. Arthur Coia Jr paid millions of membership dollars to defendant Luskin and the 1962(d) conspiracy between them is open ended.
Arthur Coia Jr. visited the Clinton White House 126 times – took multiple trips with Hillary Clinton. Placed attorneys doing pro bono work for President Clinton on the LIUNA payroll. Created jobs for D.N.C. affiliates. Arthur Coia is a convicted perjurer in front of the Security and Exchange Department in a fund related matter. Arthur Coia’s law firm’s specialty is off shore banking. Arthur Coia got his law license back, through the influence of Senator Joe Kennedy. “As the British historian A. J. P. Taylor observed “nothing is inevitable until it happens”. What is inevitable in this grave situation if this enterprise continues to be politically protected, than what Section 29 U.S.C. 401(c)(4) was drafted to stop will happen. Sec. 29 U.S.C. 401(c) “necessity to eliminate or prevent improper practices” (4) “causing diminutions of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing into or from the channels of commerce”.
WRONGDOER NO. 2 EXECUTIVE BOARD LIUNA
Controlling “Governance Structure” of LIUNA Executive Board unchanged from effective date of RICO see United States v. Local 560 581 Fed. Supp. 279 Id 281 “where union local officials were under an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the membership”—18 U.S.C. 2 “is applicable to the entire United States Criminal Code”---Local 560 Supra at 279.
WRONGDOER NO. 3 TERRENCE O’SULLIVAN JR.
Both Terrence O’Sullivan Jr. and Terrence O’Sullivan Sr. were targets of the commission report. Terrence O’Sullivan Jr is a close associate in fact, RICO associate of Arthur Coia Jr. – just as his father Terrence O’Sullivan Sr. was a close associate in fact of Arthur Coia Sr. Arthur Coia Sr and Terrence O’Sullivan Sr. are two signatories on the fraudulent LM 15, 15a, 16 forms for Local 230 signed in Atlantic City in or about 1969 and filed with the Department of Labor in that same time.
WRONGDOER NO. 4 STATE OF ISRAEL
On November 21, 2002 a Tribute Dinner was held for Terrence O’Sullivan Jr. and the Executive Board of LIUNA at the Washington Hilton, Washington, D. C. sponsored by the State of Israel as a tribute for the purchase of 10’s of millions of dollars in Israel West Bank Construction Bonds. Said bonds are non-convertible, below market interest rates, 30-year term, and in violation of United States Foreign Policy. On the face of the invitation is the statement: “Good for Israel Good for Labor”. That arrogant deceitful statement is an insult to the hard working (800,000) pensioners of LIUNA. LIUNA and Local 230 members have had to endure the complete insolvency of Local 230 by embezzlement. In or about 1968, where fraudulent Trusteeship Forms (LM 15, 15a and LM 16) were signed by Terrence O’Sullivan Sr. and Arthur Coia Sr. (documented in discovery in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH). At the time of the embezzlement that left Local 230 insolvent 1968-1969, all three Coia associates in fact defendants in this case held officer positions in Local 230 in the meaning of LMRDA, Lopreato Auditor; Pezzenti Vice President; LeConche Labor Steward on the most corrupt job in the history of Local 230, documented by police agencies. The membership of LIUNA has had to endure the White Mule Mine Investment Scheme, The National Pension Scheme that the D.O.J. intentionally dropped through a deception in the statute of limitations in U.S. v. Coia Sr & Jr. et al CR-81-417 (JLK Southern District of Florida) indictment returned September 23, 1981, which included predicate acts committed in the district of Connecticut. Also in the district of Connecticut the same governance structure committed the Colonial Realty Pension Scheme – a pension purchasing of a third mortgage position on an investment already sold out. This Rule 11 plaintiff (Wall) has had his entire pension stolen by an Enterprise Racketeering Scheme while the D.O.J. oversight was in place. See United States v. LeRoy 687 F2d 610 (2d Cir. 1983) identifying (501(c) as RICO predicate act and its interrelationship between the pattern of racketeering and conduct of the enterprise affairs under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c)), even though all of these pension crimes have been committed, we have the same union trustees, contractors trustees, pension officials, pension consultants, pension accountants and pension attorneys; And now, the purchase of Israel West Bank Construction Bonds. Only a “captive labor organization” with a silenced membership (blanket Hobbs Act) would make such an inappropriate pension investment, that by civil law violates 29 U.S.C. 501(a) “Duties of Officers”
Relevant part: “It is therefore, the duty of each such person taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members”----

By criminal law violates 29 U.S.C. 501(c) “embezzlement of assets”
“Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years or both”.

See Brink v. Dalesio 496 F. Supp. 1350 Id 1362
“The amount of payments or other appropriations may “so far exceed the norm that fraud, mistake or duress can be inferred”

In this matter the “amount” is 10’s of millions in appropriation of 30-year non-convertible money at below market rates out of the country in a war zone exceeds the norm as a fraud on its face. See also both United States v. Dibrizzi 393 F2d 642, 645 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States v. Capanegro 576 F2d 973, 980 (2d Cir. 1978) (Authorization is not by itself a defense where expenditure lacks proper union purpose). The purchase of Israel West Bank Construction Bonds is “solely for the benefit” of the extortionate intentions of the rogue State of Israel with no consideration for the risk and negation of benefit to the membership of LIUNA. On its face a violation of both 29 U.S.C. 501(a) and 501(c), said LIUNA pension purchase is intentionally hidden from the membership.

WRONGDOER NO. 5 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL ARTHUR ROSENFIELD, 1099 14^TH STREET N. W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20570

The office of the General Counsels has failed to disclose material facts when they had an obligation to do so. It has failed to investigate and disclose the intentional fabrication of facts concerning the actions of an N.L.R.B. Judge (Hon. Wallace Nations) by defendant Cheverie. First and foremost should be the protection of one of their Judges from the fraudulent and fabricated deposition testimony concerning how the Honorable Wallace Nations governed his Courtroom with the defendants and plaintiff Wall present. This Rule 11 plaintiff (Wall) believes Judge Nations was never informed of the denial of the 102.118 request for him to either deny or verify the fabricated portrayal of his Judicial Action. This Rule 11 plaintiff also believes Judge Nations is not aware of the pending F.R.C.P. 31(a)(1) questions served by subpoena in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al District of Columbia Case No: 02-MS-354(TPJ) in accordance with N.L.R.B. R.R. served on the Office of General Counsel.
The N.L.R.B. trial lasted (11) days – Judge nations was a polite, serious no nonsense man. He cannot know the way he is being used and portrayed. Also, during the compliance process of the N.L.R.B. multiple misrepresentations were made concerning compliance with Judge Nations Order affirmed by the Second Circuit. Also the Office of the General Counsel’s for its part in the removal of the compliance files for N.L.R.B. Case No. 39-CA-3046 – 39 CB-858 from the Hartford Region 34 to the Special Litigation Department Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C. in response to a subpoena.

WRONGDOER NO. 6 NATIONAL LABORERS RELATIONS BOARD REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGION 34 PETER HOFFMAN ONE COMMERCIAL PLAZA, 280 TRUMBULL STREET 21^ST FLOOR, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103

Region 34 has failed to disclose material facts when they had an obligation to do so, and has made multiple misrepresentations to plaintiff Cooksey and Wall concerning the compliance files for 39-CA-3046 and 39-CB-858. Also in order to avoid a subpoena, Region 34 shipped the Compliance Files to Washington, D.C. in or about 2002 Eighteen (18) years ago defendant Cheverie was an N.L.R.B. attorney. He has a social relationship with N.L.R.B. officials because of his marriage to the East Coast Regional Director. His unlawful actions are always being protected by the NLRB. The N.L.R.B. never informed the non posting of their Number Order in the hiring hall, Local 230 office, and kept it a secret form the newspapers. The membership, including plaintiff Manos at the time, had no knowledge of Local 230 being found guilty of discrimination.

WRONGDOER NO. 7 AND 8 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING SECTION CRIMINAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Facilitating an Organized Crime Control Act RICO Enterprise by violating their oath to “Enforce the Laws of the United States” some known and some unknown agents, government attorneys, and officials in the meaning of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents 403 U.S. 388 5^th Amendment use in this RICO Complaint of Bivens see: Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616, 663 “the fourth and fifth Amendments are in pari material and must be read and construed together”.
The plaintiffs in this instant (OCCA) RICO Complaint have been harmed by the wrongful and unlawful use of “Key Justice Department Guidelines Regarding RICO”, see: 9-110.101 U.S.A.M. “Division Approval” – “No RICO criminal or civil prosecution demand shall be issued without the prior approval of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division”.
See also: 9-110.210 U.S.A.M. “Authorization of Prosecution: The Review Process”.

