UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


GARY R. WALL CASE NO: 3:04-CV91(WWE)
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR.,
STEPHEN MANOS
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) DATED: May 2, 2006


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)


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




MEMORANDUM

AUTHORITIES AND JURISDICTION

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

In this case at bar restraining violations of Section 1962, are by documented fact being committed by and through the “Operating Agreement”, which is by fact a conspiracy to defraud the Lawful functions of the United States 18 U.S.C. 371, criminally obstructing (18 U.S.C. 1503); this instant case and related cases that expose the enterprise and the conspiracy to defraud the lawful functions of the Justice Department and the Judicial Branch 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c), 1961 (1,4,5).
See also: Pratt v. Rowland 769 F. Supp. 1128 Id 1129
(Prison inmate’s allegations violated his 1st, 5th and 14th amendment Rights of deprivation of procedural due process 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 Const. Amend. 1, 5, 14).

In this case at bar, Federal Judges, former U. S. Attorneys, and their law clerks have obstructed by judicial fraud, due process Rights, and in so doing, deprived United States citizens, (18 U.S.C. 1964(c) Pro se Plaintiffs not Pro se Prisoners) of their basic Constitutional Rights First, Fifth and Fourteenth (42 U.S.C.A. 1983).
See also: Red Flag Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents 403 U. S. 388 Id 394, 395 citing Amos v. United States 225 U. S. 313, 317 holding “the 4th and 5th Amendment in pari material”
“In such cases there is no safety for the citizen exception the protection of the judicial tribunals for Rights which have been invaded by officers, of the government professing to act in its name”




See also Red Flag Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 163
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury”.

RELEVANT SUMMARY BACKGROUND

In 1997, plaintiff Wall filed a RICO Injunction 3:97-2502(JCH in the Hartford Division. The injunction was filed in order to stop his entire pension from being racketeered. The case was assigned to the Bridgeport Division to Judge Hall who was presiding in the LMRDA case 3:97-CV-00942(JCH1. Judge Hall subsequently held a hearing in which she ruled there was no immediate harm because Wall was 51 at the time (now 60), and Wall could pursue his claim though the due process system of the Judicial Branch. Judge Hall then stated if Wall wished to do so, Wall must file a RICO Standing Order. He did so on or about 90 days later. From that time on, both in the LMRDA case, and the first Standing Order (1964(c), (Gravaman 18 U.S.C. 2) and this instant Standing Order (Gravaman 18 U.S.C. 1503/18 U.S.C. 664) in the Bridgeport Division, the pro se plaintiffs have experienced bold, shameless, reckless, extra judicial acts of obstruction including (inter alia) judicial docket fraud, judicial fact fraud, and judicial due process fraud, all documented and illustrated in the first two (of 7) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints, one against Judge Hall and the other against Circuit Judge Straub 03-8535; 03-8534. Documented judicial collusion and due process fraud were also illustrated by fact and documented in a mandamus 03-3117/28 U.S.C. 455 3:97CV00942(JCH) that was filed in or about that time. That was the beginning of judicial collusion to commit fraudulent concealment of Article II crimes to obstruct a pro se RICO Complaint. See: (Fraudulent Concealment in the Context of Civil RICO Klehr v. A. O. Smith 521 U. S. 179 citing Malley v. Duff 483 U. S. 151:
“Rather, in both of those letter context (anti trust & RICO) private civil actions seek not only compensate victims but also to encourage those victims themselves diligently to investigate and thereby to uncover unlawful activity; That being so, we cannot say that the ‘fraudulent concealment’ is concerned only with the behavior of defendants. For that reason, and in light of the consensus of authority, we conclude that ‘fraudulent concealment’ in the context of Civil RICO embodies a ‘due diligence’ requirement”

The “due diligence requirement” in this matter has revealed through Rule 11(b)(3) Inquiries (3 years) and the pleading (9 years) that a socio-politically corrupt group of Federal Judges have and are fraudulently concealing extra judicial acts of fraud and judicial obstruction in Your Honors Division also criminally effecting this case 18 U.S.C. 1503 / Article II obstruction by and through defendant Luskin’s corrupt influence on Judge Nevas who then uses his shared law clerks to obstruct pleadings by fact fraud, docket fraud committing fraudulent concealment of 1961(1,4,5) harm in Federal Complaint.
END OF SUMMARY BACKGROUND

PRESENT DAY IRREPARABLE CIVIL RIGHT HARM CAUSED BY JUDICIAL FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

Pending as of February 10, 2006 are the (5) 351 Complaints. Pending in front of the Supreme Courts 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Study Committee, pending pursuant to a “Judicial Council Rule 8(a) Disclosure Investigation Request”. Said request to the 351 Study Committee avers that through law clerks and other D.O.J./D.N.C. corrupt Federal Judges, both judicial fact fraud and 28 U.S.C. 351 Second Circuit/Judicial Council fraud, regarding the process of Judicial Branch self-policing under 28 U.S.C. 351 was used in a serious violation of 28 U.S.C. 351 to commit intentional “fraudulent concealment” of extra judicial acts of fraud committed in this instant case; insidiously by non-assigned Judges using shared law clerks to criminally obstruct 18 U.S.C. 1503 pro se due process Rights. This plaintiff/petitioner has exhausted all remedies possible in the Judicial System of the United States; that being, multiple complaints, two writ of certiorari (01-1401, 01-1402), one write of mandamus (04-1079), (7) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints (two in 04, five pending subject to a (Rule 8a Investigation Request). Through the entire due process system a team of law clerks, and Federal Judges who were former U. S. Attorneys, have obstructed pro se pleadings by committing docket fraud, fact fraud, and fraudulent concealment, and in so doing Article III Oath fraud. Done so individually and in collusion with other (inter olios) former U. S. Attorneys now Federal Judges in order to “fraudulently conceal” lead defendant Robert D. Luskin/D.O.J. “Operating Agreement” for what it is – a violation of the defraud clause of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiring to defraud the lawful functions of the United States) criminally harming the plaintiffs in this instant case by violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b,c), 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).

