UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


GARY R. WALL, Pro Se, )
WILLIAM COOKSEY, SR., Pro Se, )
STEPHEN MANOS, Pro se, )
Plaintiffs )
)
Vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 3:04-CV-91 (WWE)
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION )
OF NORTH MAERICA (LIUNA) )
ROBERT D. LUSKIN, VERE O. HAYNES)
LABORERS’ LOCAL 230, DOMINICK )
LOPREATO, JOHN PEZZENTI )
CHARLES LECONCHE, ROBERT M. )
CHEVERIE, PATRICK TOMASIEWICZ )
RICHARD WEISS and CONNECTICUT )
LABORERS’ PENSION FUND (CLPF). )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

The plaintiffs, Gary R. Wall, William Cooksey, Sr., and Stephen Manos, have moved for reconsideration of the Court’s granting of the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #91], for leave to file supplemental pleadings [doc. #980 and for a hearing and preliminary injunction [Doc. #99]. The defendants, Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), Robert D. Luskin, Vere O. Haynes, Laborers’ Local 230, Dominick Lopreato, John Pezzenti, Charles LeConche, Robert M. Cheverie, Patrick Tomasiewicz, Richard Weiss and Connecticut Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF), oppose the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Court will deny the plaintiffs’ motions.
The underlying complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the resulting “cram down” and “fraudulent depletion” of the plaintiffs’ respective pensions. In its granting of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. The Court determined that the identical claims were fully litigated and dismissed with prejudice in a 2000 ruling that concluded two and one half years of litigation. (3:97-cv-2502 (JCH).)
In the plaintiffs’ “Response to the Court’s March 1, 2005 Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,” they claim that neither collateral estoppel nor issue preclusion apply. Accordingly, they invoke Fed. R. Civ P. 59(e) to move this Court for reconsideration of its judgment.1
Reconsideration may be granted, pursuant to the court’s discretion, in limited circumstances. Generally, it will only be granted when there has been an intervening change of controlling law, new evidence has been discovered, or there exists the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. “This Court will not grant a motion to reconsider where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided, to plug gaps in an original argument or to argue in the alternative once a decision has been made.” Book v. Lupinacci, 2006 WL 1182275 *2 (D.Conn.)
Because the Court finds that the plaintiffs do not satisfy the above standard and that they are attempting to relitigate the same issues they have brought to the court before, the plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) motion is denied.
Additionally, the Court denies the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings [Doc. # 98], motion for hearing and a preliminary injunction [Doc. #99] in that, in light of the closed status of this case, these motions are moot.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration [Doc. # 94], for leave to file supplemental pleadings [Doc. # 98] and for a hearing and a preliminary injunction [Doc. # 99] are DENIED.

SO ORDERED THIS 12TH day of May, 2006 at Bridgeport, Connecticut

______________________________
WARREN W. EGINTON
Senior United States District Judge












UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


GARY R. WALL, CIVIL ACTION NO.
WILLIAM COOKSEY JR. 3:04-CV-91(WWE)
Plaintiffs

v.

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA), ROBERT
D. LUSKIN, VERE O. HAYNES, LABORERS
LOCAL 230, DOMINICK LOPREATO, JOHN
PEZZENTI, CHARLES LECONCHE, ROBERT
CHEVERIE, PATRICK TOMASIEWICZ, RICHARD
WEISS, CONNECTICUT LABORERS PENSION
FUND (CLPF)
Defendants DATED: May 24, 2006


PLAINTIFFS RULE 59(e) MOTION IN RESPONSE TO (DKT. #100): THE COURTS FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF DEFENDANTS 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d,b,c) VIOLATIONS CITED IN DKT. #98 AND THE COURTS EXTRA JUDICIAL ARTICLE II OBSTRUCTION OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CITED IN DKT. # 99
IN TANDEM WITH:
PLAINTIFFS SUBMISSION SHOWING OF A CONTINUATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL (ARTICLE II) ACTS OF DOCKET FRAUD AND FACT FRAUD AS PUNISHMENT FOR BRINGING 28 U.S.C. 351 COMPLAINTS

SUBMITTED BY:
_________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, Pro se plaintiff
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109 860-529-2651
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR. Pro se plaintiff
_________________________________________
1097 Maple Avenue
Hartford, CT. 06114


CLAIRIFICATION AND EXPLANATION OF TITLE OF MOTION

Because of the constant documented docket fraud, fact fraud, and fraudulent concealment committed by Your Honor, or in Your Honor’s name2 the plaintiffs will respond to the Courts ORDER in three separate responses to the dockets addressed in the Courts Order Dkt. #100 dockets numbers 98, 99 and 91.
FIRST THE COURTS DENIAL (DKT. #100) OF DOCKET #98 (AS MOOT) TITLED:

“PLAINTIFFS WALL AND COOKSEY RULE 15(d) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS”

Rule 59(e) is being employed here to protect the Right to Supplemental plead (Rule 15(d)) to “prevent manifest injustice”. “Manifest” in this case and the Bridgeport Division is clearly evident, undeniable Extra Judicial Acts of Criminal Obstruction of Pro se Pleadings.
ON PAGE 2 OF THE COURT’S RULING (DKT. # 100) THE COURT STATES:
“Because the Court finds that the plaintiffs do not satisfy the above standard and that they are attempting to relitigate the same issues they have brought to the Court before, the plaintiffs Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is denied”.