“…review and approval function for all RICO matters has been centralized with the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section”.

Those executive branch guidelines create a situation were a serious political and or criminal abuse of power can occur involving millions. This (OCCA) RICO Complaint has shown, supported by documented evidence in discovery in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH), that the serious political and criminal abuse has occurred involving millions. Defendant Luskin has used his past credentials, his past and present D.O.J. associates Bivens and his political power in Chicago and Washington, D.C. (The Base), to acquire control 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) of (OCCA) RICO Enterprise with racketeering tentacles reaching from Canada to California with multiple locals in between, Connecticut one of them. Compounding this problem is the following fact. On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, commonly known as RICO, Public Law 91-452 was enacted into law. In order to provide “protection against abuses of these sweeping powers and practices”, which in the opinion of Congress could infringe upon the individual rights of people, Title XII was mandated by a Congressional Act. Title XII of the Act provided for the establishment of a National Commission on Individual Rights. President Richard Nixon in his capacity of President of the United States, a public official within the meaning of Title 28 United States Code, Section 1361, refused to perform the mandated duty imposed on him by Title XII of RICO and Title XII was never implemented¹⁴. This Rule 11 plaintiff assumes because of Watergate that President Nixon did not want a National Commission on Individual Rights sitting under the power of Title XII of RICO. There should be no statute of limitations on the non-enactment of a mandated Title in a Mandated Congressional Act.
In addition to the Title XII defect in RICO, defendant Luskin, the U.S. Attorney Office Chicago, Illinois and the D.O.J. O.C. Division, take the “Department Guidelines 9-110.101 U.S.A.M., 9-110.210 U.S.A.M. a step further away from the constitutional process of the United States to a Criminal Parallel Legal System “Operating Agreement” by signing the “Operating Agreement” with its significant obstruction of justice paragraph, that being:
“Anyone, including a union officer, representative, member, contractor or vendor, or law enforcement organization may refer a complaint against a union official or member by filing it with the G.E.B. attorney. The G.E.B. attorney or the Inspector General will investigate it and decide whether charges should be brought”.

Said paragraph has insulated, enhanced, and protected a (OCCA) RICO Enterprise. Accomplished by the former “Special Counsel to the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division, where he co-authored the Department’s RICO guidelines” (defendant Luskin).
The three pro se plaintiffs in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint are forced to defend our Federal Mandated Statutory and Constitutional Rights Pro se.
See: Bankers Trust v. Rhoades 2d Cir. 859 Fed. Rep. 2d 1096 at 1104 referencing RICO and the Clayton Act “that both statutes bring to bear the pressure of ‘private attorneys general’ on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate”. “Deemed inadequate” in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint by multiple millions in pay offs, a 371 Conspiracy against the United States, and the co-author of the D.O.J.’s RICO Guidelines using them in private practice with other retired and present day D.O.J. Officials to commit the perfect RICO crime. The Judicial Branch has a paramount obligation to stop this Executive Branch Corruption. See Bivens Supra at 394, 395 citing Amos v. United States 225 U.S. 313, 317; Boyd Supra (4^th and 5^th Amendment in pari material)
“In such cases there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the Judicial Tribunals for rights which have been invaded by officers of the government professing to act in it name”.

The plaintiffs in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint clearly need the Judicial Protection of Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 163.
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury”.

WRONGDOER NO. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE JANET C. HALL DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

District Judge Hall has committed “High Crimes” in the meaning of Article II Section 4 of the United States Constitution by obstructing justice and violating Canons of Judicial Ethics in two related cases 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) and 3:97-CV-02502(JCH) 28 U.S.C. 455 affidavit filed April 30, 2003 Dkt. #218 3:97-CV-00942(JCH). F.R.A.P. 21(a)(1) Mandamus filed November 25, 2003 (pending) In re Gary R. Wall 03-3117.
The multiple Extra Judicial Acts of Misconduct committed by Judge Hall are documented. The motivation can only be the protection of the political corruption.

WRONGDOER NO. 10 EXTORTION EXECUTIVE BOARD LOCAL 230

Being “directly” or indirectly “involved” in the affairs of a (OCCA) RICO Enterprise by failing to act or question, when millions were lost in pension schemes. Failing to act when directly involved in the extortion of members rights were committed (Wall, Cooksey, Manos, Julian) failing to act when directly involved in a 29 U.S.C. 530 assault of plaintiff Manos. Failing to act when directly involved in multiple mail frauds committed against Wall, Cooksey and Manos, see U.S. v. IBT 708 F. Supp. ID 1390 Finding #14
“---who were fiduciaries with respect to union members; complaint alleged that officers in question aided and abetted others by failing to act when they had such duty and that lack of knowledge of particular officers could only have resulted from conscious avoidance of facts 18 U.S.C. 1961 et. Seq.”

STANDING ORDER NO. 4 the identity of the alleged victims and the manner in which each victim was allegedly injured.
Victim plaintiff Stephen Manos 402(o) LMRDA member has been harmed by enterprise racketeering injuries by multiple predicate violations of 1961(a) and multiple 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) enterprise racketeering schemes from in or about 1995 to 2002 for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)(c) said predicates include inter alia violations of 18 U.S.C. 1512; 18 U.S.C. 1513; 1961(c), 29 U.S.C. 530; 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1951; 29 U.S.C. 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 1503.
Victim plaintiff William Cooksey Sr, 402(o) LMRDA member has been harmed by multiple 1962(d) enterprise racketeering injuries by multiple predicate violations of 1961(1) from in or about 1986 to present day for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)(c). Said predicates include inter alia violations of 18 U.S.C. 1951; 18 U.S.C. 1503; 29 U.S.C 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1343; 18 U.S.C. 664
Victim plaintiff Gary R. Wall 402(o) LMRDA member has been harmed by multiple 1962(d) enterprise racketeering injuries by multiple predicate violations of 1961(1) from in or about 1986 to present day for reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)(c). Said predicates include inter alia violations of 18 U.S.C. 1503; 18 U.S.C. 1951; 29 U.S.C. 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1343; 18 U.S.C. 664. The harm to all three-victim plaintiffs has been to their Federal Statutory and Constitutional Property Rights.
STANDING ORDER NO. 5(a) The alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which were allegedly violated.
The specific statutes that were violated are 18 U.S.C. 1503; 29 U.S.C. 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 1951; 18 U.S.C. 1512; 18 U.S.C. 1513; 18 U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1343; 29 U.S.C. 401; 29 U.S.C. 411; 29 U.S.C. 530; 18 U.S.C. 2; 18 U.S.C. 371; 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5); 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)(c)(d).
5(b) The dates of the predicate act, the participants in the predicate acts and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate acts.
See: as illustrated in Standing Order No. 2, defendant by defendant in multiple schemes pages 2 through 60 of this (OCCA) RICO Complaint.
5 (c) Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
DEFENDANT ROBERT D. LUSKIN MAIL FRAUD
Time place contents – person to whom by whom: Defendant Luskin 18 U.S.C. 1341 mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 wire fraud, letter dated July 24, 1996 by Robert D. Luskin, Washington, D.C. to Marc P. Mercier Esq., Manchester, Connecticut (attorney at the time for plaintiff Wall and Cooksey). Second part of mail fraud scheme letter dated September 10, 1997 by Robert D. Luskin, Washington, D.C. to Marc P. Mercier, Esq., Manchester, Connecticut – Chief Judge (2d Cir. at the time) Ralph K. Winter addressed this scheme as equitable estoppel in Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 224 F3d 168 at 173. Said scheme purpose was to deprive plaintiff Wall and Cooksey of our Section 401, 411, 501(c) Rights see Boffa Supra.
See also Kornfield v. First Jersey National Bank 638 F. Supp. 454 “each individual use of the mails or wires in a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate offense even if part of one fraudulent scheme for purpose of RICO requirements of multiple predicate offenses”.