PROTECTION BEFORE FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN
In the companion LMRDA Case (3:97-CV00942(JCH)), a significant portion of a 1962(d) conspiracy to extort the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 402(o) membership rights has been almost completed (See Rule 15(d) Supplement illustrating a 1962(d) conspiracy). All three plaintiffs have been made an example of and silenced to the membership (“captive labor organization”).
Plaintiff Wall has been removed from membership and his entire pension has been embezzled (18 U.S.C. 664) the consequence for “refusing to shake down laborers”, quoting Honorable Judge Wallace Nations N.L.R.B., Honorable Ralph K. Winter 224 F3d 168. The objective of the 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) conspiracy is almost completed. The only 1961(5) conspiracy sequence left is Luskin/Nevas corrupt influence on the Second Circuit, which will result in by (documented experience) a fact fraudulent unpublished Summary Order2, which will result in the fraudulent obstruction of this instant case subject to a fraudulent manufactured judicial notice in the district knowingly protected in the Second Circuit by additional Article II crimes.
Plaintiff Cooksey has been removed from membership and his pension crammed down, for questioning pension expenditures from the floor at membership meetings. See 224 F3d 168, also see Standing Order pages 20-23. The objective of the 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) conspiracy has been almost completed. Only the Second Circuit D.O.J. / D.N.C. corrupt obstruction is left.
Plaintiff Manos has been removed from the work force by documented acts of extortion committed against him 18 U.S.C. 1951, 29 U.S.C. 530 for questioning union expenditures (Federal affiant at the time). See affidavits at page 34 Standing Order.
This Rule 65 Injunction hearing request is being filed to stop the irreparable harm caused by defendant Luskin’s D.O.J./D.N.C. corrupt influencing and criminal obstruction of pro se pleading. This injunction is also being filed in order to stop defendant Luskin’s criminal use in this instant case of his extortion of membership rights, through an enterprise conspiracy committed in the LMRDA case through multiple “associates-in-fact” manufactured perjuries with the intent of usurpation of 29 U.S.C. 402(o) Membership Rights, obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), see Rule 15(d) Supplement. There has been undeniable documented multiple acts of fact fraud and by obstructions docket fraud in this instant case, caused by defendant Luskin’s corrupt influence on the Bridgeport Division. There is a Rule 59(e) motion pending for 13 months because the Court (shared law clerks) can not answer the exposed docket fraud and fact fraud honestly without committing more obvious frauds, knowing that this Rule 11 plaintiff through “due diligence” and 11(b)(3) Inquiries has exposed their insidiously fraudulent obstruction and fraudulent concealment. Both requirements for an order for a preliminary injunction are present in this instant case. See Doran v. Salem Inn Inc. 422 U. S. 922, Id 931 “(1) Irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued”. If the injunction is not issued in this case at this time defendant Luskin’s corrupt influence on the Bridgeport Division insidiously through Judge Nevas, and his criminally (Article II) directed law clerks will intentionally, and continually, obstruct justice in this instant case, committing a severe obstruction of Due Process Rights in the meaning of Marbury Supra.
Requirement (2) “a likelihood of success on the merits”. The pleadings alone in this instant case when argued at the hearing will expose undeniable fact fraud and docket fraud. Pursuant to Due Diligence and 11(b)(3) Inquiries, this Rule 11 plaintiff has produced evidence that most likely Your Honor had after the fact knowledge of the severe Article II crimes, and did not commit the fact fraud and docket fraud. Judge Nevas insidious corruption control of law clerks are the persons who committed the severe breach of Constitutional Rights; a very serious Canon 3(B)(3) Article III state of affairs.
SECOND REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE IRREPARABLE HARM CAUSED BY NON ENFORCEMENT OF THE “OPERATING AGREEMENT” EMBEZZLEMENT PROVISION ENTERPRISE EMBEZZLEMENT 29 U.S.C. 501(c)

In this case at bar, defendant Luskin in his signatory capacity 18 U.S.C. 1961(7,8 in house prosecutor) 18 U.S.C. 1961(7):
“racketeering investigator means any attorney or investigator so designated by the attorney general[3] and charge with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect Chapter [18 U.S.C. 1961 et. Sq.)”
18 U.S.C. 1961(8):
“Operating Agreement”; 18 U.S.C. 1961(8) “racketeering investigation means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for purpose of asserting whether any person has been involved in any violation of this Chapter [18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.]”

And in his personal capacity of G.E.B. Attorney has committed 1962(d) conspiracy to obstruct and deprive due process rights insidiously, Sub Rosa through Judge Nevas directed law clerks. A Rule 65 hearing will expose the “Operating Agreement” as a conspiracy to defraud the Lawful functions of the United States corruptly influencing the Bridgeport Division. Article II High Crimes caused by defendant Luskin’s corrupt influence on the D.O.J. and his corrupt influence on the Judicial Branch, by and through former D.O.J. officials now Federal Judges insidiously, (from non assigned Chambers) obstructing due process Rights of the plaintiffs through (shared law clerks) in this instant case and companion cases; Third World Police State tactics that must stop immediately, pursuant to a Federal Injunction.
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). Quote “Notice of Appeal”
“Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 4(a)(A)(iv) Gary R. Wall and William Cooksey Sr. hereby give notice and appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit from judgment denying plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motion [DKT. # 352] for reconsideration of plaintiffs Rule 59(a) Motion, on grounds the (membership only issue) 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.
Your Honor has jurisdiction to Protect the Lawful Functions of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(a):
“The district Courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of Section 1962 of this Chapter by issuing appropriate orders”

And because there are Federal Judges involved in the obstruction of the lawful functions of the United States. Your Honor has an Oath obligation under Article III and Canon 3(B)(3) to issue an order for a Rule 65 Hearing, subject matters being defendants collusion, in fact fraud, and docket fraud in the Courts opinions written by shared law clerks (Judge Nevas) fraudulently drafted to obstruct pro se pleadings.
Second Request, A Federal Injunction must also stop the use of membership money in violation of a signed agreement with the United States. If the injunction is not issued in this matter, then defendant Luskin, Arthur Coia, Jr., Vere O. Haynes, will have successfully, corruptly used a Congressional Act – the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (RICO) to defraud the lawful functions of the United States; defraud clause 18


U.S.C. 3714.
See U. S. v. Kraig 99 F3d 1361(6th Cir. 1996)
Finding #2
“conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and conspiracy to defraud the United States under the federal conspiracy statute are two separate crimes”—

Finding #3 “Charging a defendant under “defraud” clause of federal conspiracy statute is appropriate when conspiracy is alleged to have violated more than one statute 18 U.S.C.A. 371”
“violat[ing] More than one statute”
in this instant 371 conspiracy, multiple subset criminal statute violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961(1) violating 1962(d)(b)(c) and due process rights.
See also regarding defendant Luskin’s criminal collusion with Arthur Coia Jr.:
Finding #7 Kraig Supra:
“Lawyers are not held to a different standard from non lawyers when their participation in a conspiracy is evaluated 18 U.S.C. 371”

