Albert L. Peia, Pro
Se
P.O. Box 862156
Los Angeles, CA 90086
(213)219-7649
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
----------------------------------------------------------
Albert
L. Peia, )
Plaintiff ) CASE NO.
-vs- )
)
Richard M.
Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, )
Whitney
Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, )
Gulliver, and
Miltenberger, LLC., ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
John Doe
Surety 1, John Doe Insurer 2, )
UNDER THE RACKETEER
John Does 3 –
10,
) INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
) (RICO)
----------------------------------------------------------
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL
OF THE DOCUMENTED FEDERAL
AMONG OTHER CRIMES HEREIN.
Albert L. Peia, of full age, residing
at 611 E. 5th Street #404, Los Angeles, in the
County of Los
Angleles, of the State of California, by way of Verified Complaint
against defendants
sets forth the following averments under penalty of perjury and
says:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action arises
out of a scheme to defraud plaintiff of money and assets perpetrated by
defendants/co-conspirators herein, injuring plaintiff in his business and
property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), also damaging plaintiff’s
bankruptcy estate and creditors thereof.
Annexed hereto and
incorporated herein by reference thereto is the Affidavit of Albert L. Peia
dated , setting forth under
penalty of perjury the factual predicates of the crimes/wrongful/illegal
conduct herein.
2. Through their conduct as detailed below,
defendants conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of
the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity within
the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c),
and/or conspired to do so within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), in violation of said provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et
seq..
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Albert L. Peia, Debtor of the Chapter 7 proceeding of which defendant(s) Coan is Trustee, currently resides in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles.
5. Defendant Richard M. Coan has at all times relevant
hereto been the Chapter 7 Trustee in the District of Connecticut, and a principal
and/or employee of the firm Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltonberger, LLC,
whose acts appear to be within the scope of his authority and/or employment.
6. Defendant Whitney Lewendon has at all times relevant
hereto resided in or transacted his affairs or business in the state of
Connecticut, and a principal and/or employee of the firm Coan, Lewendon,
Gulliver and Miltonberger, LLC, whose acts appear to be within the scope of his
authority and/or employment.
7. Defendant Timothy Miltonberger has at all times
relevant hereto resided in or transacted his affairs or business in the state
of Connecticut, and a principal and/or employee of the firm Coan, Lewendon,
Gulliver and Miltonberger, LLC, whose acts appear to be within the scope of his
authority and/or employment.
8. Defendant Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver and Miltonberger,
LLC, upon information and belief is incorporated in and whose principal place
of business is the state of Connecticut. Upon information and belief, said firm
is a law firm which is engaged in the business of rendering legal services
including bankruptcy practice.
9. Defendant John Doe Insurer1, upon information and
belief is licensed to do business in and transacts its affairs in the state of
Connecticut. Upon information and belief, said corporation is a insurer which
is engaged in the business of providing liability and/or professional liability
coverage.
10. Defendant John Doe Surety2, upon information and
belief is licensed to do business in and transacts its affairs in the state of
Connecticut. Upon information and belief, said corporation is a surety and/or
which is engaged in the business of providing suretyship coverage.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(2), in that plaintiff is a citizen of a
foreign state, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney
Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., are citizens of Connecticut,
and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs. This court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1367, in that the RICO claims arise under the laws of
the United States, and the state law claims are so related to the RICO claims
that they form part of the same case or controversy.
12.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(a),
since defendants reside in the District of Connecticut and a substantial part
of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of
Connecticut.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS – WRONGFUL
CONDUCT
13. Plaintiff has been injured in his
business and property by reason of defendants’ wrongful/illegal conduct within
the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
14. The fraudulent scheme of
defendants/co-conspirators includes offenses involving fraud connected with a
case under Title 11 U.S.C. within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(d) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
Defendants/co-conspirators, at times relevant hereto, said
conducted and/or participated in the affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, affecting
and having a nexus to interstate commerce thereby, with the
intent to damage and defraud plaintiff and obstruct justice
thereby, by reason of which violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1961 et seq., plaintiff sustained injury to his property and
business. Specifically, Alan Shiff purported Chief Judge at
USBC fraudulently misrepresented the date of dismissal
of a proceeding over which he himself had presided perpetrating a fraud
connected with a case under Title 11 as proscribed in Title 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961(1) (D); and further, brought a (retaliatory against a
witness/victim/informant violative of Section l5l3) spurious contempt
proceeding against plaintiff, obstructing justice thereby in
violation of Section 1503 (and additionally was without
jurisdiction to legitimately do so). Quite simply, he lied
(materially false fraudulent representation); knew he lied
(scienter); lied with the intention of deceiving; that the lies
were relied upon (ie.,government, courts, etc.); said fraud
in connection with a case under Title 11 directly causing damage
to plaintiff’s property and business (and as well to plaintiff’s
estate and creditors thereof) . Defendants did utilize the mails in
perpetrating said fraud (on courts, creditors, plaintiff, etc.)
