UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GARY R. WALL,
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR.
STEPHEN MANOS,
Plaintiffs
CASE NO:3:97-CV02502(JCH)
-vROBERT LUSKIN,
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA ET AL
Defendants
DATED: DECEMBER 13, 1999
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 15(a) F.R.C.P. IN
TANDEM WITH RULE RULE 20(a) F.R.C.P. 'PERMISSIVE JOINDER' OF AN ADDITIONAL
PRO SE PLAINTIFF AGAINST A CONTINUING ENTERPRISE
SUBMITTED BY
.............
GARY R. WALL, PRO SE
60 CARRIAGE HILL DRIVE
WETHERSFIELD, CT. 06109
860-529-2651 860-563-5915
.............
WILLIAM COOKSEY, PRO SE
..............
STEPHEN MANOS, PRO SE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
RULE 15 (a) F.R.C.P. IN ITS PERTINENT PART
"---a party may amend the party's pleading only by Leave of Court or by
written consent of the adverse party; and Leave shall be freely given when
Justice so require."
See Foman -v- Davis, 371 U. S. 178 said the Court "Rule 15(a) is to be
heeded. If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff
may be proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to
test his claim on the merits..".
See also Salahuddin -v- Cuomo 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing
Moore's its is within discretion of Trial Court to determine whether to
grant Leave; however, Court must consider that Leave should be freely granted
when Justice requires).
RULE 20(a) F.R.C.P. PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES
(a) Permissive Joinder. "all persons may join in one action as
plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the
alternative in respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact
common to all these persons will arise in the action"---USE OF RULE 15(a) IN A RICO COMPLAINT AGAINST A CONTINUING ENTERPRISE
See United States -v- I. B. Teamsters (S.D. New York) 708 Fed. Supp.
1388 at 1391 Finding #27
"Government was entitled to amend original civil RICO complaint, in
which it alleged union enterprise was continuing enterprise, to add examples of
continuing violations it claimed had occurred since filing of complaint;
new allegations were additional examples of alleged continuing violations and
did not constitute new theory of liability or work any other substantial change
in nature of complaint, and although new allegations could require some
additional discovery, it was not likely that trial would be delayed. Fed.
Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 15(a), 28 USCA.
BASIS FOR REQUEST TO ADD PLAINTIFF JULIAN REGARDING RULE 15(a)
Said request will not cause any undue delay. It is not being brought
in bad faith or for dilatory motive. It is not meant to cure deficiencies in
previous amendments. The purpose of the request for Leave to amend to add
Plaintiff Julian, who also has been harmed in his property by violations of
18 USC 1962 and 18 USC 1961, is an additional example of continuing
violations of a continuing enterprise that has "the same or similar
purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission" Quoting [Sedima's
Footnote 14.]
BASIS FOR REQUEST TO ADD PLAINTIFF JULIAN REGARDING RULE 20(a)
The words of Rule 20(a) in their pertinent part ---- assert any right
to relief jointly, severally or in the alternative in respect of or arising
out of the same transactions, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons
will arise in the action.".
The questions of law and fact common to all plaintiffs in this instant
RICO action is the existence of a continuing criminal enterprise in the
meaning of 18 USC 1961(4). The plaintiffs also assert that proposed
Plaintiff Julian has the right to relief jointly, in this instant action in
the form of collective liability. See United States -v- I.B.T. (S.D. New
York) 708 Fed. Supp. 1388, Id. 1390 Finding #14.
"Government's allegations were sufficient to support RICO claim, based
on theory of collective liability and conscious avoidance of knowledge,
against union officers 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 USCA 1961 et
seq."
APPLICABILITY OF 18 USCA 2, TO PROPOSED PLAINTIFF JULIAN'S RIGHT TO
COLLECTIVELY PLEAD AGAINST AN "ASSOCIATE IN FACT CONSPIRACY' AND AGAINST
THE "PERSONS" IN THE MEANING OF 18 USC 1961(3) WHO ARE FIDUCIARY INDIVIDUALS
GROUPED COLLECTIVELY UNDER 18 USC 1961(4).