In Response:

It is very obvious that the supplemental pleading is not an attempt to “relitigate the same issues”.
See Rule 15(d):
Rule 15(d) – Supplemental Pleadings deal exclusively with facts that have arisen since the time of filing of the original pleadings. ‘Amended’ pleadings, or ‘amendments’ to pleadings add to or correct the claims set forth in the original pleading. In contrast ‘supplemental’ pleadings set forth occurrence or events that have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented” (Moore Fed. Practice Comment)
See Griffin v. County School Bd. 377 U.S. 218, 226-227 (1964):

“Court may permit supplemental pleading to add new claims, parties and events occurring after filing of original action”

See Also: Pratt v. Rowland 769 Fed. Supp. 1128:

--“supplemental complaint alleged a continuing pattern and practice of politically motivated mistreatment of plaintiff, as did original Complaint 15(d) U.S.C.A.”

The Court went on to state at pages 2 and 3 of its 3-page opinion:

“Additionally, the Court denies the plaintiffs motion for leave to file supplemental pleading [DKT. #98] motion for hearing and a preliminary injunction [DKT. #99] in that, in light of the closed status of this case, those motions are moot.”

See Werner v. Werner 267 F.3d 288, 294-297 (3d Cir. 2001):

“Court of Appeals took judicial notice of existence of newly discovered evidence and remanded action to district court to permit amendment of complaint to incorporate new evidence”

In addition to the fact that the Court “closed status of this case” after holding plaintiffs 59(e) Motion against the Court’s March 1, 2005 Ruling for fourteen (14) months, closing the status of the OCCA/RICO Complaint (“any person 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)”) after the 15(d) Motion and Rule 65 Motion are filed, is part of a “documented pattern of fraudulent concealment of 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) Federal Crimes protected by Your Honor’s Courtroom.
There is a way for Your Honor to protect Your Honor’s integrity, and in doing so protect the Constitution of the United States from Extra Judicial Judicial Collusion Obstruction of (politically harmful D.N.C./D.O.J) pro se pleadings; that is, now that Your Honor has “Closed Status” of the Complaint. See Rule 15(d) Post Judgment.

“[d] – Post Judgment Amendment”

“Once the case has gone to judgment – the pleader must show cause as provided in Rule 59 or 60 to obtain relief from judgment in order to be allowed to amend”

This is a timely filed F.R.C.P. 59(e) Motion filed on May 24, 2006 to “prevent manifest injustice” against the Court’s Ruling on Rule 15(d) (Court DKT. #100 filed May 15, 2006). The plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider Your Honors involvement in the corrupt judicial/law clerk collusion to obstruct pro se pleadings.
In order to help Your Honor make that decision to “prevent manifest injustice” in this case regarding the defendants violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) and regarding the Judges Nevas, Hall serious Article II crimes, the plaintiffs will re-quote key footnotes in the Rule 15(d) memorandum.
FOOTNOTE 2 at 2:
“ See Standing Order at pages 27-28 under heading titled “DEFENDANT LUSKIN AND DEFENDANT HAYNES 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) Conspiracy, Luskin violating 1962(b)(c), Haynes violating 1962(b)(c). Take Special Notice at (page 27 Standing Order) quoted for clarity “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).”

FOOTNOTE 3 at 5:
Defendant Cheverie has full knowledge that Judge Hall is in collusion with the D.N.C./D.O.J. Scheme to obstruct the pleadings. She has even protected Defendant Cheverie’s issuance of fraudulent after the fact subpoenas, that were fabricated after the defendants received plaintiff Cooksey’s medical and psychiatric records from the pension fund (CLPF) without his knowledge. Defendant Cheverie knowledge that Judge Hall will even protect fraudulent subpoenas, plus every other (documented) crime of protection she committed emboldened a RICO enterprise (fraudulent subpoena, see Standing Order Cheverie/Fraudulent Subpoenas pages 46-52).

FOOTNOTE 4 at 6:
For the explicate reason only of showing the degrading level of Judicial Corruption that Judge Hall will go to in order to protect the Clinton Whitehouse/D.N.C. buy-out protection of a RICO Enterprise – just prior to the trial, Judge Hall requested that the plaintiffs file a copy of the N.L.R.B. case finding in the trial case 3:97-CV-00942(JCH), because she wanted to read it before the trial. Judge Hall admitted she read the case before the trial, on the record. Judge Hall now knowing defendant Lopreato was a convicted perjurer and pension racketeer, see U.S. v. Lopreato 83F3d 571 (May 8, 1996), allowed Defendant Lopreato to tell the jury he fired plaintiff Wall because “Wall was shaking down laborers making them play numbers”. The opposite of the truth. See Chief Judge Winters at 171 of Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 224 Fed 168 (2d Cir. 2000), CHIEF JUSTICE WINTERS “The N.L.R.B. found that the union removed Wall as shop steward in November 1985 in retaliation for refusing to follow directions involving the “shake down’ of Laborers for Money”. Those directives were from a 1961(4) Enterprise. This is by fact Third World Litigation.