constituting the RICO predicate violation of mail fraud thereby,
violative of Section 1341 (discussed infra at paragraph # ).
Defendants/co-conspirators utilized false hearing
dates to wrongfully dismiss adversary proceedings, defrauding
plaintiff and creditors thereby, Exhibit
“C”, and violative of Section 1503, utilizing the mails
in perpetuateing said scheme in violation of Section 1341
did feloniously remove filed federal court documents for the purpose of
defrauding plaintiff, covering up various crimes connected thereto, obstructing
justice in violation of Section 1503 thereby, causing damages to
plaintiff’s property and business.
Exhibit “B”.
In addition to the foregoing, federal
employee Maryanne Trump (Barry) (and
corrupt the federal judicial process obstructing justice in
violation of Section 1503 thereby, and Section 1510 as a conse-
quence thereof, even as substantial sums of (drug) money were
being laundered, in violation of Section 1956, through
her family’s/brothers’ casinos by RICO defendants before her,
said “quid pro quo” in the form of drug money flows constituted a violation of
Section 201 relating to bribery.
At or around the time of the retaliatory
and spurious contempt proceeding, late 1992/early1993 , Trump had “retained”
the brother of then U.S. Attorney Christopher Droney, which further
discovery may have yielded a similar conclusion consistent with
said Trump modus
operandi. Federal employee (and then
Trustee, and
on (bribe) retainer by RICO defendants Dilena and companies,
violative of the predicate act of bribery, Section 201, as well
as obstructing justice, Section 1503, consistent therewith.
Facts giving rise to what a trier of
fact could reasonably infer from same, particularly when coupled
with the similar scenario (a more direct “
Section 201) vis-a-vis federal employee (and then U.S. Attorney)
Sam Allito, federal employee (and then Assistant U.S. Attorney,
and
thereby) who did “cut a bribe deal” (Section 201)
and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing
from the Office of the U.S. Attorney documents and/or file
concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other
federal law violations.
Jonathon Lacey did “cut a bribe deal” (Section 201)
and as well, did obstruct justice (Section 1503) by removing
from the Office of the U.S. Attorney documents and/or file
concerning drug money laundering (Section 1956) and other
federal law
violations. Federal employees in
(and defendant
Chapter 7
proceeding in
for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff (fraud in connection
with a case under Title 11), and as well, obstructing justice
(Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff sustained
damage to his property and business (also damaging creditors,
and committing bankruptcy fraud thereby).
Defendant Coan did consistent with the aforesaid perpetrate
a fraud (connected with a case under Title 11) upon the estate
of plaintiff and purposefully and with the intent to damage
plaintiff did cause the dismissal of proceedings, obstructing
justice (Section 1503) thereby, by reason of which plaintiff
sustained injury to his property and business.
and Exhibit “A”. The same violations apply to the adversary
proceeding concerning junkie and thief, David George Swann
(DOB 4-6-60; three guilty pleas to theft in less than 5 years
residence in
other assets of plaintiff and against whom default (judgment)
was ripe for entry (violations of Sections 1513, 102 and that
concerning extortion would also have been appropriate) . Defen-
dant Coan has neither abandoned nor rebrought same, violating
Section 1503 and (defrauding) damaging plaintiff thereby.