18 USC 2 See United States -v- Local 560 780 F.2d 267 Id. 269 Finding
#9 and Footnote #25 Id. 288.
Finding #9 "criminal standard for aiding and abetting applied to charge
in civil racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organization Act [18 USCA 1961
et. seq.] suit that union's executive board aided and abetted other defendants'
extortionate acts. 18 USCA 2 1962"
Footnote #25 "We conclude that under RICO, an individual need not
himself commit two requisite predicate offenses, as long as that same individual
aids and abets the commission of the predicate offenses. Indeed there is no
authority to suggest that 18 USC 2(a) does not apply to RICO. Under 18 USC
2(a) whoever "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the
commission of an offense against the United States is punishable as a
principal".
See United States -v- IBT (S.D. New York) 708 Fed. Supp. 1388 Finding #14
Id. 1390
"Government's allegations were sufficient to support RICO claim, based
on theory of collective liability and conscious avoidance of knowledge,
against union officers 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 a duty, and that lack of knowledge of particular
officers could only have resulted form conscious avoidance of facts 18 USCA 1961 et.
seq."
See also Somerville -v- Major Exploration 576 -F. Supp. 902, 911 (SD NY
1983), Pellman -v- Cinerama, Inc. 503 F. Supp. 107 111 (SD NY 1980)
AIDING AND ABETTING IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 2 REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF THE
HOBBS ACT 18 USC 1951 WHICH CAUSED ALL THREE NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED
PLAINTIFF JULIAN TO SURRENDER BOTH SEPARATELY AND COLLECTIVELY THEIR
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 157 AND
411 TITLE 29 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 29 USC 157
AND THE LABOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT (LMRDA) 29 USC 411
REGARDING PROPOSED PLAINTIFF JULIAN
See Julian Affidavit Dated December 6, 1999 attached See Page 2
Sworn Statement #12 alleging violation of the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951
Extortion of LMRDA Rights Defendant LeConche
Sworn statement #13 alleging Hobbs Act violation against the employer
Capitol Concrete
Sworn statement #15 alleging violation of the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951
Extortion of LMRDA Rights
Sworn statement #16 alleging violation of the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951
extortion of LMRDA Rights
Sworn statement #18 alleging violation of the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951
extortion of LMRDA Rights
Sworn statement #19 alleging violation of 18 USC 2 facilitating
extortion
of LMRDA Rights by Defendant Vere O. Haynes and other mentioned LIUNA
Officers
Sworn statement #20 alleging violation 18 USC 2 by Vere O. Haynes
facilitating the Hobbs Act violations 18 USC 1951 the actual assault 29 USC
530 and facilitating the Executive Boards violations of 18 USC 1962(c )(d)
Sworn statement #21 alleging violation of 18 USC 2 by Defendant Luskin
wrongdoer Gow and wrong doer Vaira.
Sworn statement #22 same as #21
Sworn statement #23 same as #21 and #22
Sworn statement #24 alleging violation of 18 USC 2 by wrongdoer Vaira
Sworn statement #25 alleging violation of the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951
extortion of LMRDA Rights
Sworn statement #26 violation of the Hobbs Act 18 USC 1951 Extortion of
LMRDA Right, Employment Right and Civil Rights.
All of the above predicate act violations of 18 USC 1961(1) and 18 USC
1961(5) are all in violation of 18 USC 1962(d) (b) (c)-by the same culpable
individuals cited in this instant RICO complaint-grouped together as of
February, 1995 as the "Luskin Coia Lopreato Group" and prior to February
1995 as the "Coia Lopreato Group.
All of the predicate act violations committed against proposed Plaintiff
Julian [for the purposes of meeting the relatedness requirement under
Indelicato 865 F.2d 1370/H.J., Inc. 492 U.S. 229 and for the Joinder
Requirement of Rule 20(a) F.R.C.P.] are predicate act violations
horizontally related to the violations committed against the named plaintiffs in
violation of 18 USC 1961(1) 18 USC 1961(5)-and vertically related to the 18 USC
1961(4) enterprise in violation of 18 USC 1961(1), 18 USC 1961(5).