F.R.C.P. 65 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS UNDER RULE 52 REQUIRED
“Under Rule 52(a), the Court is obliged to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in disposing of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, a Court of Appeals is normally justified in vacating an order disposing of such a motion and remanding for a more complete explanation when the district judge’s findings and conclusions lack the requisite specificity. (Moore’s Fed. Prac. 65.6[2]).”
See also Rosen v. Siegel, 106 F3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 1997)

This is another point in Federal Rule Procedure that is documented and illustrated (in multi pleadings in multi complaints) that being, throughout the pleadings is the undeniable fact, that in any Rule or Procedure where the Court is “obliged to make finding of fact”, fact fraud occurs, fraudulently creating non application to the statute. The 11(b)(3) inquires and due diligence of “Private Attorney Generals” 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) Bankers Trust Supra Sec. Cir. has exposed a socio-political D.O.J./D.N.C. chain link corrupt network of Federal Judges and Law Clerks criminally obstructing pro se pleadings that expose their D.O.J./D.N.C. associates, facilitating directly, and indirectly corrupt use of a Congressional Act – the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (RICO), for the political and monetary reason (multi millions in fund money streams).
This Rule 65 Injunction Hearing request is being filed to stop immediately the corruption already caused in this instant case by defendant Luskin’s “Operating Agreement’s” corrupt influence on former D.O.J. officials now Federal Judges who insidiously committed criminal (Article II) obstruction of pro se pleadings using their assumed integrity against the assumed ignorance of pro se litigates.
If the Court grants this injunction request, then this plaintiff petitioner (Wall) respectfully requests Your Honor stop also Judge Nevas corrupt influence on the U. S. Attorneys Office. That being, stopping news reporters from printing anything about this 9-year old case exposing enterprise corruption 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) and Judicial corruption (Article II) influenced by an OCCA/RICO Enterprise. Judge Nevas through his experience as U. S. Attorney knows the dependence reporters have on the U. S. Attorneys Office for heads up news, commits another Sub Rosa violation of the plaintiffs Constitutional Rights (Freedom of Press goes two ways). A pretend claim (praetensio iuris) can be immediately known by a Rule 65 Hearing or Justice will and can be conceived when publicly known. That is the problem now for the Judicial /Law Clerk chain link corruption team. If the facts in this instant Complaint become publicly known, Justice will be conceived and High Crimes against the Constitution will become publicly known. The Judicial/Law Clerks corruption team has committed multiple Article II High Crimes to fraudulently conceal from public knowledge the Statutory crimes committed against the plaintiffs under the “Operating Agreement” and the Article II High Crimes committed by the corrupt Judge/Law Clerk team to “fraudulently conceal” former D.O.J. colleagues and D.N.C. associates involvement in the corrupt use of the Organized Crime Control Act 1970 (RICO), by and through defendants Luskin’s and Coia’s OCCA/RICO Enterprise “Operating Agreement”, a multi million dollar monetary and political buy-out of a 212-page OCCA/RICO Complaint. The Laws of the United States that protect the corrupt use of the Laws of the United States should dictate under these High Crimes circumstances.
Please use Your Honor’s powers under Rule 65, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), Article III, and Canon 3(B)(3) and stop this unprecedented Executive Branch and Judicial Branch corruption. This is an injunction necessitated by facts in this instant OCCA/RICO Complaint and 15(d) Supplemental Pleading. Irreparable harm has and will continue to be committed, right into the Second Circuit. If ever an Injunction was needed it is here and now.
Notice of the Rule 15(d) Supplemental Pleading and this Rule 65 Injunction has been sent by letter communication attached to this Rule 65 Injunction Request for reasons of protection of Civil Rights from Article II High Crimes committed in collusion Federal Judges to protect the corrupt use of the Organized Crime Control Act 1970 (RICO) to the Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Chairperson Judicial Conduct 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee (Copies to members of Study Committee); Letter to Chief Judge Walker Second Circuit; Letter to Chief Judge Chatigny District of Connecticut; Letter to Senior Judge Winters Second Circuit; Letter to Congressman Sessenbrenner 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee letter to U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald – jurisdiction “Operating Agreement”. Also attached is a Federal Affidavit signed by plaintiff petitioner Wall swearing under the penalty of perjury to all the illustrated and documented facts in the 15(d) Motion, the Rule 65 Motion and the letters and the communications just mentioned.

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
























CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the Rule 65 Injunction Memorandum with its supporting affidavit and attached letters has been sent postage pre-paid FedEx and first class mail this 2nd 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
FEDEX

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












AFFIDAVIT
OF
GARY WALL

























UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT



GARY R. WALL CASE NO: 3:04-CV91(WWE)
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR.,
STEPHEN MANOS
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) DATED: May 2, 2006



AFFIDAVIT OF GARY R. WALL

I, Gary R. Wall, being duly sworn say:

  1. I am over the age of eighteen and understand and believe in the obligation of an oath.

  1. I have been a plaintiff in multiple cases in the Bridgeport Division.

  1. In the Bridgeport Division (Connecticut) since October 23, 1997, when 3:97-CV00942(JCH) was transferred from New Haven Division by Chief Judge (at the time) Alan Nevas, District of Connecticut. I and the other plaintiffs have been the victims in the case just cited plus 3:97-CV2502(JCH) and this instant case 03:04-CV91(WWE), of judicial fact fraud, docket fraud and fraudulent concealment.

  1. I have also been the appellant in multiple cases in the Second Circuit.

  1. I have filed three (3) Writs to the United States Supreme Court 01-1401, 01-1402, 04-1079.

  1. I have filed seven (7) 351 Complaints in the Second Circuit, two in 2003 and five in 2005.

  1. All the complaints and writs have been obstructed in the Second Circuit by fact fraud and docket fraud.

  1. All the averments in the Rule 15(d) Supplemental Pleading filed this day and in this Rule 65 Injunction Request are the absolute truth.

  1. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.


Respectfully submitted:


Gary R. Wall ________________________________________



State of __________________________

County of ________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this __________day of May 2006.

___________________________________
Notary Public




















ATTACHMENT


Five letters to: Honorable Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Chairperson 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee (copies to members of Study Committee; Honorable Chief Judge Walker, Second Circuit; Honorable Chief Judge Chatigny District of Connecticut; Honorable Judge Winters, Second Circuit; Congressman Sessenbrenner 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee; U. S. Attorney Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald.