Said July 24, 1996 Letter was also sent “VIA Tele Copier” 18 U.S.C. 1343; multiple counts mail and wire fraud.
DEFENDANT DOMINICK LOPREATO 18 U.S.C. 1341
Defendant Lopreato mail fraud letter dated April 28, 1992 from Lopreato 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114 to plaintiff Cooksey 809 Maple Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06114 fraudulent promise of job upon referral part of equitable estopple scheme 224 F3d 168 at 172 Supra violating plaintiff Cooksey’s LMRDA Property Rights.
Defendant Lopreato mail fraud letter dated March 7, 1995 from defendant Lopreato 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114 false promise of membership part of equitable estoppel scheme 224 F3d 168 at 173 Supra violating plaintiff Cooksey’s LMRDA Property Rights. Letter cc Michael Bearse, Rhode Island another Count. Defendant Lopreato mail fraud letter dated August 25, 1993 from defendant Lopreato 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06114 to plaintiff Wall 60 Carriage Hill Drive, Wethersfield, CT. 06109 false promise of membership part of equitable estoppel scheme 224 F3d 168 at 173 Supra.
Defendant Lopreato mail fraud, fraud committed in deposition dated December 7, 2002 represented at the time by John T. Fussell, Esq. Defendant Robert M. Cheverie and Jeffrey D. Cedarfield Esq. from law office defendant Patrick Tomasiewicz. In said deposition defendant Lopreato gave false fabricated material statement that if true, would cause Wall to be barred harming Wall’s LMRDA Rights. Defendant Lorpeato “reasonably anticipated the mails would be used” see, U.S. v. Davidson 760 F2d 97
The mails were used by the stenographer Francine Rossini to Brandon Smith Reporting Service care of Gary R. Wall, Hartford, CT. 06106 and to Cheverie Associates 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, Connecticut. In the same deposition, defendant Lopreato denies he is barred in violation of Judge Daley’s 504 ORDER violating Judge Daley’s Barring Order is violating the cited plaintiffs membership rights. He does so being represented by embezzled membership money.
DEFENDANT JOHN PEZZENTI MAIL FRAUD WIRE FRAUD
Defendant Pezzenti mail fraud letter dated April 26, 1995 to Gary R. Wall 60 Carriage Hill Dr., Wethersfield, CT. 06109 from John Pezzenti 475 Ledyard Street (Business Manager) Re: “Readmission to Membership” fraudulent promise of membership equitable estoppel scheme 224 F3d 168 at 173 Supra letter cc Regional Attorney Michael Bearse, Rhode Island another count.
NEXT defendant Pezzenti mail fraud letter dated January 5, 1996 to Gary R. Wall 60 Carriage Hill Dr., Wethersfield, CT. 06109 from John Pezzenti (and Charles LeConche) 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, CT. 06114. Said letter changes the referral list again for plaintiff Wall and Cooksey and accuses Wall of being “barred within the meaning of LIUNA Ethics Code” part of the continuing scheme of fraudulent misrepresentations harming both Cooksey and Wall’s LMRDA Membership Rights 224 F3d 168 at 173 Supra. Said letter was cc: To Michael Bearse LIUNA Attorney Washington, D.C., W. Douglas Gow, Inspector General Washington D.C., and Attorney marc Mercier, Manchester, Connecticut (3) more counts.
Next: On or about October 1997 defendant Pezzenti with defendant LeConche and wrongdoers E. Board collectively used the mails to mail to the membership the following material statement in the continuance of a 1962(d) conspiracy. Relevant sentence: “Contrary to Brother Manos’s wild imagination, there was no assault during the July Executive Board Meeting at Capriccio Restaurant.” Seven Hundred (740) Counts of Mail Fraud. See: Kronfield Supra 638 F. Supp. 454 “each individual use of the mails or wires in a fraudulent scheme constitutes a separate offense even if part of one fraudulent scheme for purposes of RICO requirements of multiple offenses”. Also see U.S. v. Eskow 422 F2d 1060 at 1064 “each putting of a letter into post office a separate offense”.
Next: Defendant Pezzenti violated 18 U.S.C. 1341 off a deposition taken November 26, 2001 by continuing a 1962(d) conspiracy denying the fact that plaintiff Manos was threatened multiple times (Hobbs Act 18 U.S.C. 1951) and assaulted (29 U.S.C. 530) for questioning suspicious expenditures and for protecting his right to vote and assemble. Said fraudulent testimony was mailed to Cheverie Associates 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. 06118 from Brandon Reporting, Hartford, CT and mailed from Judith L. Rocca to Brandon Reporting c/o Gary R. Wall in or about December 3, 2001.
Next: Defendant Pezzenti’s direct involvement in a three (3) letter mail fraud 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) mail fraud scheme 18 U.S.C. 1341 dating from in or about late or middle 1986 (First violation 1341) to April 9, 1996 (Second violation 1341, 1343) to March 2, 1998 (Third violation 1341, 1343).
The content of the first mail fraud violation was a fraudulent Newington Police Report identifying plaintiff Wall as the baseball bat assailant by composite drawing and making said baseball bat assault in the report a union matter. The report was dated December 27, 1985. In or about July or September, Attorney David Kamins subpoenaed said police report. It was mailed Newington Police to David Kamins Asylum Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The intention of the fraudulent statements mailed was to label Wall as a blackballed member. The fraudulent statements in the July, September mailing were also used from 1986 to present day to label both Wall and Cooksey to the membership out loud from the platform as black ball members 1986-1995 and as “barred” member “Operating Agreement” 1995 to present day. A horizontal Racketeering Scheme to extort Wall and Cooksey’s membership rights and in so doing creating an unsafe membership meeting and work environment for both. (Horizontal Extortion Scheme Hobbs Act).
The second succession in the protracted mail fraud and wire fraud scheme 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, occurs in or about April 9, 1996 in violation of 1962(d) with defendant Pezzenti’s direct participation in the affairs of the enterprise with associates in fact of the enterprise including defendant Cheverie who signed the April 9, 1996 letter see at pages 41 through 46 Demonstration Associate in Fact 1962(d)(b)(c) Defendant Cheverie, Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzenti Scheme. Said scheme was wired and mailed 1343, 1341 to Inspector Lill Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C. 20008-7416 from Robert M. Cheverie, 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. 06108. The April 9, 1996 letter states also “during the majority of these incidents, William Cooksey accompanied Mr. Wall” (all proven false in discovery 3:97-CV-00942(JCH)). This letter in or about April 1996 was also read out loud to the membership along with plaintiff Cooksey’s Medical and psychiatric report, Horizontal Extortion Membership Rights Scheme 18 U.S.C. 1951, 1962(d).
The third succession in the 1962(d) mail and wire fraud scheme involving “directly” defendant Pezzenti is the March 2, 1998 letter wired (1343) in or about March 2, 1998 from Connecticut Laborers District Counsel to Local 230, 475 Ledyard Street, Hartford, CT. 06114 and mail from Local 230 475 Ledyard Street to Robert D. Luskin 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20007-5243.
The subject matter in the March 2, 1998 letter accused Wall of murder, baseball bat assault, extortion in an N.L.R.B. Courtroom, shooting out the windows of defendant Pezzenti’s car and multiple assaults on E. Board members. Plaintiff Cooksey barred “by extension” in attorney defendant Cheverie’s words and plaintiff Manos barred for associating with plaintiff Wall. The March 2, 1998 letter was also read out to the membership in or about March 25, 1998 (extortion of membership rights 18 U.S.C. 1951 Wall, Cooksey, Manos).
The following sentence quoted (March 2, 1998 Letter) is a good example of a (OCCA) RICO enterprise policing itself “I have attached a copy of an affidavit submitted on behalf of Mr. Wall and I have been advised that Mr. Manos accompanied Mr. Wall to Court in Bridgeport on Tuesday, February 24, 1998” (this is in the enterprise’s judgment barred conduct).
In addition to the extortion (Hobbs Act) of plaintiffs Manos, Wall and Cooksey’s 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1) “Equal Rights”; (a)(2) “Freedom of speech and assembly”’ (a)(4) “Protection of right to Sue” – In addition to that serious extortion of membership rights mailed, wired, and read out loud to the membership – Defendant LeConche and Pezzenti reported to the I.G.’s that after the February 24, 1998 Bridgeport, Federal Court hearing, Wall, Manos and Cooksey met with two organized crime figures. The two people we met were a reporter Washington Bureau, Providence Journal, Mr. John Mullagan and Mr. Eugene Methvin retired Senior Editor Reader’s Digest and former chairperson President Reagan’s Crime Commission. A good example of a (OCCA) RICO enterprise policing itself, see U.S. v. Turkette 452 U.S. 576:
“The [enterprise] is proved by evidence of an on going organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the associates function as a continuing unit”

See also: U.S. v. Local 560 581 Fed. Supp. 279 Id 289
“Individuals may be charged under Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act as “Persons” while being grouped collectively as an “enterprise” under the well-established association in fact doctrine 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968”

See Now: 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity”.