The primary goal of the cited defendants and wrong doers whether
facilitating in violation of 18 USC 2 or conspiring or actually committing
predicate act violations is for the purposes of maintaining and controlling
the enterprise in violation of 18 USC 1962 (b, c, d). The primary activity
vertically related to the enterprise and horizontally related to proposed
Plaintiff Julian and the three named plaintiff's in violation of 18 USC
1961(1,5) is to remove any political opposition or any member who questions
the policies of LIUNA, the Operational Agreement or the Leadership of Local
230, a "captive labor organization". The nature of said enterprise being
an open ended criminal conspiracy extorting proposed Plaintiff Julian's and
the named plaintiff's LMRDA Rights , employment rights and civil rights.
Three of the cited Defendants, Lopreato, LeConche and Pezzente are
effective date [October 15, 1970] violators of 18 USC 1962(b,c,d), who directly
acquire[d], in the meaning of 18 USC 1962(b) and controlled through their
racketeering conduct, in violation of 18 USC 1962(c), the affairs of the
enterprise that exist in Local 230-through fraudulent LM 15, 15A, and 16
LMRDA Federal Reporting Trusteeship Forms. See Exhibit B Dkt. #37. One
form the LM 16 is within the effective date of RICO [for purposes of an
enterprise conspiracy the statute of limitations runs "where a conspiracy violation is
alleged pursuant to subsection [d] from the time the objective of the
conspiracy have been accomplished or abandoned" citing Bankers Trust -vRhoades 859 Fed. Rep. 2d 1096 United States Court of Appeals 2d Cir. at
1102]. It was signed June 11, 1971 by LIUNA Trustee Arthur E. Coia, LIUNA
President Peter Fusco, and LIUNA Treasurer Terrence J. O'Sullivan. Two of
the named defendants, LeConche and Pezzente have extorted proposed
Plaintiff Julian's LMRDA rights as part of a scheme to control and maintain the
enterprise in violation of 18 USC 1962(b,c,d). Defendant Luskin, Defendant
Vere O. Haynes, wrong doer Gow and wrong doer Viara Have aided and abetted
said scheme in violation of 18 USC 2, by their conscious avoidance of the
knowledge of the facts and have failed to act, when the had a fiduciary
duty to do so.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Prior to effective date RICO, October 15, 1970, Lopreato, LeConche and
Pezzente were all officers in the meaning of LMRDA and part of a totally
illicit group the "Bellesano Group", who completely through acts of
racketeering bankrupt Local 230. Mr. Lopreato was an auditor, Mr. Pezzente
a strong arm man field representative, and Mr. LeConche was a labor steward
on what was without a doubt the most corrupt job ever, the UCONN Dental
School.
All answered directly to Michael Bellesano. It was because of this
relevant background information that was printed in the Hartford Times, See Exhibit
A Dkt. #37, that the international was forced to fabricate a change in
leadership of Local 230 through the fraudulent LM 15, 15A and 16 Reporting
Forms.
CONCLUSION
The plaintiffs note that Leave to amend the second amended complaint is
for the purpose of adding continuing violations that occurred and
culminated after the filing of the second amended complaint.
Proposed Plaintiff Julian's last communication with the Operational
Agreements IHO Officer wrong doer Viara is dated the same date as the
filing of the second amended complaint, August 30, 1999. See Affidavit of Gene
Julian dated December 6, 1999 at 3 #24. It has been just short of four
months and there is no answer from the in-house prosecutor or the IHO
Officer's office. There were previous letters also to the IHO officer-one
which requested a referral to the D.O.J. There was no answer to that
request also. Even though the four month LMRDA exhaustion Rule does not apply to
the "Operational Agreement", which in effect suspends the local and LIUNA
constitution-under the circumstances ample time to wait for an answer has
passed. There has been no investigation of proposed Julian's charges by
any Federal Agency or from the Inspector General's Office of the Operational
Agreement. There was also a previous affidavit by Gene Julian-entry date
12/2/97 Dkt. #9.