FOOTNOTE 6 AT 8:
Judge Hall and subsequent all of the Federal Judges that protected her, Hall, Nevas, Law Clerk, Bridgeport Division Judicial Fraud and Obstruction of pro se plaintiffs Constitutional Rights, (in addition, seven 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints obstructed by Second Circuit) do so criminally (documented fact) using the assumed integrity of Federal Judges, against the assumed ignorance of citizen pro se plaintiffs. Pro se Rights are a Constitutional Right. Intentional Judicial Fraud and Obstruction of those Rights should be protected, or this is a Third World Nation. Non Enforcement of Article II High Crimes makes worthless Article III Oaths.

FOOTNOTE 7 AT 10:
There is not one docket in this case that states this case was assigned to Hon. Judge Burns prior to the Courts DKT. # 49. Because of that fact plus prior judicial obstructions starting with Nevas transfers (Oct. 23, 1997) 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) Bridgeport 3:97-CV-02502(JCH) Bridgeport. This Rule 11 plaintiffs contends that Judge Nevas insidiously, after the system assigned the case to Honorable Judge Burns, criminally transferred the case for reasons of protecting his former and present day Justice Department colleagues from their involvement in the corrupt use of a Congressional Act (OCCA/RICO), through a monetary (multiple millions documented) buy out of a 212-page RICO Complaint by Coia, Luskin, D.N.C. and the Clintons.

FOOTNOTE 9 AT 12:
Complaint cited Wrongdoer No. 9 Judge Hall knows the 12-month rule is a fraudulent scheme; but worse than that a RICO Enterprise knows bottom to top that Judge Hall knows the 12-month rule is a fraudulent scheme, but worse than that the OCCA/RICO Enterprise 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) knows by documented fact that the DNC/DOJ corrupt judicial sociopolitical team on appeal in the Second Circuit will facilitate the judicial crimes by committing extra judicial acts of fraud to protect extra judicial acts of fraud. Robert D. Luskin, Arthur Coia, Jr., Vere O. Haynes and the Department of Justice “Operating Agreement” is by fact and occurrence a racketeering agreement that has corrupted the Due Process procedures of the District of Connecticut and the Second Circuit. This is the inevitable effect of an 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy to defraud the lawful functions of the United States, by and through the corrupt use of a Congressional Act Organized Crime Control Act (1970) RICO.

FOOTNOTE 11 AT 19-20:
See Washington Monthly article dated May 1996 by John Mullagan and Dean Starkman excerpt quoted ““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.”(In this 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) Complaint the defendants are all Coia Sr. or Coia Jr. appointed “associates in fact” 18 U.S.C. 1961(4). No one violates RICO by themselves. Stop the criminal judicial protection (Canon 3(B)(3)).

Please reconsider Your Honors Ruling and make the defendants and wrongdoers answers pursuant to Rule 15(d) and 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) or stop this under Canon 3(B)(3) Manifest usurpation of Statutory and Civil Rights, through the corrupt use of a Congressional Act “Operating Agreement” protected by Article II judicial crimes is not a moot issue. Moot means extort, usurp statutory and Constitutional Rights and hide.
NEXT THE COURTS DENIAL (AS MOOT DKT. #99) OF THE RULE 65 INJUNCTION TITLED:

“RULE 11 PLAINTIFF WALL’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR F.R.C.P. 65(a)(1) HEARING FOR APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FORBIDING AND RESTRAINING “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT” AND DEPRIVATION OF PRO SE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (5TH AND 14TH AMEND.) ARTICLE II U. S. CONSTITUTION
SECOND REQUEST
FORBIDING IN ADDITION VIOLATIONS OF THE “OPERATING AGREEMENT’S” EMBEZZLEMENT PROVISION 29 U.S.C. 501(c) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d); 1961(1,4,5)”


In response Rule 11, plaintiffs Wall is asking the Court to reconsider the manifest injustice documented and illustrated in the memorandum in support of motion for F.R.C.P. 65(a)(1) hearing. In order to help Your Honor to reconsider, the following footnotes in the 65 Injunction will be re-quoted:
FOOTNOTE 1 AT 2 EXPLANATION OF PRO SE STATUS:

“At that time our lawyer a good, honest employment attorney, became in his words, “I am not afraid to get beat up but I am concerned”. What caused our attorneys concern was listening to a tape recording of one of our affiants being assaulted (28 U.S.C. 530) (18 U.S.C. 1951) by “associates-in-fact” of Coia Enterprise and being protected by the “Operating Agreement” through defendant Luskin and Haynes”.