See: U.S. v. Field 432 Fed. Supp. 55

“The language of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) clearly contemplates prolonged course of conduct and like statute of limitations for conspiracy which runs form date of last overt act, statute of limitations of violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) runs from date of last act of racketeering activity”.

The multiple horizontal scheme mail/wire fraud and Hobbs Act scheme started with a fraudulent police report Pezzenti/Lopreato, December 27, 1985. Mail fraud component started after Attorney Kamins (for the plaintiff at the time) subpoenaed the Newington Police report after he brought suit in or about July or September 1986 (within the 10-year period of 1961(5)}, April 9, 1996 and again March 2, 1998 (open ended). In a statement made to the Court is a motion dated December 30, 2002 defendant Attorney Cheverie made the following statement in the continuance of the 1962(d) scheme “Defendants stand by the sum and substance of the March 2, 1998” and mailed said motion from East Hartford, Connecticut to U.S. District Court, Bridgeport, CT.
DEFENDANT CHARLES LECONCHE MAIL FRAUD, WIRE FRAUD
On or about January 5, 1996, defendant LeConche together with defendant Pezzenti caused the fraudulent mailing of a letter that was part of the ongoing 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) scheme to harm plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey membership rights through false promises of job referrals. This letter was also part of the same scheme were the defendants (Local 230) continually change the requirement for membership.
Relevant Paragraph of January 5, 1996 letter:
“With respect to Item I, I refer you to my correspondence of December 26, 1995. In this regard, Mr. Granell was mistaken; non-members may sign the referral list. Therefore, both you and Mr. Cooksey have been registered on Local 230’s out-of-work list.”
“With respect to Item 2, it is my opinion that you may be a barred individual within the meaning of the LIUNA Ethics Code. Therefore, I will be referring this matter to the Inspector General’s Office”

Now see Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 224 F.3d 168 Id. 176
“Arguably, the first act of the union indicated an unequival decision to deny readmission to appellants occurred only in December 199 when appellants were prevented from signing the referral list and then only temporarily – followed the next month by the union’s claim that they were “barred persons” under the LIUNA Ethics Code. We need not fix the precise time at which appellants knew of their claim because even before the events of late 1995/early 1996 the union provided appellants with false and misleading justification as to why they could not be readmitted at a particular time, while holding out the promise that readmission would follow referral to a job. Because appellants reasonably took those justifications at face value and delayed bringing their action, the union is estopped from interposing a limitations defense even if appellants knew of their claim in 1992”.