Mr. Julian has been harmed in his intangible property rights by the
same effective date enterprise and some of the same defendants and wrong doers
as the three named plaintiffs. He has also been harmed by the "Operational
Agreement" with the D.O.J.-which was conceived by Defendant Luskin to take
Arthur A. Coia past the last predicate act rule of RICO [5 years]. In
doing so, Defendant Luskin also protected the named associates in fact of Arthur
A. Coia in Local 230, which all the plaintiffs are victims of. There has been
no Court that has seen the prosecution memo that created the compromised
212 page complaint. There is no Court which knows what District or Districts
the prosecution memo came from. It is a self evident truth that no one
violates RICO by themselves. There was no one else charged as associate in fact
conspirators with Arthur A. Coia according to the "Operational Agreement",
which is identified as one of the racketeering schemes under the H. J. Inc.
multi scheme test in the Re-pleading of second amended complaint Dkt. #99
at 9-12.
Also, stopped by reason of the Operational Agreement with the D.O.J.
was an investigation by the D.O.J. of Hobbs Act violations and an actual
assault 29 USC 530 on proposed Plaintiff Julian's political running mate, Stephen
Manos, See Affidavit of Judith Dobrich Dkt. #100 entry date 8/31/99,
Affidavit of Stephen Manos Dkt. #101 entry 8/31/99.
The Hobbs Act was enacted in 1934 specifically to address labor
racketeering. The LMRDA was enacted in 1959 to supplement the Hobbs Act.
RICO was enacted October 15, 1970 with the Hobbs Act as an enumerated
violation of 18 USC 1961(1) and the word union enumerated as an entity to
supplement the LMRDA. All of the plaintiffs including proposed Plaintiff
Julian's civil rights have been violated by the racketeering scheme
"Operational Agreement" with the Department of Justice, including Attorney
General Janet Reno, and other unknown U. S. Attorney's in the meaning of
"Bivens -v- United States 403 U. S. 388". See: Wrong doer #6, Attorney
General Janet Reno Re-pleading second amended complaint Dkt. #99 at 8-9 in
which all of them have violated their oath of office, article 2 Section 3
of the United States Constitution "take care that laws be faithfully
executed".
Said violation of office also includes Defendant Luskin as an appointed
"racketeering investigator" under 18 USC 1961(7).
In reality, even though the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring
the charge-what the "Operational Agreement" is, is a conspiracy against the
United States, perpetrated by Defendant Luskin, in the capacity of Defense
Attorney for Arthur A. Coia. It is being mentioned for the purposes of 18
USC 1964(a).
PROPOSED PLAINTIFF JULIAN REQUESTS FOR RELIEF IS THE SAME AS THE NAMED
PLAINTIFFS, THAT IS:
Pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c) any person injured in his business or
property by reason of a violation of section 1962 may sue therefore in any
appropriate United States District Court and shall recover threefold the damages he
sustains and the cost of the suite, including a reasonable attorney fee.
If granted as a plaintiff, proposed Plaintiff Julian will claim the recovery
of wages, benefits, and membership rights, which were extorted from him.
Because of the racketeering scheme known as the Operational Agreement,
the Judicial Branch is the only avenue for relief and the enforcement of
the protections of the Hobbs Act, LMRDA, and RICO afforded to Plaintiff Julian,
as a citizen of the United States.
Because of the aforementioned facts the named plaintiffs respectfully
request the Court to Grant their Rule 15(a), Rule 20(a) motion on behalf of
Mr. Julian and in the interest of Justice.
SUBMITTED BY:
..............
GARY R. WALL, PRO SE
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651 860-563-5915
..............
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR PRO SE
..............
STEPHEN MANOS, PRO SE
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum of
Law and the Gene Julian Affidavit was sent Next Day Air to Terrence Reed,
Esq., Attorney for Robert Luskin, and First Class postage prepaid to John
T.
Fussell, Esq., Attorney for all other defendants this day of December 13,
1999 to:
Terrence Reed, Esq.
Reed & Hostage
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.
Suite 455 West
Washington, D. C. 20007
John T. Fussell, Esq.
Robert M. Cheverie Associates
333 East River Drive
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108-4201
SUBMITTED BY:
................
GARY R. WALL, PRO SE
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
860-529-2651 860-563-5915
................
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR, PRO SE
................
STEPHEN MANOS, PRO SE