FOOTNOTE 2 AT 5 SUMMARY EXAMPLE ARTICLE II OBSTRUCTION:

“This is one of the points in Federal Litigation where pro so Rights are eliminated by fact fraudulent unpublished Summary Order. As Your Honor knows prisoners file most pro se complaints. Pro se assigned law clerks read and brief the Federal Judges both at the district level and circuit level, which is necessary considering the majority of the pro se prisoners complaints are not worthy of a Federal Judges time (BUT SOME ARE). This is where the vulnerability for corruption in the Judicial System exists. Example, (03-8534) One socio-political corrupt circuit judge, on the circuit panel [00-9004] directing corruption team pro se law clerks to commit fact fraud and docket fraud, fraudulently concealing statutory crimes and Article II crimes committed against pro se citizen plaintiffs in the district below. Time, occurrences, and 11(b)(3) Inquires show evidence that the (2) other judges on the panel do not read the actual pro se pleadings, because they have unquestionable trust in the integrity of their Article III colleague, which they should, but not in this case. A Rule 65 Hearing is an absolute Constitutional Right of protection from this level of judicial corruption.”

FOOTNOTE 3 AT 7 SUMMARY SHOWING AUTHORITY OF “OPERATING AGREEMENT”:

“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 Northern District of Illinois. The “Operating Agreement” is still in effect and set to expire September 2006. Jurisdiction United States Attorneys Office Northern District of Illinois, United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.”

FOOTNOTE 4 AT 10 LUSKIN FEDERAL ACTOR 18 U.S.C. 1961(7) “OPERATING AGREEMENT” FEDERAL INVESTIGATION 18 U.S.C. 1961(8):

“This pro se plaintiff/petitioner understands he does not have jurisdiction to bring a criminal RICO charge (18 U.S.C. 371 Jurisdiction Department of Justice only). But, the plaintiffs do have a statutory and civil jurisdiction to bring the consequence of a conspiracy to defraud the lawful functions of the United States 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), 1962(d), 1961(1,4,5). Consequence being in this instant case and companion cases the usurpation of Federal Protection Rights under Title 18, Title 28, Title 29, ERISA Rights, First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights; committed by a 18 U.S.C. 1961(7) actor (Luskin) in collusion with Federal Judges, former United States Attorneys through a 18 U.S.C. 1961(8) corrupt use of a Congressional Act, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (RICO). See also Standing Order at pages 64-67 Luskin’s perjurious testimony, testifying in front of the United States Congress McCollum Subcommittee on Crime July 25, 1996 concerning the “Operating Agreement”.”

NEXT THE “SECOND REQUEST” IN THE RULE 65 MEMORANDUM REQUOTED FOR CLARITY:

“SECOND REQUEST
FORBIDING IN ADDITION VIOLATIONS OF THE “OPERATING AGREEMENT” EMBEZZLEMENT PROVISION 29 U.S.C. 501(c) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d); 1961(1,4,5)”

Rule 11 plaintiff Wall ask the Court pursuant to Rule 59(e) to reconsider the manifest injustice caused by a RICO Enterprise (1961(4)) criminal use of membership money to extort the plaintiffs membership Rights 28 U.S.C. 402(o) in violation of a signed agreement with the United States.
SEE PAGE 8 RULE 65 MEMORANDUM UNDER THE HEADING TITLED:
“29 U.S.C. 501(c) Enterprise Embezzlement”
QUOTED FOR CLARITY PAGE 8:
“29 U.S.C 501(c) ENTERPRISE EMBEZZLEMENT
In or about January 2004 pursuant to a signed revised agreement with the United States Justice Department under “LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure”, defendant Luskin and defendant Haynes signed the agreement stopping the use of membership money to defend claims charging breach of fiduciary agreement. Quoted in it 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”

Take notice “at any stage of litigation” in this instant case from in or about January 20, 2004, open-ended, in addition, in the companion case in Your Honor’s Bridgeport Division 3:97-CV00942(JCH) remand 224 Fed 3d 168, not only did defendant Luskin violate 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) by obstructing justice, in a planned out conspiracy of perjury with associates-in-fact of the OCCA/RICO Enterprise; they all committed the enterprise crimes using embezzled membership money to do so (29 U.S.C. 501(c)). The membership is unknowingly financing the corruption and crimes and harm to their own member Rights 28 U.S.C. 402(o) in this instant case, and the companion case now on appeal (06-1264CV membership issue only).”