In or about January 5, 1996, the letter was cc Michael Bearse, LIUNA, Attorney Washington, D.C.; W. Douglas Gow, Inspector General; Washington, D.C.; Marc P. Mercier, Esq. Manchester, Connecticut. Three addition predicate acts of mail fraud in the furtherance of violating Wall and Cooksey’s LMRDA Rights, in order not to prolix plead, see defendant LeConche’s participation under 5(c) Cheverie and Pezzenti – April 9, 1996 mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion of membership rights scheme, and the March 2, 1998 mail fraud/wire fraud extortion of membership rights scheme.
In or about June 21, 2002 defendant LeConche gave false testimony in a deposition knowing the mails would be used. They were used in or about June 26, 2002 mailed Judith Rocca to Cheverie Associates, 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. 06108, Judith Rocca Brandon Reporting, Hartford, Connecticut c/o Gary R. Wall and to Patrick Tomasiewicz, 836 Farmington Avenue, West Hartford, CT. 06119.
The fraudulent subject matter that extorted the plaintiff LMRDA Rights inter alia is as follows:
Defendant LeConche continues to identify Wall as barred – denies he read Cooksey’s medical and psychiatric records out to the membership in the April 9^th 1996 letter – continues making false statements regarding membership requirements for Wall and Cooksey and continues to deny that Manos was threaten and assaulted at the Executive Board Meeting even though it was on tape.
DEFENDANT ROBERT CHEVERIE MAIL FRAUD WIRE FRAUD
Defendant Cheverie is signatory to the April 9, 1996 mail/wire fraud letter mailed and wired to Inspector Lill, IG’s Office, Washington, D.C. defendant Cheverie. Defendant Cheverie composed the March 2, 1998 letter wire from the District Counsel and mailed to Robert Luskin, Washington, D.C.
In a deposition taken of defendant Cheverie on April Attorney Cheverie gave false statement concerning the “barred” states of Wall and Cooksey. Defendant Cheverie gave false testimony accusing Wall of extortion tactic during the NLRB trial in front of Honorable Wallace Nations. Attorney Cheverie gave false statements concerning defendant Pezzenti baseball bat assault and the false Hobbs Act violation concerning Lopreato, causing the mails to be used in the fraud Tina Wiese, 467 Main Street, Somers, CT. 06071 in or about May 2, 2002 to John T. Fussell, 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. Also in the deposition of defendant LeConche, June 21, 2002, Attorney Cheverie concealed the fact that Inspector Lill present at a membership meeting March 1996, conducted a disciplinary hearing by allowing members to stand up and make charges out loud against Wall and Cooksey. See also again demonstration associates in fact 1962(d)(b)(c) defendant Cheverie, Lopreato, LeConche, Pezzenti Scheme at pages 41 through 46.
DEFENDANT RICHARD WEISS
Defendant Richard Weiss mail fraud violations started by letter dated March 4, 1992 from Richard F. Weiss Conn. Lab. Funds, 435 Captain Thomas Boulevard, West Haven, CT. 06516 to Ms. Gail Moran N.L.R.B. Region 34, Hartford, CT. 06103 letter also cc to Local Union 230; Michael S. Bearse, Esq., Providence, R.I., William Cullina Esq., Hartford, CT.
The fraudulent content of said letter was the fraudulent confirmation of pension dollars submitted on Wall’s and Cooksey’s pension compliance order. Report in hours instead of dollars as part of a sophisticated pension racketeering scheme exposed and proven in discovery of director Weiss, January 7, 2002 (within the 10-year predicate limitation time of 1961(5) April 29, 2002 and July 26, 2002. See Schemes and Fraudulent Concealments under:
“Defendant Richard Weiss Executive Director Connecticut Laborers’ Funds” pages 52 through 59.
The pension racketeering crimes and fraudulent concealment at pages 52
through 59 show a continuation of the mail fraud and fraudulent concealment by defendant Weiss in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(c) by 18 U.S.C. 1341 violations – 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) see: U.S.v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters 708 Fed. Supp. 1388 Id. 1389 Finding #6 “allegation of fraudulent concealment satisfies requirement of particularity if it alleges fact that defendant, who was under duty to disclose, failed to reveal Fed. R.C.P. 9(b)”
In the January 7, 2002; April 29, 2002 and July 26, 2002, there is both fraud and fraudulent concealment see pages 54 through 59 and Director Weiss had a duty to disclose. The January 7, 2002 deposition was mailed from Francine Rossini in or about January 17, 2002 to John T. Fussell, Esq., 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. 06109 to Lisa Paris, Esq. One City Place, Hartford, CT. 06103 to Jeffrey D. Cedarfield, Esq. 836 Farmington Avenue, West Hartford, CT. 06119. The April 29, 2002 deposition was mailed in or about May 6, 2002 from Aretha Martin to Lissa J. Paris Esq., 185 Asylum Street, Murtha & Cullina, Hartford, CT. 06103 to Patrick Tomasiewicz Esq., 836 Farmington Avenue, West Hartford, CT. 06103 to John T. Fussell, Esq., 333 East River Drive, East Hartford, CT. 06108 to Jeffrey D. Cedarfield Esq., 836 Farmington Ave., West Hartford, CT. 06119.
STANDING ORDER N0. 5(d)
There has been a criminal for violation of a RICO predicate see: U.S. v. Lopreato 95-1485, 83 F. 3d 571 (2d Cir. May 8, 1996). Defendant Lopreato received 51 months and paid $250,000 dollars fine – Two counts (RICO predicate) 18 U.S.C. 1954 “related to unlawful welfare fund payments” – overt acts one count 18 U.S.C. 371, two counts 18 U.S.C. 1621(1) perjury – three counts 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).
STANDING ORDER NO. 5(e)
The civil litigation resulting in a judgment are Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230, Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzenti 224 F3d 168 (2d Cir. 2000) and Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzenti N.L.R.B. Case No 39-CB-858 – 39-CA-3046.
STANDING ORDER NO. 5(f)
As an illustration of how the predicate acts form a “pattern of racketeering activity” and in order not to prolix plead, please see the multiple scheme pleaded defendant by defendant.
STANDING ORDER NO. 5(g)
The predicate act relate to each other in the form of enterprise racketeering control of LIUNA, Local 230, and the Pension and Welfare Funds.
STANDING ORDER NO. 6(a)
The enterprise is constituted of: The Coia Governance Structure, which controls LIUNA, Local 230 and the Funds.
STANDING ORDER NO. 6(b)
The Structure: of the enterprise through the subset 1961(1) criminal actions of the defendants is a “captive labor organization”. The Structure: of the defendants is (OCCA) “associates in fact” of the Coia RICO enterprise. The Purpose: of the enterprise is the systematic criminal bleeding of the memberships funds along with the systematic criminal bleeding of the (intentionally diverse) money streams generated by the Funds. The Function: of the enterprise is to “function as a continuing unit” as in U. S. v. Turkette 452 U. S. 576 at 583 and to do so by violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b,c) and 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5). The Course of Conduct: Is the acquired and maintained control of the enterprise in violation of 1962(b) and the participation in the affairs of the enterprise in violation of 1962(c). Done so directly or indirectly by an agreement to violate 1962(b,c) through multiple violations of 1962(d).
STANDING ORDER NO. 6(c)
DEFENDANT ROBERT D. LUSKIN
is an officer of LIUNA 1961(3) G.E.B. Attorney and In House Prosecutor per agreement with the D.O.J. Sub Rosa Robert D. Luskin is a Hierarchal (Boss) of violations of 1962(d) at the LIUNA and Local 230 level. (18 U.S.C. 1503, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5)) Inter alia.
DEFENDANT VERE O. HAYNES
is an officer of LIUNA 1961(3) at relevant times in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint, 8^th, 3^rd and 1^st Vice President – defendant Haynes is at relevant times in this complaint signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with the United States. Defendant Haynes is a 100% subordinate associate in fact defendant, placed in a hierarchal position by defendant Luskin and wrongdoer Coia as a human racketeering stamp. He will sign do or say anything in violation of 1962(d) (1961 1,4,5). Discovery has documented that serious act of defrauding the United States (Luskin, Haynes, Coia), 18 U.S.C. 1503, 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) inter alia.
DEFENDANT DOMINICK LOPREATO. Defendant Lopreato at relevant times in this Complaint was business manager, secretary treasurer of Local 230, trustee Pension Funds – at relevant times incarserated. Defendant Lorpeato is an effective date (Oct. 15, 1970) Hierarchal defendant in the Coia enterprise. To this day, he is a hierarchal (Boss) in some Coia racketeering schemes 18 U.S.C. 664, 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) inter alia.
DEFENDANT JOHN PEZZENTI: is a subordinate effective date (October 15, 1970) associate in fact – place in switch hierarchal position business manager, V.P., President and Secretary Treasurer – because of the same “common purpose” as defendant Haynes. He will sign do or say anything, both Haynes and Pezzenti’s comprehension level of the criminal acts they commit are extremely low. The only thing they understand is that they are committing a crime with their associates in fact and that their signature and position is being used in the accomplishment of the crime 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).
DEFENDANT CHARLES LECONCHE: is a hierarchal defendant in both Local 230 and LIUNA’s Coia (OCCA) RICO enterprise defendant LeConche was like defendant Pezzenti and Lopreato appointed by the Coia’s in or about the effective date of RICO (Oct. 15, 1970) at all relevant times in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint, defendant LeConche has been an officer also in switch position of Business Manager, Secretary Treasurer, and Pension Trustee 18 U.S.C. 664, 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) inter alia.
DEFENDANT ROBERT M. CHEVERIE: General Counsel Local 230 (Coia Sr Appointed) Hierarchal defendant 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5). The attorney advisor LIUNA, Local 230 on how to commit 1961 subset criminal violations without getting caught. He is not a lawyer who defends clients after they are charged or alleged of violations of Federal Law. He is a hierarchal associate in fact conspirator. Many of the racketeering schemes in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint are the product of defendant Cheverie’s criminal intent of mind, committed with the understanding and knowledge that an attorney has of violations of 1961(1) 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) inter alia.
DEFENDANT PATRICK TOMASIEWICZ, ESQ.: is an associate in fact of defendant LeConche, and Local 230, through defendant LeConche. Defendant Tomasiewicz represented Local 230 and LeConche at relevant times in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint. Defendant LeConche extracted union funds in violation of 29 U.S.C. 501(c) and in violation of the signed agreement with the United States to defend Tomasiewicz. In doing so together they violated 1962(d)(c) – Defendant Tomasiewicz also together with LeConche tampered with a witness victim (Manos) 18 U.S.C. 1512, 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5).
DEFENDANT RICHARD WEISS: Defendant Richard Weiss is Director of the Pension Funds. He is a subordinate to the Governance Structure of LIUNA and Local 230. The primary intention of Congress when passing subsection 1962(d) was to link together unlawful conduct between labor unions and pension –welfare benefit plans, that indirectly could not be tied together in the same case, under traditional rules of criminal joinder and conspiracy, 29 U.S.C. 501(c) and 18 U.S.C. 664 are the heart and blood of a (OCCA) RICO enterprise. The protection of the 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 664 violations in an enterprise of this nature is 18 U.S.C. 1951 Hobbs Act inter alia. Defendant Weiss committed directly and indirectly multiple acts of mail fraud 18 U.S.C. 1341 for reason of violating 18 U.S.C. 664 by violating 1962(d)(c). The criminal subset 1961 joinder of the enterprise and the pension fund in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint is exactly what the organized crime control act was written for.
STANDING ORDER NO. 6(d)
All defendants are associates in fact of the enterprise either Hierarchal or Subordinate.
STANDING ORDER NO. 6(e)
All defendants in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint are the enterprise and are members of the enterprise. Explanation: This is an effective date RICO (OCCA) enterprise (Oct. 15, 1970). This enterprise has evolved to two separate (“distinction prong”) 1962(b) control scheme. First Distinction Prong, “associates in fact” labor management racketeering scheme – that the associates in fact defendants show as legitimate income as officials or employees in the meaning of LMRDA of LIUNA or Local 230.
The labor management racketeering scheme also allows the associates in fact RICO defendants to control the 29 U.S.C. 411 and 29 U.S.C. 501(a) rights of the membership from a disguised fiduciary position. The labor management racketeering scheme also allows criminals control of the pension funds Sub Rosa from a disguised labor management fiduciary position. The labor management racketeering scheme also allows criminal but legitimate on their face political donations that influenced the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch of the United States as in this case.
Second: Associate in fact 1961 (1,4,5) racketeering scheme. The first scheme is juxtaposed with the second it hides and protects the violations of 1961(1) most importantly, violations of 1962(d) with the funds in violation of 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 664.
See U.S. v. Local 560, 581 F. Supp. 279 at 333
---“aided and abetted by the defendant officers and business agents of Local 560 unlawfully affected commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by extorting certain, intangible property rights, rights to union democracy under 401 of the LMRDA – from the membership of Local 560, in repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. 1951”.