The aforesaid defendants also did violate Section 1962(d) by
conspiring to violate Section 1962(c) by and during during the
course of the conspiracy, consistent with the object of the
conspiracy in relation to the overt acts in futherance thereof,
did conspire to commit a fraud in connection with a case under
Title 11 and obstruct justice thereby, with knowledge of
the commission of predicate acts as set forth herein, were
a part of the pattern of racketeering activity by which plaintiff
sustained injury to his property by reason of said overt pre-
dicate acts. It should be noted that in conspiring to violate
section 1962 (c) by reason of which violations plaintiff
sustained injury to his business and property, defendants evinced
intent to injure plaintiff and benefit (former) RICO/adversary
proceeding defendants, and as well did obstruct justice (and
criminal investigations thereof). It should be noted as documented
therein that co-conspirator
engaged in innumerable ennumerated acts of racketeering activity
as set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section(l), most notably subpart (A),
viz., dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which
is chargeable under state law and punishable by imprisonment
for more than one year, and the concommitants of said racketeer-
ing activity set forth in said subpart, namely, murder, bribery,
and extortion. In furtherance thereof, as is relevant herein,
defendant
acts of obstruction of justice (Section 1503), obstruction of
criminal investigations (Section 1510), laundering of monetary
instruments (Section 1956) , use of interstate commerce facilities
in the commission of murder-for-hire (Section 1958), obstruction
of state or local law enforcement (Section 1511), retaliation
against a witness, victim, or informant (Section 1513), subpart
(D) as regards the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving,
concealment, buying, selling,or otherwise dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the
the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act. As set
forth and as
pertains to paragraph #3 infra
violated Section 1962 vis-a-vis receipt of income through
a pattern of racketeering, the investment of same in an
enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby, causing
damage to property and business by reason of said racketeering
activity; and, Section 1962 , through a pattern of
racketeering activity, acquired an interest in and/or maintained
control of an enterprise, affecting interstate commerce thereby,
causing damage to property and business by reason of said
acquisition of interest in, maintenance of, and/or control of
said enterprise.
Multiple and distinct injuries to multiple parties have been caused by defendants' violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property by reason of defendants' violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
The pattern of racketeering activity includes violations of the following provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. as further detailed immediately thereafter with factual specificity.
(illegal drug)money
laundering[Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956], bankruptcy
fraud [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D)], obstruction of justice, [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1503] , offenses involving fraud connected with a case under Title 11 U.S.C. [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D)], extortion[Title 18 U.S.C. § 1951] , mail fraud
[Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341], bribery
[Title 18 U.S.C. § 201], retaliation against a
witness/victim/informant [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513], and racketeering
[Title 18 U.S.C. § 1952], along with other substantive causes
sounding in (continuing) negligence/breach of fiduciary duty and Misprision of Felony [Title 18 U.S.C. § 4], fraudulent concealment thereof and contract.
A. Felonious removal of filed federal court documents by
federal employees of the bankruptcy court over which Alan Shiff
presides, among others; viz., on or about March 4, 1994 a motion
to file nunc pro tunc pre-trial memoranda was illegally removed
from the court file; the courtesy copy delivered by hand said
day to defendant Shift’s law secretary who identified himself
as David and who indicated same would be given to defendant
Shiff that same day, Exhibit “B”;
B. Fraudulent and otherwise false statements by federal
employee, Alan Shiff concerning a dismissal date upon which
spurious contempt proceedings were predicated and which caused
great damage to plaintiff before said spurious proceedings were
dismissed on the government’s own motion owing to mistake
of fact and law; specifically, on or about January 18, 1993
defendant Shiff did make a false representation regarding the
date he dismissed a prior Ch. 13 proceeding of plaintiff
stating said date to have been October 8, 1992, upon
which a spurious contempt proceeding against plaintiff was
predicated (false representation); defendant Shiff knew that
said representation was false since he had presided over the
hearing on June 3, 1992 when he had dismissed same (which fact
was ultimately confirmed by counsel on my behalf, Robert Sullivan
of Westport, Ct.) (scienter); defendant Shiff intended by his
materially (relating to the 180 day bar to ref iling a bankruptcy
petition but for which there could not have been a contempt
charge against plaintiff) false representation to defraud
plaintiff by the sums wrongfully and illegally extracted from
plantiff as sanctions imposed by Shiff himself as well as the
dismissal of meritorious adversary proceedings for which service
had been effected, some of which matters were without defense
(intent); the department of justice justifiably (it would be
a criminal and impeachable offense for Shiff to have made the
materially false representation he had made) relied upon the
false representation of Shiff in bringing the contempt action
against plaintiff (reliance); plaintiff was damaged not only
by the sanctions wrongfully and illegally (extracted) imposed,
but as well by dimissal of meritorious adversary proceedings,
some without defense, regarding property, both real and personal,
surplus funds from purported (wrongful) sales of real property,
and substantial money damages owed to plaintiff (causing damage);
C. On or about June 4, 1996, relying upon the false
representations of defendant Shiff as set forth in part B, supra
the California Bankruptcy Court dismissed a prior Cli. 7
proceeding here in California for which the Section 341a hearing
had already been consumated causing plaintiff damage;
D. On or about August 17, 1987, I initiated a R.I.C.O. action
Dkt.#87-2433(MTB)in the U.S. District Court, District of New
Jersey(the action also included E.R.I.S.A. claims in light of
the theft by RICO defendant Dilena of funds from a pension fund
to which plaintiff had a fiduciary duty - brought to my atten-
tion and confirmed by then bookkeeper Peter Baratta- and other
illegal acts relative to a 401K plan for the benefit of employ-
ees, although said causes are not part of the instant action).