Please reconsider (R. 59(e)) the manifest injustice caused by defendant Luskin, wrongdoer No. 1 Coia (Standing order at 62-70) and uncharged Civil RICO violator Paul Coffey (former Chief O.C. Division D.O.J.) (Clinton Appointee) have caused by their corrupt hundreds of millions dollar use of the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) RICO. Corrupt control of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) is corrupt control of all RICO predicates under 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) unfetter criminal access to embezzle membership money in violation of 29 U.S.C. 501(c) to protect against violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) is another manifest of injustice that Congress gave power to Your Honor “to prevent and restrain”.
As a final request concerning Your Honor reconsideration of the manifest injustice cited in docket #98 and docket #99, the plaintiffs would appreciate if the Court would Rule prior to the expiration of Appeal time of the closed status (please don’t hold another 59(e) Motion for 14th months). Either way, a timely appeal will be filed in the Second Circuit stating the same grounds as the appeal pending 06-1264CV 2d Cir. (No panel as of this filing). Constitutional and Statutory grounds being, “was part of an Extra Judicial Scheme to obstruct Statutory and Civil Rights”.
Irreparable harm that must stop pursuant to a Federal Injunction to protect the Lawful Functions of the United States and in so doing, protecting the Due Process Rights of the plaintiffs. Please reconsider DKTs. #98-99, don’t’ be part of this judicial collusion corruption.
If Your Honor denies this Rule 59(e) Motion on DKTS #98 and 99, then for a second time requested Your Honor “is obliged” (obligation to the plaintiffs) under F.R.C.P. 52 “to make findings of facts and conclusions of law in disposing of a motion for a preliminary Injunction” (not a 2 _ page fact fraud opinion). Moot means in this case extort, usurp Civil and Statutory Rights and hide.
FOR 28 U.S.C. 351 REASONS ONLY IN TANDEM ARTICLE II VIOLATIONS SHOWING A CONTINUATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL (ARTICLE II) ACTS OF DOCKET FRAUD AND FACT FRAUD AS PUNISHMENT FOR BRINGING 28 U.S.C. 351 COMPLAINTS

This submission to the Court concerns the docket fraud and fact fraud also in the Courts Ruling Docket #100 that granted defendants motion to dismiss [DKT. #91]. This submission is not being filed for any Ruling by the Court. The Ruling on {DKT. #91] has closed status on this case. This In Tandem Submission is being filed for protection of the plaintiffs Due Process Rights showing continuation of Extra Judicial Acts of Docket Fraud and Fact Fraud committed by Your Honor or shared law clerks as part of a corrupt judicial scheme to obstruct pro se pleadings as punishment for bringing 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints.
This Rule 11 plaintiff (Wall) has followed the Rules explicitly for (9) years. The number one Rule now is the protection of 5th Amendment Due Process Rights in the meaning of Marbury v. Madison 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.”

The injury in this case is of an extreme nature in the meaning of red flag Bivens 394 U.S. at 395 citing Amos v. United States 225 U.S. 313,317 “4th and 5th Amendment are in pari material and must be read and construed together” – “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”.
In this case at bar Article III officers “professing to act in its name” (Government United States) and D.O.J. officials former and present professing to act in the governments name by and through the “Operating Agreement” 18 U.S.C. 1961(8). The corrupt use of the Organized Crime Control Act 1970 RICO has harmed both branches of the government causing proximate harm “Enterprise Racketeering Injuries” to the plaintiffs to such a degrading level that the plaintiffs membership rights have been usurped by judicial fact fraud and docket fraud, fraudulently concealing the obstruction and overturning of Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 224 Fed 168 in the Bridgeport Division after remand.
As this Rule 11 plaintiff stated to the Supreme Court Conduct Study Committee Chairperson Justice Breyer at page 5 of the Obstruction Complaints Letter, attached to the affidavit in the Rule 65 Motion (DKT. #99) under the heading titled:
“JUDICIAL COLLUSION SCHEMES IN PROGRESS”
“This is a unique situation where corrupt judicial acts 28 U.S.C. 351 Article II Conduct are not being brought to the Study Committee after the fact, but while the judicial collusion schemes are in progress documented and illustrated. Eight years of judicial obstruction (Nevas transfer 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) to Judge Hall October 23, 1997) created this unique situation (inter alia)”

This submission is to show due process obstructing by fact fraud and docket fraud in the Court’s latest Ruling on DKT. # 91 in the Court’s Docket #100 Ruling. In addition to the Court’s statement and fact fraud filing “The Court determined that the identical claims were fully litigated and dismissed with prejudice in a 2000 Ruling”---
In addition to that just quoted judicial fact fraud lie committed for reasons of fraudulent concealment of statutory crimes and Article II crimes, the corruption in this case is so flagrant and reckless that a clear undeniable showing of fact fraud, docket fraud and fraudulent concealment in the Court’s Ruling (DKT. # 100) can be summary shown by quoting 2 pages of the March 10, 2005 59(e) Motion (Pages 21 and 22).
PAGE 21:“The following facts and circumstances support a standard of review in this case at bar 3:04-CV-91(WWE) of a law clerk or law clerks assigned to Judge Nevas and Hall (officially or unofficially) corruptly influencing this instant case.
It was very evident from the beginning of the pleading that the law clerk or law clerks clerking this case were working hard to undermine and obstruct this case. As an example see Docket # 47 “Docket Text” “Motion to Stay Judicial Misconduct by Gary R. Wall Responses due by 6/25/20004 (Candee, D.) (entered 6/09/2004)”. Motion Titled:
“RULE 11 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S FILING SUBMISSION FOR CESSATION JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ACTS DISTRICT OF BRIDGEPORT REQUESTING LAW CLERK AND JUDGE DISCLOSURES (CONST. AMEND. 5)”
EXHIBIT A, B, C, TO DKT. #47
Showing the corruption and obstruction of the pleadings attached to Docket # 47 were exhibits A, B, C. Your Honor never answered said motion instead Your Honor responded by immediately transferring the case. See Docket # 49 “Docket Text”
“ORDER REASSIGNING CASE”.
Case reassigned to Judge Ellen Bree Burns for all further proceedings, Judge Warren W. Eginton no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Warren Eginton on 6/9/04
(Sanders, C.) Centered: 06/10/2004” (law clerks panicking).