May 2, 2006



CHAMBERS
Honorable 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: Article II Obstruction of (7) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints


Dear Honorable Chairperson Justice Breyer and Honorable Committee Members:

This letter is being written to Your Honors updating the previous letters to Your Honors starting with service of the 2005 (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints, to the Chief Justice July 26, 2005 28 U.S.C. 351 Committee.

Substance of July 26, 2005 Letter:

“Enclosed for Your Honor’s review and the members of Your Honor’s Committee’s review are (5) 28 U.S.C. 351(a) Judicial Misconduct Complaints.”

“This pro se complainant is a very responsible and pragmatic litigate, who does not even exaggerate. Please review the complaints knowing that this complainant signed them under any level of Federal perjury.”

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.

QUICK SUMMARY BACKGROUND

After sending copies of the (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 to Your Honor and the 351 Conduct Study Committee on July 26, 2005, by letter dated October 10, 2005 to Your Honor and the Study Committee, this 28 U.S.C. 351 Committee Complainant sent notice of the Denial of the (5) U.S.C. 351 Complaints.

Letter “RE: Denial (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints Second Circuit Obstruction and Fraud”.


Substance of October 10, 2005 Letter:

“Attached to this letter is a copy of the Second Circuit Ruling with its Notice Letter. Please review them with the case numbers I submitted to the Study committee on August 17, 2005. Then read Judicial Council Rule 18(e), Circuit Judge Jacobs Ruling and the manufactured confusion will be clearly evident.”

“Also attached is a petition for review of Circuit Judge Jacobs Ruling. 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).”

NEXT 28 U.S.C. 351 (SUMMARY) PROCESS BACKGROUND AND UPDATE


On October 12, 2005, this 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Complainant filed a timely “Petition for Review”, copies of the Second Circuit’s Order and the petition for review were sent that same day to Your Honor’s 351 Study Committee.

On November 15, 2005, I received notice from Circuit Executive Karen Grove Milton that the petition for review was denied.

Substance Quoted in Italics:

“Complaints having been filed on July 27, 2005 alleging misconduct on the part of Circuit and District Judges of this Circuit, and the complaints having been dismissed on September 20, 2005 by the Acting Chief Judge of the Circuit” and a petition for review having been filed timely on October 12, 2005, - Upon consideration thereof by the Council it is – ORDERED that the petition for review is DENIED for the reasons stated in the order dated September 20, 2005”. Signed by “Karen Grove Milton, Circuit Executive by direction of the Judicial Council”.

On November 30, 2005, this 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Complainant responded to the denial of the “Petition for Review” with a Rule 8(a) Ballot Request” stating “it is this 351 complainants Right to see the signed ballots of the Judicial Council Members who voted to deny the (5) 351 Complaints because of that Right, this 351 Complainant respectfully requests copies”

See Rule 8(a) “Rule 8(a) Review by the Judicial Council of a Chief Judge’s Order”

“Rule 8(a) Mail Ballot: Each member of the Judicial Council to whom a ballot was sent will return a signed ballot or otherwise communicate the member’s vote to the Chief Judge by the return date listed on the ballot. The ballot form will provide opportunities to vote to (1) deny the petition for review”---

By letter dated December 7, 2005, Circuit Executive Milton responded to the “Rule 8(a) Ballot Request” dated November 30, 2005.

“Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of the Judicial of the Second Circuit governing complaints against Judicial Officers under 28 U.S.C. 372(c), the identities of the Judicial Council members who determined your Petition for Review are not public information for this purpose. The voting records are not public documents”.

This was the last communication between the Second Circuit and this Study Committee Complainant, requesting copies of the Rule 8(a) Ballots. Circuit Executive Milton was appointed by Chief Judge Walker, April 7, 1999 and is married to Dennis E. Milton, Council to the Independent Review Board, Consent Decree between the United States and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Ms. Milton is not cited as a respondent, Chief Judge Walker is).

Statutory Fact: There is no Judicial Code Number “28 U.S.C. 372(c)” only (a) and (b) and the statutory directive of 372 concerns “Retirement for Disability”. I do not know if that is an error by Circuit Executive Milton or another confusion tactic directed by a Circuit Judge. Nowhere in the Congressional Federal Statute 28 U.S.C. 351, and its subsections – and nowhere in Rule 8(a) does it state the identities of the Judges that review a Petition for Review are non-discloseable. It should be obvious that Congress would not give the Judicial Branch power, and responsibility to police itself under 28 U.S.C. 351, and in so doing allow the Federal Judges who sign the Rulings to remain a secret. Any Federal Judge would be proud to sign their name to a Rule 8(a) Ballot, exonerating their colleagues from the severe integrity destroying High Crimes, Article II averments logged in the Complaints. In addition, if the Complaints were not the absolute truth, any Federal Judge would sanction under Rule 11 or restrain under Judicial Council Rule 19(A) the signer of the Complaints. Self-policing under 28 U.S.C. 351 became by documented fact, a continuation of obstruction of the pleadings, by fact fraud, and docket fraud, fraudulent concealment 28 U.S.C. 351 violations of the High Crime Article II crimes.

QUICK SUMMARY UPDATE

On February 8, 2006, this 351 Study Committee Complainant sent to the new Chief Justice of the United States a cover letter with a copy of the November 30, 2006 “Rule 8(a) Ballot Request” to the Second Circuit. Also attached was a copy of a Rule 59(e) Motion “filed February 3, 2006” detailing Judge Hall’s latest bold, flagrant, fact frauds, docket fraud and obstruction of the pleadings. I assumed that the new Chief Justice would continue the direction of the late Chief Justice and would want to have knowledge of the extremely serious averments logged in the Complaints.

By letter dated February 10, 2006, Supreme Court Clerk Ms. Ann McCamey returned the submission stamped received February 10, 2006 stating:

“In reply to your letter or submission referred to this office by the Chief Justice on February 10, 2006, I regret to inform you that the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you present.
Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court.
Your papers are herewith returned.”

By letter dated February 20, 2006 (“RE: Clarification of 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Submission”), this complainant responded to Clerk McCamey’s February 10, 2006 letter. Explaining that jurisdiction in the submission to the new Chief Justice was subject to the format of the late Chief Justice 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Study Committee and not Article III.