Said matter was transferred to Maryanne Trump, a new appointee
to said district court, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars
(of drug money being laundered) per month flowing from RICO
defendants Dilena and companies through the casinos of Maryanne
Trump’s brother(s) Donald (and Robert). After conflicting
improper decisions (dictated by either loss of said illicit
funds or an increase) said matter was stalled and I was
constrained to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 5-14-88 since
a substantial sum of money was owed to me and sought in said
action. Said matter was stayed by Magistrate Stanley Chesler
owing to said bankruptcy filing. In preparing a motion to recuse
Maryanne Trump in or around the summer of 1988 I met with
and apprised United States Trustee Hugh Leonard of said
illegal activity and sought his office to join in my
motion to recuse Trump, which he refused despite the obvious
and egregious conflict of interest. Hugh Leonard left his
position as U.S. Trustee and joined the finn of Cole, Shotz,
and Bernstein) in Mackensack, N.J. with his “central” client
with whom he was on retainer being RICO defendants Dilena and
companies. Said RICO action was dismissed without prejudice
in or around early 1989, upon my best recollection;
E. In or around the filing of the RICO action in 1987 I contac-
ted the U.S. Attorney’s office and was scheduled a meeting with
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathon Lacey at their offices in the
federal building in Newark, N.J., upon best recollection in
or around late summer, early fall of 1987. I explained the RICO
action, the drug money laundering among other illegal activities,
and turned over to him supporting documents (relevant documents
corroborating substantial sums owed to me and as well, the
various illegal activities of said defendants, coincident to
“break-ins” at my offices and theft of various documents)
were being illegally held by RICO defendants’ lawyers Woodcock,
Kingman, and Winkler of Hackensack,N.J.- upon information, they
had had a “falling out” with the Dilenas who were contem-
plating litigation against said firm) .Me indicated they would
be reviewed and I would be contacted. After some time had passed,
I inquired as to the status of the investigation and forthcoming
action from said office. I was told that Lacey was no longer
with said office and that no file or documents could be located.
I thereupon in or around late 1988, early 1989 delivered by
hand a package to Sam Allito, then U.S. Attorney, containing
said inculpating documents, the recipient at his Newark, N.J.
office indicating that said documents would be turned over to
Sam Allito. I was also told once again that I would be contacted
concerning same. After some time had passed my inquiry revealed
that Allito had been moved to the Court of Appeals for the Third
Ciruit and that neither a file nor said documents could be
located. I thereupon went to the FBI office in Newark, N.J.
where I was “tauntingly greeted” by an agent uninterested in
said matter who smurkingly asked me “whether I was going to
the disco that night”;
F. In filing the subsequent Oh. 13 in 1989 I sought to preserve
the interests of the estate and creditors thereof only to find
a corrupt Shiff court, and thereupon sought an orderly
liquidation of assets (including three real properties in N.J.
with substantial equity (approximately $290,000 based on
actual comp.values & bank appraisals)under a chapter 7 proceeding
in Virginia, where I had maintained a residence and office,
filed in September, 1989, just prior to the dismissal of said
Oh. 13 proceeding in Connecticut in September 1989.