PAGE 22: “Next obvious obstruction is this Court’s Docket # 80 scheme to obstruct involving the fraudulent construction of Docket # 68 and Docket # 70.
Clarification: On 9/20/2004, the plaintiffs filed in the New Haven Division Docket # 68.
Docket # 68 titled:
“PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 15(b) IN SUPPORT OF DISPUTED JUDICIAL NOTICE FED. RULES EVIDENCE 201”
Attached to Docket # 68 was Exhibit A, Judge Hall’s August 31, 2004 Ruling in 3:97-00942(JCH) showing a continuation of Extra Judicial Acts of Fraud and Misconduct. Immediately Judge Burns transfers this instant case back to the Bridgeport Division. Your Honor’s Court (law clerks) on 10/26/04, rules on Docket # 68. Fraudulently doing so by identifying Docket # 68 as a Motion for Reconsideration of Docket #70. An Extra Judicial Act of conscious intentional recklessness, identifying a motion that was filed prior to the motion it is suppose to reconsider, in order to obstruct the plaintiffs due process right to an “Opportunity to be heard” under Fed. R. Evidence 201(e). Not one Federal Judge defends their integrity, just hide, stall and obstruct. There is nothing to trust in the Bridgeport Division and the Standard on Review should reflect that.”

As stated prior (page 10) this 28 U.S.C. 351 summary showing is for protection of Statutory and Constitutional Rights from the fraudulent use of 28 U.S.C. 351 to fraudulently conceal corrupt extra judicial acts of political “influenced” concealment by continuation of 28 U.S.C. 351 violations. This 59(e) Motion is entered for DKT. #98 and DKT. #99. The extra judicial acts of violations of 28 U.S.C. 351 are being entered for the Sup. CT. 351 Study Committee and the Congressional Study Committee that have been informed corrupt step, by corrupt step, during the 28 U.S.C. 351 process, see the attached letters to this 59(e) Motion.
In ending the Court should reconsider the manifest injustice committed against the plaintiffs enough of our lives have been taken trying to protect our Pension, Statutory and Civil Rights and Liberties. Some Article III official with a good conscious has to stop this.
Canon 3(B)(3) to the Study Committee is probably the best way to restrain and remedy the judicial effects of the corrupt use of OCCA/RICO through a conspiracy to defraud the Lawful Functions of the United States. If not Canon 3(B)(3) then Your Honor should reconsider and grant plaintiffs 15(d) Motion and the Rule 65 Motion and in so doing have a Rule 65 Hearing to see who is telling the truth.
SUBMITTED BY:
_____________________________________
GARY R. WALL, RULE 11 Pro se Plaintiff
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651
_____________________________________
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR, Pro se Plaintiff
1097 Maple Avenue
Hartford, CT. 06114

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motion plus its subtitle 28 U.S.C. illustration, plus six letters, have been sent first class postage pre-paid and UPS this 24th day of May 2006 to:
John Fussell, Esq.
333 East River Drive
Suite 101
East Hartford, CT. 06108-4203

Terrence G. Reed, Esq.
Lankford, Coffield and Reed, P.L.L.C.
120 North Saint Asaph Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-3110
UPS

T. R. Paulding, Esq.
Fazzano, Tomasiewicz & Paulding
836 Farmington Avenue
Suite 109
West Hartford, CT. 06119

Lissa J. Paris, Esq.
Matthew J. Budzik, Esq.
Murtha & Cullina, LLP
City Place I
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT. 06103-3469


__________________________________
GARY R. WALL, Rule 11 Pro se plaintiff












ATTACHMENTS

Letter Chambers Hon. Chairperson Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Study committee

Letter Chambers Hon. Chief Judge Robert Chatigny
District of Connecticut

Letter Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Letter United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois, U. S. Attorney Fitzgerald

Letter Chambers Hon. Chief Judge Second Circuit
John Walker, Sr.

Letter Chambers Hon. Ralph K. Winter









May 24, 2006



CHAMBERS
Honorable Justice Stephen G. Breyer
In the Capacity of Chairperson
For the Chief Justice, 28 U.S.C. 351
Judicial Conduct Study Committee
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
First Street, N. E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

RE: Update to May 2, 2006 Submission Titled
“RE: Article II Obstruction of (7) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints”

Dear Honorable Chairperson Justice Breyer and Honorable Committee Members:

This submission is being sent to Your Honors as an update to my previous submission letter dated May 2, 2006. In the May 2nd letter at page (5) under the heading of “JUDICIAL COLLUSION SCHEMES IN PROGRESS”, this Rule 11 28 U. S. C. 351 Conduct Committee petitioner stated:

“This is a unique situation where corrupt judicial acts 28 U.S.C. 351 Article II Conduct are not being brought to the Study Committee after the fact, but while the judicial collusion schemes are in progress documented and illustrated. Eight years of judicial obstruction (Nevas transfer 3:97-00942(JCH) to Judge Hall October 23, 1997) created this unique situation (inter alia)”.