The associate in fact protect the 1961(1) violations of 29 U.S.C. 501(c) and 18 U.S.C. 664 by a pattern of violations of 18 U.S.C. 1951, threats of physical violence or economic execution. (Violence 28 U.C.S. 530) and fraudulently hide the subset RICO Criminal violations by multiple acts of mail fraud committed in their management racketeering position – committing 1961(1,4,5) violations (OCCA) positions.
STANDING ORDER NO. 6(f): All defendants in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint are all “perpetrators” performing their subset criminal acts as either Hierarchal defendant or subordinate; either directly or indirect, violating 1962(d)(b) or (c) or both (b) and (c).
STANDING ORDER NO. 7: Standing Order 6(e) shows clearly that the racketeering activity and the enterprise have merged.
STANDING ORDER NO. 8: Standing Order 6(e) also shows clearly the relationship between the activities of the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering activity.
STANDING ORDER NO. 9: The benefit the enterprise receives from the “pattern of racketeering” is access to the funds from labor management racketeering and the actual embezzlement of said funds (29 U.S.C. 501(c); 18 U.S.C. 664).
STANDING ORDER NO 10: The effect on interstate commerce. Repeated violations of 29 U.S.C. 401, 411, 501(a), and 18 U.S.C. 1951 affect on interstate commerce.
STANDING ORDER NO. 11: There is not a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint.
STANDING ORDER NO. 12: The acquisition by fraud of this (OCCA) RICO enterprise occurred in or about 1969 – 1970. The 1962(b) violations occurred by the signing of fraudulent LM 15, 15(a) and 16 trusteeship forms – (Local 230) signing in Atlantic City New Jersey – signatories in the fraud were Terrence O’Sullivan Sr. and Arthur Coia Sr. (Re-“Acquired” 1962(b)) The 212-page RICO Complaint would have stopped the Coia Enterprise if it was filed – Coia and his entire associates in fact enterprise would have pleaded out because of exposure to RICO Sentencing Guidelines. The “Operating Agreement” stopped the 212-page RICO Complaint and the enterprise was re-acquired by fraud by Arthur Coia Jr. and Robert Luskin on February 13, 1995 (defendant Haynes and Chicago U. S. Attorneys Office/ D.O.J., D. C. signatories) “Open Ended” violation of 1962(b). The maintenance and control of the enterprise was and is committed by enterprise racketeering injuries from the effective date of RICO to present day open ended 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5).
STANDING ORDER NO. 13(a): The individuals in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint are all employed by the enterprise all directly with the one exception of Director of the Funds, Director Weiss, who is indirectly employed by the enterprise.
STANDING ORDER NO. 13(b): The same entities LIUNA, Local 230 and the Connecticut Laborers Pension Fund are liable as “persons” and as an enterprise because of the labor management racketeering scheme.
STANDING ORDER NO. 14: Multiple Enterprise Racketeering Schemes illustrated and documented in detail defendant by defendant in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint.
STANDING ORDER NO. 15: The injury to all three plaintiffs is enterprise racketeering injuries harming the plaintiffs LMRDA Property Rights; Federal Statutory Property Rights; and Constitutional Due Process Property Rights.
STANDING ORDER NO. 16: This is an effective date (OCCA) RICO enterprise – the direct casual relationship between the injury and the RICO Statute is not casual, it is direct. That being: Enterprise Racketeering Injuries.
STANDING ORDER NO. 17: The damages sustained for which each defendant is liable are enterprise racketeering injuries by “person” defendants collectively, individually and grouped as an (OCCA) RICO enterprise. See U. S. v. Local 560, 581 Fed. Supp. 279 Id 289
“Individuals may be charged under Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act as “persons” while being grouped collectively as an “enterprise” under the well-established association in Fact Doctrine 18 U.S.C. 1961 –1968”.

STANDING ORDER NO. 18: The description of the other federal cause of action in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint is 18 U.S.C. 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (Jurisdiction United States) pleaded in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint under 18 U.S.C. 1503 defendant Luskin, defendant Haynes and wrongdoer Coia.
STANDING ORDER NO. 19: There are no pendent state claims in this Complaint.
STANDING ORDER NO. 20:
ADDITIONAL JURY DEMAND
The plaintiffs in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint respectfully request access to a Federal Grand Jury for the following facts and reasons. The first fact the district Court should know is, pursuant to the “Operating Agreement” signed by defendant Luskin and defendant Haynes and wrongdoer Coia – fiduciaries for LIUNA membership including the plaintiffs – and signing for the citizens of the United States including the plaintiffs, Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office and the D.O.J. Washington, D.C. (OC Div.) wrongdoers No. 7 and No. 8 in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint see pages 75-78.
Pursuant to said “Operating Agreement” all 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) activities related directly or indirectly to LIUNA its locals and its funds, in the district of Connecticut are under the jurisdiction of the Chicago, Illinois U. S. Attorneys Office. The F.B.I. and U. S. Attorneys Office in Connecticut have no jurisdiction regarding the U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) violations in this complaint. See now page 77. The primary Obstruction of Justice – paragraph of the “Operating Agreement” (1962(d,b,c) – that now takes the jurisdiction from the Chicago, U.S. Attorneys Office and consigns it to Robert D. Luskin and his Inspector General, both placed and paid in their positions by wrongdoer Coia. Now see page 97 – The Primary Obstruction of Justice paragraph of the “Operating Agreement” in its relevant part:
“or law enforcement organization may refer a complaint against a union official or member by filing it with the G.E.B. attorney. The G.E.B. attorney will investigate it and decide whether charges should be brought.”

The last sequence in the consignment of jurisdiction scheme by Luskin and Coia (Haynes signatory) is where the Obstruction of Justice occurs harming the plaintiffs Federal Statutory and Constitutional property rights. This is also where the constitutional mechanisms of the United States were harmed by a conspiracy to defraud the United States. And, now that the first phase of the “Operating Agreement” cleared Arthur Coia and his entire (OCCA) RICO enterprise, an actual defrauding of the United States, in the corrupt use of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 has occurred. See affidavit Dobrich and Manos on page 34 the foregoing scheme is why they were abandoned.
Next Demonstration of Fact and Reason for Grand Jury Relief
See again first page 68 Saint John’s Law review article by defendant Luskin titled:
“BEHOLD, THE DAY OF JUDGMENT IS THE RICO PATTERN REQUIREMENT VOID FOR VAGUENESS”
See also that defendant Luskin “co-authored the Department’s RICO guidelines”. Also take notice that defendant Luskin “was formerly Special Counsel to the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division United States Department of Justice”.
See Now: U. S. Attorney Manual RICO guidelines:
“9-110.30 Approval of Organized Crime and Racketeering Section Necessary”
“…No criminal or civil prosecution or civil investigative demand shall be commenced or issued under RICO statute without the prior approval of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division”.

Now see page 76 – showing the Court that Title XII of RICO a Mandated Congressional Act for the “protection against abuses of these sweeping powers and practices” (of RICO). Title XII was never signed into law by President Nixon – making RICO deficient in protecting citizens from corrupt police powers of the Executive Branch, additional situation and circumstances in need of Grand Jury Review.
Next Demonstration see page 68-70 defendant Luskin’s actions in private practice see inter alia – Luskin being paid by a drug money laundering client “45 Gold Bars” $505,125 “by anonymous third parties” and a Swiss wire transfer of $169,000. Please take notice U.S. Attorney Whitehouse charged Luskin with “willful blindness”. Please take notice also of the Traini Scheme, engineered by Luskin and Coia to defraud the United States. Please take notice also on page 66, Harold Ickes involvement. Harold Ickes title at the time was No. 2 White House aide. President Clinton wanted to make him Chief White House Counsel, but he could not because Harold Ickes could not pass an F.B.I. background check for that position, because of his association with organized crime figures, labor management racketeering types. Illustrated in this Standing Order is the willful actions and willful blindness of defendant Luskin as In House Prosecutor (LIUNA). Another telling fact showing Ex D.O.J. Officials committing crimes under the direction of Luskin and Coia. See Washington Post article about the first national election under the supervision of the “Operating Agreement” Washington Post 6/7/98 byline Stephanic Mencimer Page 6 Second to last paragraph.
“Coia was considered a shoo-in. Most members gathering from across the country had never seen the Justice Department’s draft RICO Complaint because Vaira barred dissidents from distributing it.”

“VIARA” is Peter Vaira former U.S. Attorney O.C. Division Philadelphia – private practice independent Hearing Officer “Operating Agreement” – barring dissidents from distributing to membership need to know information about their fiduciary General President, is an act of extortion of the dissidents and the memberships LMRDA rights. This enterprise has become its own police force – a criminal parallel legal system in need of Grand Jury review in the cited plaintiffs circumstances and situations.
See again Luskin’s Saint John’s Law Review article at page 781:
“Second, vague laws are constitutionally suspect because they delegate excessive enforcement discretion to the Executive Branch. Justice O’Connor has labeled this danger “the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine.”

PROTECTION OF THE GRAND JURY:
See Now: relevant to the Grand Jury relief requested Bankers Trust v. Rhoades 859 Fed. Rep. 2d 1096(2d. Cir.) at 1104 referencing RICO and the Clayton Act:
“That both statutes bring to bear the pressure of ‘private attorneys general’ on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate”.