On page 1 of the February 20, 2006 letter to clerk McCamey this 351 Committee Complainant quoted the late Chief Justice:

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: “There has been some recent criticism from Congress about the way in which the Judicial Council Conduct and Disability Act 1980 is being implemented and I decided that the best way to see if there are any real problems is to have a committee look into it”.

Also quoted: 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.”

The February 20, 2006 letter ended with this factual statement:

“This is an extremely serious matter and it is also unprecedented. The Judicial Conduct Act is dated 1980, and this is the first review and study of the act by a Federal Judicial Study Panel and a Congressional Committee pursuant to a Congressional Complaint and Request for an Inquiry.”

Notice was sent on the February 20th letter, 2006 to:

“C: Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Chairperson Judicial Conduct Study Committee U. S. Supreme Court (Plus Study Committee Members)”.



No one returned the resubmission to the Chief Justice. Because of these unprecedented circumstances there is no case number except the 351 Complaint case numbers. This 351 petitioner considers the submission filed.

JUDICIAL COLLUSION SCHEMES IN PROGRESS


By letter dated October 10, 2005, also quoted on page (2) of this letter – re-quoted for clarity.

RELEVANT PART:

“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 letter to Your Honor and the Study Committee is one of (6) letters attached to a motion and memorandum filed the same date of this letter May 2, 2006 filed in Wall, Cooksey, Manos v. LIUNA et al 3:04-CV91(WWE) (Rule 59(e) Motion pending 14 months) Bridgeport Division.

MOTION TITLED:

“RULE 11 PLAINTIFF WALL’S 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)”

Also filed the same day is a F.R.C.P. 15(d) Motion.
MOTION TITLED:

“PLAINTIFFS WALL AND COOKSEY RULE 15(d) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS”

Both the Rule 15(d) supplement and the Rule 65 Injunction Request, show undeniable Judicial collusion in fact fraud, docket fraud, summary order fraud and fraudulent concealment to punish and obstruct the pleadings for bringing the 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints (inter alia).
It has been (90) days (February 3, 2006) since I submitted the Rule 8(a) Investigation Request to Your Honor and the Study Committee titled:
“RE: JUDICIAL COUNCIL RULE 8(a) DISCLOSURE INVESTIGATION REQUEST (5) 28 U.S.C. 351(a) COMPLAINTS SECOND CIRCUIT 05-8537 WALKER, 05-8538 MUKASEY, 05-8539 NEVAS, 05-8540 HALL, 05-8541 EGINTON”

Please contemplate the Constitutional Harm the petitioner and the plaintiff are in caused by judicial retaliation for bringing Complaints (inter alia). District Rights to “claim the protection of the laws” Marbury Supra and Appellate Right to “claim the protection of the lawsMarbury Supra have been and will be if not stopped usurped by fact fraud, docket fraud and unpublished Summary Order Fraud in the Second Circuit. Please pull up on Your Honors Judicial network computer the 15(d) Supplement and the Rule 65 Injunction filed May 2, 2006 3:04-CV(WWE) and Your Honor will see clearly that not only is the Judicial Branch incapable of policing itself under 28 U.S.C. 351 – the authority to do so under 28 U.S.C. 351 has created a very dangerous Third World Police State Condition. Therefore, this petitioner respectfully request Your Honor act accordingly to the direction of Canon (3)(B)(3) and Article III and protect the Constitution of the United States.

Quote again the late Chief Justice of the United States Honorable William H. Rehnquist:

--“I decided that the best way to see if there are any real problems is to have a committee look into it”.

This is a real problem!

Respectfully Submitted By:
__________________________________
GARY R. WALL, Rule 11 Pro se Plaintiff
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651













May 2, 2006



CHAMBERS
Honorable Chief Judge Robert Chatigny
District of Connecticut
United States Courthouse
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT. 06103

RE: Rule 15(d), Rule 65 Motions filed 3:04-CV91(WWE) Instant Letter One of Five Attached to 65 Motion for Protection of Civil Rights

Dear Chief Judge:

This letter is a follow up letter to Your Honor, following up the last two letters of multiple letters, I sent to Your Honor. The first of the two letters was dated December 23, 2005 titled:

“RE: Circumstantial Follow Up Letter to August 31, 2005; September 2, 2005, September 8, 2005 Communications F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) Inquiry Civil Rights Protection/18 U.S.C. 1964(a) Request”

This petitioner will quote the substance of the letter for convenience and clarity:

“This letter is being written to Your Honor for one primary reason, that being; for Your Honor to reconsider this 11(b)(3) petitioners request that was in my last communication to Your Honor, on September 8, 2005 relevant excerpt quoted in italics for clarity and convenience:

“I understand that you have no (procedural) ‘authority to address’ –‘misconduct’". It is this petitioners position that Your Honor not only has the authority to address judicial misconduct in Your Honor’s district, Your Honor has an obligation to do so subject to the following authorities:


  1. Your Honor’s Article III Oath to “Protect the Constitution of the United States”.
  2. Canon (3)(B)(3) “A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer”

The second letter was dated February 8, 2006 titled:

“RE: 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee Communication Requesting A Judicial Council Rule 8(a) Disclosure and Investigation of the Second Circuit’s Criminal Obstruction of the (5) 351 Complaints”

This petitioner will quote the substance of the February 8, 2006 letter for convenience and clarity:

“This letter is a continuation of the multiple letters that I have sent to Your Honor requesting Your Honor’s protections as Chief Judge of the District of Connecticut from the flagrant, bold, unstable corruption occurring in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH), 3:04-CV91(WWE)(EBB)(WWE) in the Bridgeport Division.

This is the status of the cases in the Bridgeport Division now. I respectfully request from you again, that you remove the cases from the Bridgeport Division. The corruption in the Bridgeport Division is so flagrant, self-assured and reckless that I question the soundness of Judge Nevas mind and the lack of ethics in Judge Hall’s mind.

Attached is a Judicial Council Rule 8(a) Disclosure Request plus a 59(e) Motion DKT. #351, 942 Supra to the Sup. CT. 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee. As Chief Judge of the District of Connecticut, it is Your Honor’s responsibility and duty to also request the Rule 8(a) ballots from the Second Circuit no matter what the consequences are for Your Honors Judicial colleagues because the Rule 8(a) ballots do not exist.”

The ending sentence quote:

“There is no way that, a citizen of the United States should be subjected to this type and degree of Third World style of Judicial Criminal Activity.”