Said proceeding was not consumated according to law, and(conflic-
ting) statements that I had been granted a discharge were given
to an inquiring creditor who subsequently presented same to
the Connecticut bankruptcy court. The RICO action and sums owed
to me were listed as assets and were neither abandoned nor was
a marshalling of assets and distribution consumated according
to law. Said wrongful, negligent, illegal and culpable acts
of employees of the United States of America(‘s) bankruptcy/
federal court (as well as those of New Jersey and Connecticut)
have caused my estate and creditors thereof substantial damage;
G. A Notice of Federal Tort Claim was served upon then
Attorney General Robert Barr via Fedex in late 1991. Having
received no response I filed a R.I.C.O. and damage action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
on April 14, 1992 to preserve (for statute of limitations
purposes) my contractual claims for sums owed to me by RICO
defendants Dilena and companies and for other causes of action
consistent therewith. The Docket * of said case was 92cv0l66(TGD)
and was assigned to Judge T. Qilroy Daley who had handled a
substantial organized crime case in said district. Said case
was stayed owing to the pending bankruptcy proceeding in the
District of Connecticut where the adversary proceedings focused
primarily, though not exclusively, on the RICO defendants in
light of the substantial amounts involved and the position of
same as a substantial asset of the estate. Upon Judge Daley’s
passing, said matter was transferred in or around 1995 to Judge
Alvin Thompson and transferred once again to Judge Janet Bond
Arterton in early 1996. Within weeks following the dismissal
with prejudice of those matters (among others) set forth in
Exhibit “A” annexed hereto, Judge Arterton dismissed the RICO
action, Dkt.# 92cv0166, without prejudice indicating in her
Order that(it was her understanding)that said matters were being
resolved in the bankruptcy proceeding, viz., case * 95-51862
in the District of Connecticut, further compounding the collusive
and corrupt, wrongful, negligent and illegal conduct causing
plaintiff substantial damage. This is especially so given the
fact that many of the subject defendants were in default on
the verified complaints, with some partial settlements effected
with some of said defendants;
H. The use by the Shift court of false and/or conflicting
notices of hearing, ie., as set forth in Exhibit “C” is
another way federal employees acted and conspired to fraudu-
lently conceal the various illegal, wrongful, and tortious
acts, including the drug money laundering, theft of surplus
funds for distribution to the estate and creditors, as well
as theft of property, both real and personal, defrauding
plaintiff and creditor’s of plaintiff’s estate. The San Bern-
adino Court also similarly used such ploy regarding a hearing
noticed for 9-9-95 when in fact same was actually 9-7-95.
I. The dismissal with prejudice by Alan Shiff, bankruptcy
court judge in the district of Connecticut, of adversary
proceedings on 12-5-96, all meritorious including some for
which the entry of default/default judgment was appropriate,
some without defense, defrauding plaintiff and creditors thereby,
in violation of the RICO Act and the commission of a predicate
act thereunder; as well as to coverup said predicate acts and
other crimes within the ambit of RICO and under State and
Federal, constituting misprision of felony thereby.
J. J. Matz in Los Angeles, California, Central District Court
Judge, in 1999 did fraudulently misrepresent the record of
proceedings, obstructing justice thereby, and to coverup
predicate acts under RICO among other crimes, committing
misprision of felony thereby. [FEDEX Corp. is also in contempt
of a subpoena regarding transmissions by plaintiff to Attorneys
General (former) Barr and Reno for which plaintiff sought
sanctions/enforcement]
FIRST COUNT – RICO
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments contained in
paragraphs through as if set forth at length herein.
At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was a “person” within the
meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
At all times relevant hereto,
defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,
Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., John Doe Surety 1 and John Doe Insurer 2, and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut were “persons” within the meaning of RICO,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut formed an association-in-fact for the purpose of defrauding and injuring plaintiff in his business and property. This association-in-fact was an "enterprise" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). In the alternative, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut was the enterprise within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
At all relevant times, this enterprise was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO,18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut associated with this enterprise, conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of this enterprise's affairs through a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), in violation ofof RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
As a result of defendant Coan and the other Conspirators’ violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(d), plaintiff has been damaged in his business and property
as a direct consequence of said offenses involving fraud connected with a case
under Title 11, U.S.C..
As a result of their misconduct,
defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC.,
are liable to plaintiff for damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. §
1964(c), plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold his damages plus costs plus
reasonable attorneys’ fees from the aforesaid defendants.
SECOND COUNT – RICO CONSPIRACY
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the
averments contained in paragraphs
through as if set forth at
length herein.