“Deemed inadequate” in this (OCCA) RICO Complaint by the decay of the Judicial system by a conspiracy to defraud the United States – proximate harm to the plaintiffs as Obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503 defendant Luskin, defendant Haynes, and wrongdoer Coia with some present and former; known and unknown D.O.J. Officials, see: Bivens Supra at 394, 395 citing Amos v. United States 225 U.S. 313, 317(Boyd Supra 4^th and 5^th Amendment in pari material).
“In such cases there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of the Judicial Tribunals for rights which have been invaded by officers of the government professing to act in its name”

This RICO Complaint is the Second RICO Complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the district of Connecticut. The first RICO Complaint started as a RICO Injunction to stop plaintiff Wall from losing his entire pension from enterprise racketeering scheme. It was denied and Wall’s entire pension was racketeered. After following the Court’s directive, Wall filed a RICO Standing Order. Later as events called for it, plaintiff Cooksey and plaintiff Manos were joined as plaintiffs. The gravaman of said complaint was facilitating 18 U.S.C 2 a RICO enterprise – because the “Operating Agreement” was in its investigative stage with the D.O.J. and there was no way the plaintiffs could charge anything but facilitating until Coia and his (OCCA) RICO Enterprise’s crimes were ruled on by the “Operating Agreement”.
See: Norris v. Wirtz, 703 F. Supp 1322 (N.D., Ill 1989) (Lack of knowledge regarding the facts required to allege a RICO violation) in this case Obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503 also this instant RICO complaint is post subject matter discovery. Now that Coia and his (OCCA) RICO enterprise have been cleared the gravaman of this complaint is Obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. 1503 (Luskin, Haynes) other defendants 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5), all violating 1962(d) for reasons of 1962(b)(c). See inability to litigate Obstruction of Justice Claim and Issue until Coia and the associate in fact enterprise were cleared see George v. United Ky. Bank Inc. 753 F2d. 50 6^th Cir. 1985.

DISMISSAL OF FIRST RICO COMPLAINT BY EXTRA JUDICIAL ACTS OF FRAUD.

See page 78 wrongdoer district Judge Janet C. Hall has committed multiple documented acts of Extra Judicial Misconduct. A grave harm in and of itself magnified by the fact that the defendants attorneys and the defendants know Judge Hall has committed the Extra Judicial Acts of Misconduct because the willful acts of Extra Judicial Misconduct are documented in the pleadings. (Summary examples). The defendants are aware of the fact that Judge Hall extracted and fraudulently post dated (Claim Two) Civil Rights Act Complaint. The defendants are also aware that a motion for a new trial was never filed in 3:97-CV-02502(JCH). The defendants are also emboldened by the fact that Judge Hall is protecting the fraudulent fabrication of subpoenas after the fact (Cooksey Medical and Psychiatric Records) a wanton and willful failure to act.
In addition, Judge Hall has committed multiple documented Extra Judicial Acts of Misconduct and Judicial fraud through multiple intentional misconstruction and interpretation of the pleadings and the defendants and their attorney know it. Judge Hall has caused a widening of the decay of the system because Circuit Judges, thereafter have try to protect her “High Crimes” violations. This is a very harmful and injurious position for Pro se litigates to be in. These Judicial frauds went all the way to the United States Supreme Court 01-1401 – 01-1402.
The plaintiffs in this matter have always respected the Rule of Law and have conducted themselves in a polite manner and we will continue to do so. But we will not respect those who do not respect the Rule of Law no matter who they are. And, we will not stay silent. Justice Ginsburg referred to Extra Judicial Acts of Misconduct in an elegant manner on May 4, 1999 when receiving the Federal Bar Council’s Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence – she relayed the importance of Judge Hand’s message:
Justice Ginsburg: “As an advocate in my younger days, and a Judge for nearly 19 years, I know the importance of Hand’s messages victory gained by sweeping the chess pieces off the table is not enduring.”

Sweeping the chess pieces off the table multiple times in this complaint is sweeping Federal Subset Criminal Violations of f the table 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5); It is not enduring it is disgraceful, extremely harmful, and dangerous to the plaintiffs and the United States.
For these reasons also the plaintiffs respectfully request that the place of assignment of this case not be in the Bridgeport District where wrongdoer Judge Hall sits. The plaintiffs would prefer Hartford in order to minimize the expense of litigating against embezzled membership money. Another fact that Judge Hall willfully avoids causing great harm to the plaintiffs and the membership.
SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS
“Act October 15, 1970, P.L. 91-452 Title XIII 1301, 84 Stat. 962 provided: If the provisions of any part of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances be held invalid, the provisions of the other parts and their application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby”

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS:

“Act Oct. 15, 1970, P.L. 91-452, Title IX 904, 84 Stat. 947, provided”

“(a) the provisions of this title shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes”

“(3) institute any proceeding to enforce any order or process issued in execution of such power or to punish disobedience of any such order or process by any person”

This request for access to a Federal Grand Jury is an addition to the “Jury Demand” for a Petit Jury of Twelve.

SUBMITTED BY:
GARY R. WALL, Rule 11 Pro se
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651

WILLIAM COOKSEY SR Pro se
1097 Maple Avenue
Hartford, CT. 06114

STEPHEN MANOS, Pro se
77 Hale Road
Glastonbury, CT. 06033

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that service of this RICO Standing Order is being executed with the summons and complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1965(a) this 20^th day of January 2004 to:
Laborers’ International Union
905 16^th Street N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1765

Robert D. Luskin GEB Attorney (IHP) Robert M. Cheverie, Esq.

Laborers’ International 333 East River Drive
905 16^th Street N. W. East Hartford, CT. 06108
Washington, D.C. 20006-1765
Patrick Tomasiewicz, Esq.
Vere O. Haynes 1^st VP LIUNA 836 Farmington Ave
475 Ledyard Street Suite 109
Hartford, CT. 06114 West Hartford, CT. 06119

Laborers’ Local 230 Richard Weiss
475 Ledyard Street Conn. Laborers Pension Fund
Hartford, CT. 06114 435 Captain Thomas Blvd.
West Haven, CT. 06516-5896
Dominick Lopreato
333 East River Drive Connecticut Laborers
East Hartford, CT. 06108 Pension Fund
435 Captain Thomas Blvd.
John Pezzente West Haven, CT. 06516-5896
475 Ledyard Street
Hartford, CT. 06114

Charles LeConche
475 Ledyard Street
Hartford, CT. 06114

SUBMITTED BY:
_____________________________
GARY R. WALL, Rule 11 Pro se






January 20, 2004




Choice Process
Mr. Matthew McIlvain
1112 Channel Side Drive
Tampa, Florida 33602

Re: Service of Summons Complaint (Two Copies Original and Copy for Return) and RICO Standing Order

Dear Mr. McIlvain:

Enclosed is a bank check in the amount of $400.00 dollars for service of (4) four sets of summons complaint and RICO Standing Order – to be served on the following persons and entities.

Laborers International Union of North America, 905 16^th Street, N. W. , Washington, D.C. 20006-1765.

Robert D. Luskin G.E.B. Attorney – In House Prosecutor, Laborers’ International Union of North America, 905 16^th Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20006-1765

Connecticut Laborers’ Pension Fund, 435 Captain Thomas Boulevard, West Haven, CT. 06516-5896

Richard Weiss, Director Connecticut Laborers’ Pension Fund, 435 Captain Thomas Boulevard, West Haven, Ct. 06516-5896

Please send the returns to Gary R. Wall, 60 Carriage Hill Drive, Wethersfield, CT. 06109. If you have any questions please call me at 860-529-2651.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.



Gary R. Wall
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651

¹ The definition of Attorney General is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961(10) “Attorney General includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States any Assistant Attorney General of the United States”: -- Defendant Luskin became signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with Attorney Generals in the first phase of the “Agreement” Feb. 13, 1995. Signatory for the United States Paul E. Coffey, Chief Organized Crime and Racketeering Section Criminal Division D.O.J., JoAnn Harris Assistant Attorney General, and James B. Burns United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois. The first phase lasted until April 2001, at which time, the “Operating Agreement” was revised and Defendant Luskin became signatory with James K. Robinson Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division D.O.J. and Scott R. Lascar United States Attorney North District of Illinois. The “Operating Agreement” is still in effect to present day.

² Arthur Coia Jr. is a wrongdoer in this Complaint because of defendant Luskin’s criminal protection of Coia by and through the “Operating Agreement”, by its actions a 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy against the United States both Clauses of 371. Defendant Luskin is a sophisticated Hierarchal defendant. He was the ex head of the Complex Crimes Committee D.O.J. It was intentional in his 1962(d) scheme to keep extending the original “Operating Agreement” to February 2000 in order to put Coia by the 5 year last predicate act rule of RICO. This Civil RICO complaint is the one defect in the Luskin/Coia racketeering scheme.