Attached to this submission letter is DKT. # 101 filed May 24, 2006, 3:04-CV91(WWE)

This pro se petitioner understand jurisdiction. The Study Committee subject matter jurisdiction begins at page 9 of DKT. #101 under the title:

FOR 28 U.S.C. 351 REASONS ONLY IN TANDEM ARTICLE II VIOLATIONS SHOWING A CONTINUATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL (ARTICLE II) ACTS OF DOCKET FRAUD AND FACT FRAUD AS PUNISHMENT FOR BRINGING 28 U.S.C. 351 COMPLAINTS”

and ends at page 12. Please take special notice of the flagrant docket fraud, fact fraud and fraudulent concealment illustrated at page 11 of DKT. #101. The powers for the judiciary to self-police has created violations of 28 U.S.C. 351 being chain link committed by Federal Judges in order to fraudulent conceal 28 U.S.C. 351 Extra Judicial Article II crimes by their judicial colleagues.
This 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee petitioner has shown the Study Committee through documentation and clear illustration since the filing of the (5) 351 Complaints (July 2005) a step by step corrupt use of 28 U.S.C. 351. Please think of the harm caused to the plaintiffs Constitutional and Statutory Rights by non-enforcement of Article II crimes. This is the reason for pages 9-12 of DKT. #101. 28 U.S.C. 351 subject matter jurisdictions will be filed with Federal Rule Jurisdiction. It is the only way to stop the obstruction of our Civil Liberties and Rights, subject to the now 9 years of 28 U.S.C. 351 Article II crimes.
Therefore, this 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee petitioner respectfully request that it is time now for some Article III official to stop this.

Respectfully submitted:

____________________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Complainant
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651

Copies of the (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints were also sent that same day to CHAMBERS Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, CHAMBERS Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson, CHAMBERS Honorable Pasco M. Bowman, CHAMBERS Honorable D. Brook Hornby, CHAMBERS Honorable Sally M. Rider. All appointed by the Honorable Late Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist.











May 24, 2006



CHAMBERS
Honorable Chief Judge Robert Chatigny
District of Connecticut
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT. 06103

RE: Update Letter to May 2, 2006 Letter to Your Honor

Dear Chief Judge Chatigny:

This letter is one of (6) letters attached to DKT. #101. This 28 U.S.C. 351 petitioner respectfully states and request Your Honor has subject matter jurisdiction Canon 3(B)(3) as Chief Judge District of Connecticut concerning the Article II crimes being committed in the Bridgeport Division. As stated to the 351 Study Committee Canon 3(B)(3) subject matter jurisdiction is from pages 9 to 12 DKT. #101. Take special notice of the summary showing docket fraud, fact fraud and fraudulent concealment, documented and illustrated at page 11 DKT. #101. Fraudulent concealment of Article II crimes committed in Your Honor’s District makes Article III Oath worthless. Your Honor is obligated under Your Honor’s Article III Oath and Canon 3(B)(3) to stop this. Federal judges cannot be above the law then there is no law. There are just extra judicial corrupt opinions rather than Rule of Law.

Please protect the Rule of Law in Your Honor’s district.

Respectfully Submitted:


__________________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee petitioner
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651









May 24, 2006


Honorable Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
120 Bishops Way
Room 154
Brookfield, WI 53005-6294

RE: Follow Up Letter to May 2, 2006 Letter to Congressman Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Dear Congressman Sensenbrenner:

This letter is being written to you because you and your Judiciary committee are responsible for the Late Chief Justice 351 Study Committee being formed.

Quote David Sellers Administrative Office of the United States:

Washington Post: “David Sellers, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, said the panel was created in response to comments by House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R – Wis.), who told the U.S. Judicial Conference on March 16th that Congress ‘will begin assessing whether the disciplinary authority delegated to the Judicial Branch has been responsibly exercised and ought to continue.”

I don’t think anyone realized the harm to Civil and Statutory Rights by disciplinary authority being delegated to the Judicial Branch under 28 U.S.C. 351. Your Judiciary Committee has to go no further than the (5) 351 Complaints submitted to your committee to understand that 28 U.S.C. 351 must be repealed. Please check also the corrupt Extra Judicial use of shared law clerks in order to accomplish the obstruction of pleadings and 351 Complaints. The plaintiffs would appreciate if your committee could do something about this UN-American Judicial situation as soon as possible. See pages 9-12 attached case docket 101, subject matter harm from corrupt use of 28 U.S.C. 351.