This letter is one of (6) letters attached to the Rule 65 Injunction Request. The purpose being to stop judicial collusion and “fraudulent concealment” committed by fact fraud, and docket fraud. Canon 3(B)(3) is both a moral and legal imperative. Please pull up on Your Honors computer and read the 15(d) Supplement and the Rule 65 Injunction titled:

“PLAINTIFFS WALL AND COOKSEY RULE 15(d) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS”


RULE 11 PLAINTIFF WALL’S 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 AGREEMENTS” EMBEZZLEMENT PROVISION 29 U.S.C. 501(c) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d); 1961(1,4,5)

After reviewing both motions, it will be obvious that the integrity of Your Honor’s District must be protected from this criminal degree of Judicial Article II Crimes. This will be a very unpleasant situation if the 28 U.S.C. 351 Judicial fraudulent concealment crimes are exposed to the public, or maybe the severe Article II High Crimes will never be exposed. Then this following statement will become a fact. Non-enforcement of Article II High Crimes (Canon 3(B)(3)) makes Article III Oaths worthless. Worthless Article III Oaths make a Third World Police State Judiciary that no one wants.

This letter is one of six letters attached to a Federal affidavit for Injunctive Relief from flagrant bold obstruction of pro se pleading.

Your Honor, subject to Your Honor’s Article III Oath, cannot allow any person, Federal Judges or not to be above the Laws of the United States. Your Honor cannot let extra judicial obstruction team scheme become a Sub Rosa Federal Rules process precedent. Your Honor through Canon 3(B) (3) must employ an example of the protections powers of the Constitution of the United States

Respectfully Submitted:
__________________________________
GARY R. WALL, Rule 11(b)(3) Petitioner
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651





May 2, 2006









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

RE: (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints Pending Subject to a Judicial Council Rule 8(a) 28 U.S.C. 351 Investigation Request to the Supreme Courts Conduct Study Committee

Dear Congressman Sensenbrenner:

This letter is one of 6 letters attached to an Injunction filed the same date of this letter (May 2, 2006) in the Bridgeport Division showing (inter alia) “fraudulent Concealment” of 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct, by Federal Judges facilitating the extra judicial acts of fraud and obstruction by committing additional fact fraud, docket fraud and manufactured confusion in the self-policing process of 28 U.S.C. 351 to protect their judicial colleagues.

Please take the time to read the other five letters attached to the Rule 65 affidavit and it will be obvious 28 U.S.C. 351 must be repealed. Two 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints filed in 2003, five 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints filed in 2005, all obstructed by fact fraud, docket fraud and fraudulent concealment, prove without a doubt that the Judicial Branch is incapable of policing itself under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 351.

I have sent you copies of some of the latest communications. I have sent your Committee starting with the filing of the (5) 351 Complaints July 26, 2005. A step by step process illustration of all communications in the 28 U.S.C. 351 process. Your Congressional Committee will also receive a copy of this letter plus the affidavit.

Six attached letters and the affidavit will be sent to:

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

If you would like to read the 15(d) Motion and the Rule 65 Motion, they are on a LIUNA members website in Alaska www.laborers.org. The (6) letters attached to this instant Rule 65 affidavit are for the protection from “fraudulent concealment” 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Article II crimes. After reading the letters and the 15(d) Supplement and the Rule 65 Injunction, there will be no doubt that 28 U.S.C. 351 should and must be repealed.

Respectfully Submitted By:
_________________________________
GARY R. WALL, 28 U.S.C. 351
Pro se Complainant
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651
































May 2, 2006




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

RE: 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:

Because your office is a wrongdoer and not a defendant in the OCCA/RICO Complaint Standing order 3:04-CV91(WWE) pages 75-78. I am giving you notice of the Rule 15(d) Supplement rather than service. I assume you have judicial case access through your computer. Your office is being supplemental charged as a wrongdoer for a continuation of facilitating the 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) 1962(d), crimes of the Luskin/Coia OCCA/RICO Enterprise. Please see the Rule 15(d) Supplement at pages 6-8 under the heading of:

“WRONGDOER NO. 7 AND NO. 8 (LUSKIN/COIA JR. “INFLUENCED”) U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS/ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING SECTION CRIMINAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. [STANDING ORDER PAGES 75-78]”


The substance of the supplement pleading is in the first paragraph at page 6:

“Pursuant to the “Operating Agreement” (Luskin, Coia, Haynes Scheme) the United States Attorney Office Northern District of Illinois has jurisdiction in all LIUNA related matters in the United States. Since February 1995, set to expire September 2006, Luskin’s unprecedented corrupt influence has criminally influenced the U. S. Attorneys Office Northern District of Illinois, which has facilitated documented multiple (18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5)) violations, a (29 U.S.C. 530) assault, Hobbs Act violations and the open embezzlement of membership money (29 U.S.C. 501(c) 18 U.S.C. 664).”



Please read also the Rule 65 Injunction showing D.O.J. corrupt influence on the Judicial Branch. Because you do not respond, it has become evident that your U. S. Attorneys Office is also, as the Federal Judges, are criminally influenced by Robert D. Luskin’s corrupt influence on the D.O.J.

If this Rule 11 petitioner were not stating the absolute truth, your office, when the RICO Complaints were brought 1997-2004, would have charged a violation of RICO predicate, 18 U.S.C. 1510 (related to obstruction of criminal investigation). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961(8) the “Operating Agreement” is a “Federal racketeering investigation” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961(7) and the signatory of your office and the D.O.J. O.C. Division Robert D. Luskin is a “racketeering investigator”. Your U. S. Attorneys Office by documented fact and occurrences are concealing the corrupt use of a Congressional Act OCCA/RICO, by and through the “Operating Agreement” in so doing aiding and abetting a conspiracy to defraud the Lawful Functions of the United States. Your former U. S. Attorney colleagues (S.D.N.Y.) now Federal Judges are cited in the 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints protecting the district Judges Nevas/Hall fact fraud, docket fraud. And, you chose also to fraudulently conceal Robert D. Luskin’s corrupt use of a Congressional Act. Please refer this matter to a Grand Jury. The defraud clause of 18 U.S.C. 371 is your jurisdiction.

Please read also the Rule 65 Injunction filed this same day showing the former D.O.J. officials now Federal Judges in collusion to fraudulent concealment 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5) 1962(d) crimes and in so doing committing extreme Article II violations.
Thank you.