³ Attorney Mercier is very qualified and honest LMRDA employment attorney. Attorney Mercier became concerned for his physical safety after listening to the Hobbs Act violations and assault of Mr. Manos on tape and no remedial action was taken by law enforcement. Quote page 15 Tele-status Conference December 17, 1997 quoted in its relevant part Attorney Mercier present, quoting Mr. Wall: “And my lawyer, when we have to go to our attorney’s office, he said he wasn’t afraid to get beat up, Your Honor, but it’s a concern. And if I see that my lawyer is concerned about it, then I think it’s time for an Injunction.” The blanket Hobbs Act that exists in Local 230 effected even our right to an attorney.

⁴ The counts were, two counts 18 U.S.C. 1954(related to unlawful welfare fund payments) RICO predicate, one count 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy against the United States, two counts U.S.C. 1621(1) perjury, three counts 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) violation of Internal Revenue Code. The 18 U.S.C. 1954 violation was part of the “Operating Agreement” scheme to protect Arthur Coia Jr. from his involvement in what defendant Lopreato and Coia Jr. would have and should have been charged with 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) conspiracy violating 29 U.S.C. 501(c). Please take notice of the following documented statement i.e. From the time of defendant Lopreato’s indictment while the “Operating Agreement” was in effect and continuing to present day, there has never been an investigation by the F.B.I. or U.S. Attorney’s Office of any Local 230 or LIUNA officials in Connecticut in the 8 million dollar Colonial Realty embezzlement scheme. That documented fact is the Criminal Use of Federal Police Powers in action by defendant Luskin, protecting Arthur Coia from the 212-page RICO Complaint; in so doing, protecting his associate in fact RICO enterprise in Connecticut. Defendant Luskin directed who the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorneys’ investigated by a referral pursuant to the internal operations of the “Operating Agreement”. Defendant Luskin’s inspectors investigated the defendants in this complaint, being paid by Coia’s embezzled membership money to do so. The F.B.I. and U.S. Attorneys investigated the plaintiffs in this complaint and the taxpayers paid for the waste of money. [documented 11 months of discovery Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 Supra]

⁵ On July 25, 1996 while being questioned by Congressman McCullum’s Subcommittee on Crime, Paul E. Coffey in his capacity as Chief Organized Crime and Racketeering Section Criminal Division U. S. Department of Justice stated when asked why the 212-Page RICO Complaint was dropped – Mr. Coffey stated: “WE NEVER HAD A UNION THAT SAID, WE’LL TAKE ON THE MOB BEFORE YOU FILE”. That corrupt and absurd statement in front of a Congressional Subcommittee On Crime by Mr. Coffey was referring to (“WE’LL) as Arthur Coia Jr and his associate in fact RICO Enterprise “TAKING ON THE MOB” by and through a Criminal Parallel Legal System known as the “Operating Agreement”.

⁶ In 1987 Attorney Cheverie was employed by Ashcraft & Gerell, Hartford, CT. until his appointment as General Counsel Local 230 by Arthur Coia Sr. in or about 1989 – 1990. In 1987, Shipman and Goodman, Boston, Mass. employed wrongdoer Attorney Michael Bearse, until he was appointed General Counsel LIUNA by Arthur Coia, Sr. in or about 1989-1990. Both attorneys represented defendants Local 230, Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzenti in the N.L.R.B. case 1986 to 1992. The defendants in said case were all found guilty 18 counts of attempting to cause or causing discrimination and causing termination of employment against Wall and Cooksey. Not one member would or could question the enormous legal fees charged to the membership in said NLRB case for fear in the meaning of the Hobbs Act, creating a free hand to embezzle membership money continuing to this present day in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) violating 1962(b)(c) and 1961(5). Both attorneys are associates in fact of Coia’s RICO enterprise and defendant Luskin is fully aware of that fact.

⁷ Arthur Coia Jr. is not a defendant in this Complaint. 18 U.S.C. 371 is the D.O.J. responsibility and duty. But see for this instant Complaint United States v. Salerno 108 F3d 730, 739 (7^th Cir.), allowing government to use uncharged criminal acts in RICO prosecution to prove enterprise and defendant’s participation in it because, in this case proof used to establish enterprise and pattern coalesce).

⁸ 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.” Please take notice this is not two acts but two schemes with multiple ongoing acts.

⁹ Until discovery at or about August 2002, plaintiff Wall thought the reading to the membership of a letter accusing plaintiff Wall of serious and violent crimes was the same April 9, 1996 letter read out to the membership also accusing plaintiff Wall and Cooksey of serious violent crimes. As a matter of fact, in Dkt. #37 of case n. 3:97-02502(JCH), dated April 22, 1998 under Exhibit J of said motion, plaintiff Wall states “Defendant LeConche as recently as March 25, 1998 read the entire letter of April 9, 1996 to the membership out loud from the platform” See: Bankers Trust Supra 859 Fed Rep. 2d 1096 Accrual Rule: “ It is the simplest to apply because it focuses on the plaintiffs actual or constructive discovery of its injury”--

¹⁰ These deliberate flagrant actions are the actions of a RICO Enterprise of this nature see Indelicato EnBanc Finding No. 9 Id 137, “Relatedness and continuity necessary to show RICO “pattern” may in appropriate cases be established through nature of RICO enterprise 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1, 4, 5)”. In this case, a criminally natured RICO enterprise policing itself

¹¹ Plaintiff Manos wore a recorder because of his concern about how his vote would be portrayed regarding what he considered suspicious expenditures. He ultimately taped multiple Hobbs Act violations and a 530 assault Indelicato Supra committed on him for asking questions about suspicious expenditures and whether he had a right to state his opinion on a vote. See: In this RICO Complaint “July 1997 Executive Board Meeting Enterprise Racketeering Scheme” pages 23 - 24.

¹² Defendant Cheverie is a liable actor (associate in fact) under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3) (LIUNA/Local 230) and a liable actor (associate in fact) in the enterprise 18 U.S.C. 1961(4). Defendant Cheverie’s Civil RICO crimes in this RICO Complaint, are under the disguise of a Labor Lawyer. By his documented actions and for what he was hired for by Arthur Coia Sr., he is a Hierarchical Advisor on how to commit NLRB, LMRDA and RICO crimes before and while the crimes are being committed in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c) in an 18 year 18 U.S.C. 1961(5) violations.

¹³ Plaintiff Cooksey embezzlement was committed by cramming down hours in time slots where plaintiff Cooksey already had the required hours (same also done to Wall) putting the payments in fabricated time frames (same also done to Wall) in order to make plaintiff Cooksey not reach 1992. The embezzlement of Wall’s pension money had to be more severe because unlike plaintiff Cooksey, plaintiff Wall was not vested. The $4,092.49 meant the difference of 10 year vested to 1992. And, along with the horizontal racketeering scheme to deny plaintiff Wall membership under the fabricated and fraudulent 12 month Rule and as “barred” by the criminal parallel legal system’s “Operating Agreement”, caused plaintiff Wall’s entire pension to be embezzled. Also for the Court’s knowledge, defendant Attorney Cheverie has a social relationship with Regional Director Peter Hoffman, NLRB Region 34 and it should be known that defendant Cheverie married the former East Coast Regional Director’s daughter. Those two facts together with the actions and non-actions of the NLRB Region 34 and the General Counsel’s Office, explain the corruption that occurred after the Honorable Judge Wallace Nations went back to Washington, D.C. and after plaintiff Wall and Cooksey signed for amounts of pension money that they never received.

¹⁴ Filed in District Court Dkt. #218, 455 Affidavit, 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) and also filed in – In re Gary R. Wall 03-3117 F.R.A.P. 21(a)(1) Mandamus is the Complaint against District Judge Janet C. Hall documenting inter alia the unlawful extraction and fraudulent post dating of a Civil Rights Act Complaint. In said Civil Rights Act Complaint (Action in Equity) the second relief requested was Request for Implementation of Congressional Mandate of Title XII RICO. The fraudulent dating of the Complaint and the disappearance of its memorandum are documented and illustrated in 03-3117 as Obstruction of Justice, violating Canons of Judicial Ethics, and committing High Crimes in the meaning of Article II Section 4 of the United States Constitution along with other documented Extra Judicial Acts of Misconduct.