Respectfully Submitted:
_
_______________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Petitioner
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651

Copy to: United States House of Representatives
C/o Keith Ausbrook
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

May 24, 2006




UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Patrick J. Fitzgerald
219 South Dearborn Street
5th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604

RE: Follow up Letter to the May 2, 2006 Letter That Being: “Rule 15(d) Supplement Filed this same day supplementing Wrongdoers No. 7-8 U. S. Attorney Office, Northern District of Illinois and the O. C. Division D.O.J.

Dear U. S. Attorney Fitzgerald:

This letter is being written to you by reason that your U. S. Attorney’s Office has been a wrongdoer in the RICO Standing Order 3:04-CV91(WWE) since January 20, 2004. I gave you notice of the supplemental filing of May 2, 2006 so I am giving you notice it has been denied by the Court as moot. It is denied as moot because the Court can’t answer the supplemental claim.

In order to do so Robert D. Luskin obstruction of justice would be exposed and his embezzlement of membership money 29 U.S.C. 501(c) in violation of the 2004 signed agreement with the D.O.J. and your U. S. Attorneys Office would also be exposed. It is very obvious that Robert D. Luskin has corrupt “influence” on the O. C. Division D.O.J. and your U. S. Attorney Office. The affidavits of Judith Dobrich and Stephen Manos (Standing Order page 34) prove that. The only difference in the Governance Structure of Coia’s 1961(4) Enterprise (identified by President Reagan’s Crime Commission) is Luskin is on top. If one honest judge stops this you are not going to look that good.

Thank you for your time.


_________________________________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351 petitioner / Rule 11 plaintiff 3:04-CV-91(WWE)
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651





May 24, 2006



CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
Honorable John Walker, Sr.
Chief Judge Second Circuit
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT. 06510

RE: Follow Up Letter to May 2, 2006 Letter to Your Honor that being: “Re: Pending (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints Pursuant to a Judicial Council Rule 8(a) Fraud Investigation Request”

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

This letter is being written to Your Honor as notice for the protection from subject matter jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. 351 continuing violations. This 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Complainant understands the Second Circuit does not have Federal Rule jurisdiction for DKT. # 91, 98, 99 dismissed in the Courts Ruling DKT. # 100 as of this writing (a timely appeal will be filed).

As Your Honor can see by reading the other letters attached to DKT. # 101, the subject matter concerning Your Honor is at pages 9-12. This is an unprecedented situation that I wish was avoidable but it is not. The severe problem now is what assurances do the plaintiffs have that fact fraud, fraudulent concealment and a fraudulent unpublished summary order does not happen again.

There will be shortly two cases from the Bridgeport Division on appeal, in the Second Circuit. Both Judges Eginton and Hall are 28 U.S.C. 351 collusion respondents with Your Honor (pending Judicial Council Rule 8(a) Fraud Investigation Request). Please take a look at pages 9-12 DKT. # 101 re 28 U.S.C. 351. This type of reckless disregard for Civil and Statutory Rights cannot be as prior pleadings were, fraudulent obstructed and concealed in the Second Circuit. 28 U.S.C. 351 subject matter is an imperative concerning this level of corrupt judicial collusion. It is shameful that after (9) years of litigation pro se plaintiffs have to be put into this type of situation.

SUBMITTED BY:


____________________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Complainant
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651
May 24, 2006



CHAMBERS
The Honorable Ralph K. Winter
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
141 Church Street
New Haven, Connecticut

RE: Follow Up Letter to May 2, 2006 28 U.S.C. 351 11(b)(3) Inquiry Submission

Dear Honorable Judge Winter:

In the 11(b)(3) Inquiry Letter of May 2, 2006 to Your Honor, this 28 U.S.C. 351 petitioner made very serious averments of fact fraud, docket fraud and fraudulent concealment occurring in 00-9004. It is this petitioners belief that Your Honor’s is not aware of these Article II crimes committed by Judge Straub, who opinioned the 00-9004 panel.

This letter is being written out of concern that the insidious control of law clerks is also causing Your Honor not to receive my 11(b)(3) Inquiries to Your Honor. I do not know how to rectify this additional obstruction scheme. Therefore, I respectfully request Your Honor acknowledge your receipt of my 11(b)(3) Inquiry. Acknowledge also that Your Honor has read it.

Respectfully Submitted:



__________________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351; 11(b)(3) petitioner
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides for a party’s “motion to alter or amend judgment.” This may also be construed as a motion for reconsideration. See United States ex rel. v. Yale University, 2006 WL 1168446 *1, n. 1 (D.Conn.) (“Motions for reconsideration…are as a practical matter the same thing as motions for amendment of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) – each seeks to reopen a district court’s decision on the theory that the court made mistaken findings in the first instance.”).

2 Rule 11 Plaintiff Wall refers to Your Honor as Your Honor out of respect for the Rules and etiquette of the Judicial System of the United States. If it is Your Honor that is reading the pleadings and responding then Your Honor is without Honor (by reason of docket fraud, and fact fraud). If Your Honor is being briefed by shared law clerks, then Your Honor is being used as a senior judge at the age of 82.


# 4