Gary R. Wall, Rule 11 Pro se Plaintiff
28 U.S.C. Complainant.
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651



















May 2, 2006



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

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 one of (6) letters attached to a Rule 65 affidavit in support of a Rule 65 Injunction filed this same day May 2, 2006. Said Injunction avers by documentation the judicial obstruction of pro se pleadings in the Court below. Said Injunction is being filed in order to stop Judge Nevas insidious use of pro se law clerks in obstructing two cases he is not even assigned to. I will get right to the point. Said Injunction and the 351 Complaint against Your Honor illustrates that the corrupt use of law clerks and Court Executives is a socio-political pattern committed by Your Honor also. The problem now is how do the plaintiffs in the appeal docketed in the Second Circuit, get a fair non-fact fraud, opinion from the Second Circuit. That statement is supported by documented and illustrated extra judicial acts of obstruction in Your Honors Second Circuit. Your Honor in the interest of protecting the integrity of the Second Circuit must under these unprecedented circumstances, make some type of provisions when making the panel that will Rule in 06-1264CV.

Please be on notice that through every step of the appeal process, I will be informing the 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee. Please read accompanying letter to Honorable Stephen G. Breyer – capacity Chairperson, Chief Justice 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee illustrating the fraud process of 28 U.S.C. 351 in Your Honors Circuit.

Also this petitioner brings to Your Honor’s attention that the Notice of Appeal stated in its relevant part: The “(Membership Only trial issue) was part of an extra judicial scheme to obstruct Statutory and Civil Rights”. It also stated “also attached for review a letter from the Deputy Clerk”. It stated:

“This is to advise you that the district court record in the above referenced case is being temporarily retained in the district court. We have received the certified index to the record, and the record is deemed filed with this Court. This will not affect your scheduling order or the time for filing your briefs. If you have any need to examine the district court record, please contact the district court before contacting the Court of Appeals.”

This petitioner is giving Your Honor notice that a motion will soon be filed against the Second Circuit using a “certified index to the record” and retained in the district court record in the district. This is unacceptable by reason of multiple document fact frauds and docket frauds in the district of Bridgeport. There is absolutely no trust in a “certified index to the record”. The Bridgeport Division cannot be trusted certifying anything. The docket fraud alone in 00-9004 which became 03-8534, 03-8535 gives undeniable proof of extreme flagrant judicial docket fraud.

Please respond with some type of answer of what Your Honor is going to do now to assure already seriously harmed Due Process plaintiffs/appellants that this due process of appeal is not going to be used as a continuation of punishment for bringing 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints. The same defendants in 06-1264CV are the same defendants (inter olios) in the OCCA/RICO Complaint 03:04-CV91. They will be serviced a copy of this letter attached to the Rule 65 affidavit in the Rule 65 Injunction.

Respectfully Submitted



Gary R. Wall, Rule 11 Pro se
28 U.S.C. 351 Complainant
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651





















May 2, 2006




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

RE: 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints 11(b)(3) Inquiry

Dear Honorable Judge Winter:

This letter is one of (6) letters attached to an affidavit in a Rule 65 Injunction Request, filed in Wall, Cooksey, Manos v. LIUNA et al 3:04-CV-91(WWE) this same day. This letter is being sent to Your Honor for one reason as a F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) Inquiry as a “reasonable opportunity for further investigation” (“11(b)(3)”) in preparing for a Civil Right/Mandamus.

In said Rule 65 Injunction Request, this 28 U.S.C. 351 Complainant cites at page 5 footnote 2, Your Honor’s panel in 00-9004, which was chaired and opinioned by Judge Straub.

Quote Relevant Part:

“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.”

It is this 28 U.S.C. 351 Complainants belief, subject to due diligence and (3) year in progress 11(b)(3) Inquiries, that Your Honor is a victim of a Judicial/Law Clerk Scheme to obstruct pro se pleadings by fact fraud, docket fraud, and fraudulent concealment. Appellant Case Number 00-9004 is a good example of the scheme that was committed in multiple cases in the Second Circuit. Appellant Case No. 00-9004 became a Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 351 (03-8534 Active Circuit Judge Chester Straub), Complaint in collusion with an active District Judge Janet C. Hall, also was filed 03-8535 both 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints were obstructed in the Second Circuit by fact fraud, docket fraud, and fraudulent concealment, both 28 U.S.C. 351 Compliants were obstructed by extra judicial acts of fraud for reasons of protecting judicial fact fraud, docket fraud, and fraudulent concealment in the district below. As stated in footnote 2, subject to due diligence and 11(b)(3) Inquiry, all these extra judicial crimes were committed without Your Honor’s knowledge.
This petitioner does not believe Your Honor would knowingly take part in the undeniable documented frauds committed in 00-9004. As Your Honor can see by reading the now attached letter to Chairperson Justice Breyer, the protection of the judicial crimes cited in 03-8534 and 03-8535 became (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints that now involve Second Circuit 28 U.S.C. 351 Judicial Council process fraud. It is also this petitioner’s belief that Your Honor’s name was used in the Law Clerk Scheme in 05-0085CV. The appellate case caused by an obstruction scheme in the district below, which is now appellate case no 06-1264CV. No panel assigned as of this writing. It is an absolute sham what happened to Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 224 F3d 168 (2000 2d Cir.), when Your Honor remanded back to the district 3:97-CV-00942(JCH).
Please take the time to read the Rule 15(d) motion and the Rule 65 Injunction Motion, which this letter is one of (6) letters attached to a Rule 65 affidavit. This 28 U.S.C. 351 Complainant is a pragmatic truthful pleader who follows the Rules explicitly. Therefore, this petitioner respectfully request Your Honor, subject to Canon 3(B)(3) call for an investigation of the Second Circuits fact fraud, docket fraud, and fraudulent concealment committed in the 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaint process.

Respectfully Submitted By:



Gary R. Wall, 28 U.S.C. 351 Pro se Complainant
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
860-529-2651















UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


GARY R. WALL CASE NO: 3:04-CV91(WWE)
WILLIAM COOKSEY SR.,
STEPHEN MANOS
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) DATED: MAY 2, 2006


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

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











STATUS OF INSTANT COMPLAINT
Rule 59(e) Motion Pending Since March 10, 2005 (1 year 1 month)


F.R.C.P. 15(d) SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING


“Supplemental pleadings deal exclusively with facts that have arisen since the time of filing of the original pleading”


See 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 Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 15(d) 28 U.S.C.A”

See also Pratt Supra Id. 1129 Holding 13:

--“stated claim for deprivation of procedural due process” U.S.C.A. Const. 5th and 14th Amend.”