At all times relevant hereto,
defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,
Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., John Doe Surety 1 and John Doe Insurer 2, and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut were “persons” within the meaning of RICO,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut formed an association-in-fact for the purpose of defrauding and injuring plaintiff in his business and property. This association-in-fact was an "enterprise" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). In the alternative, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut was the enterprise within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
At all relevant times, this enterprise was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO,18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
At all relevant times, defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon,Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC., and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut associated with this enterprise, conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of this enterprise's affairs through a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), in violation ofof RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
As a result of defendant Coan and the other Conspirators’ violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c), plaintiff has been damaged in his business and property
as a direct consequence of said offenses involving fraud connected with a case
under Title 11, U.S.C..
As a result of their misconduct,
defendants Richard M. Coan, Timothy Miltenberger, Whitney Lewendon, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver, and Miltenberger, LLC.,
are liable to plaintiff for damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. §
1964(c), plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold his damages plus costs plus
reasonable attorneys’ fees from the aforesaid defendants.
COUNT - NEGLIGENCE/BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the
averments contained in paragraphs
through as if set forth at
length herein.
On or about May 1, 1996, defendant
Richard M. Coan succeeded to the interests of the estate of plaintiff herein in
his capacity as Chapter 7 Tustee, said case having originated under Chapter 13
of Title 11, U.S.C., and designated as Case No. 95-51862, United States
Bankruptcy Court, in the District of Connecticut.
At all times relevant hereto, Richard
M. Coan had a fiduciary duty to said estate, creditors thereof including the
U.S. government, which duty he breached through wrongful and otherwise negligent and culpable conduct.
To wit, Richard M. Coan, in his
capacity as successor plaintiff was ordered by the court to file papers
consistent with his capacity and duty as successor plaintiff and Trustee, in a
number of adversary proceedings brought by debtor/plaintiff herein for which
the entry of default had been requested and the entry of default judgment
appropriate inasmuch as proper service had been made with some matters being
without defense, ie., properties (outside the state of Connecticut, ie., New
Jersey) sold during the pendency of the automatic stay pursuant to §362 of
Title 11, U.S.C., unaccounted for substantial funds (in New Jersey) generated
from said wrongful acts, theft of personalty/business assets (in California,
New Jersey, and Connecticut), loss of rents (in New Jersey, California, and
Connecticut), among other causes and damages, including a substantial fraud on
debtor/plaintiff herein perpetrated by R.I.C.O. defendants/co-conspirators
involved in laundering drug money through the Trump (of New York) casinos (in
New Jersey) along with other criminal activities covered by and violative of
federal law.
All of said matters were meritorious,
substantial, some without defense, as well as some for which partial
settlements and/or payments had been made.
Richard M. Coan, in his capacity as
Trustee and to cover-up various criminal activities including, inter alia, illegal
drug money laundering, bribery, fraud, theft, other violations of federal law
including §362 of Title 11, U.S.C., and
the illegal, wrongful and culpable failure to conclude the 1989 Virginia
Chapter 7 proceeding under Title 11 in accordance with federal law, among
others, wrongfully, negligently, and culpably failed to file any document
whatsoever.
As a direct consequence of the
aforesaid negligent, wrongful and culpable breaches of fiduciary duty the
subject adversary proceedings were dismissed with prejudice as set forth in
Exhibit “ “, annexed hereto and
incorporated herein by reference thereto, causing and resulting in great damage
to plaintiff herein.
Defendant Richard M. Coan is liable
to plaintiff for the damages caused by said negligent, wrongful and culpable
breaches of fiduciary duty, in amounts compensatory and punitive, to be
determined at trial.
COUNT - FRAUD AND AIDING AND ABETTING
FRAUD
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the
averments contained in paragraphs
through as if set forth at
length herein.
COUNT -
CONTRACT
Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments contained in
paragraphs through as if set forth at length herein.
Plaintiff at all times relevant
hereto was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts/policies of
surety/insurance insuring defendants herein.
COUNT - JOHN DOES
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for
judgment against defendants for:
(A) compensatory damages in the amount of $5 million ($5,000,000), trebled
pursuant to RICO;
(B) punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
(C) costs, fees, and other expenses, including attorney's fees, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1964(c);
(D) such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se
CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION
I, Albert L.
Peia, hereby certify that the averments in the foregoing Complaint are
true under penalty of perjury.
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se