Intentional judicial obstruction of pro se pleading by continued documented acts of judicial fraud is the most serious form of deprivation of procedural due process Rights requiring the protection of the 5th and 14th Amendment and Canon 3(B)(3).

This supplemental pleading not only meets the requirements of Rule 15(d), this supplemental pleading is directly related to the accomplishment of an 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) conspiracy to silence (free speech) through the racketeering removal (18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5)) from union membership plaintiff Wall and plaintiff Cooksey, by committing material perjury in a Federal Trial, and in so doing, knowingly obstructing Justice and the plaintiffs Civil Rights. The first two defendants supplemental RICO charged are Defendant Luskin and Defendant Haynes5, two signatories to the “Operating Agreement” with the United States6. This Supplemental Rule 15(d) pleading also includes in the Enterprise Conspiracy, the criminal Judicial protection of the D.O.J./D.N.C. political and monetary scheme “Operating Agreement” by “Wrongdoer No. 9 United States District Judge Janet C. Hall, District of Connecticut” (Bridgeport Division) at page 78 Standing Order, see also page 103 Standing Order citing Judge Janet C. Hall’s insidious Black Robe Judicial Obstruction of Justice, Constitutional and Civil Rights.
Because this supplemental pleading involves “circumstances constituting fraud”, both Judicial fraud and Enterprise Racketeering fraud, this Rule 11 plaintiff will plead the supplemental pleading showing the continuation of the enterprise conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) 1961(1,4,5) involving the complaint cited defendants and wrongdoers who took part in the final scheme of multiple enterprise schemes to accomplish the extortion of membership rights (29 U.S.C. 402(o) 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)), will be pleaded under F.R.C.P. 9(b) showing separately the “knowledge”, “intent”, “malice”, and “state of mind”.
Before citing the averments under Rule 9(b) against the defendants and wrongdoers, this Rule 11 plaintiff (Wall) must make a fact clear; that fact being, that the Third Circuit in Glessner v. Kenny 952 F2d 702 defined “The substance of a RICO case statement as elaborations of pleading”. The politically corrupt Federal Judges and the defendants’ in this (RICO CASE) statement have an easier time hiding and obstructing the facts, circumstances and truth in “elaborations of pleading”, especially when the plaintiffs are pro se. Therefore, the plaintiff will plead by Rule 9(b) and will also request a Rule 65 Injunction Hearing in an accompanying motion. This supplemental pleading is the exposure of the accomplishment of a 1962(d) Enterprise Conspiracy pleaded in Standing Order and pleaded step by criminal step in subsequent Motions filed in this 1964(c) “any persons” citizen action. Plaintiff Manos has no 18 U.S.C. 1961 predicate harm in this supplemental pleading. He was removed by defendant Luskin and Haynes criminal protection of the enterprises violent criminal acts 18 U.S.C. 1951 29 U.S.C. 530. (See Standing Order pages 31-34).

DEFENDANT ROBERT D. LUSKIN (COIA JR APPOINTED) SUPPLEMENTAL RICO CHARGE

On November 3, 2005, RICO Defendant Luskin came to Connecticut from Washington, D. C. in violation of RICO predicate (18 U.S.C. 1952) to knowingly obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. 1503) to accomplish the final act at the district level, of a 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) conspiracy; and in doing so, eliminate both plaintiff Wall and Cooksey’s membership rights, doing so to protect his client Arthur A. Coia’s “associates in fact” RICO Enterprise, from embezzlement of membership money violating 18 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 664, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).
Defendant Luskin’s material perjury in the form of obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503) was committed in his capacity as signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with the United States. Defendant Luskin also stated his former credentials to the jury, that being General Council D.O.J., O.C. Division. Defendant Luskin stated to the jury on November 3, 2005 that he was put in charge of removing organized crime from LIUNA by the government. The jury had no idea that they were being manipulated by a very sophisticated criminal who was in front of them to protect the crimes of a RICO Enterprise. They also had no idea that the Judge Janet C. Hall had full knowledge of Luskin/Coia Enterprise intentional poisoning of the Jury’s minds [For D.N.C./D.O.J. monetary and political criminal “Influenced”] reasons; she set the stage for the obstruction. The material perjury eliminated the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 402(o) Membership Rights that being: Luskin’s Statement, “Readmission into the union is only a 12-month Right”.
The Second part of the elimination of the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 402(o) Rights was the material perjury by Luskin that the plaintiffs never took part in exhausting internal remedies under the “Operating Agreement” (a requirement under 29 U.S.C. 402). Defendant Luskin knew by fact, that through our attorney at the time, that Luskin directed an investigation of the plaintiffs through the Chicago F.B.I Office, who came to Connecticut over a two year period being sent back multiple times by Luskin; Defendant Luskins trial testimony was the final act (18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5)) of an 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) Enterprise Conspiracy eliminating the plaintiffs Membership Rights (18 U.S.C. 1951 29 U.S.C. 402(o)) at the district level in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH). The accompanying Rule 65 Injunction is filed this same day for reasons of stopping Luskin’s racketeering corruption in this instant case in the form of fraudulent judicial notice and stopping Luskin’s racketeering corruption from reaching the Second Circuit (See Rule 65 Injunction filed the same day).

DEFENDANT VERE O. HAYNES (COIA SR. APPOINTED) SUPPLEMENTAL RICO CHARGE

At trial also on November 3, 2005, Vere O. Haynes in his capacity as First V.P. Laborers International Union, and as a signatory to the “Operating Agreement” with the United States testified also to the jury, concerning the fabricated 12-month Rule, stating also “readmission is only a 12-month Right”. Defendant Haynes did so knowingly and intentionally committing material perjury, “Obstruction of Justice” (18 U.S.C. 1503) violating 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) and 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b,c). [Defendant Haynes was cited on the face of the 212-page RICO Complaint with Coia and other nationally known organized crime figures]

DEFENDANT CHEVERIE (COIA SR APPOINTED) SUPPLEMENTAL RICO CHARGE 18 U.S.C. 1503, 29 U.S.C. 501(c), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)

Also on November 3, 2005, Attorney Cheverie testified to the legitimacy of the 12-month Barring Membership Rule, doing so knowingly committing material perjury. Defendant Cheverie intent was (inter alia) to protect the embezzled money he has been stealing in multiple case going back to the N.L.R.B (presently in violation of an agreement with the United States). Defendant Cheverie also gave false testimony to the jury-labeling Wall as a violent person in the former N.L.R.B. case. Defendant Cheverie did so knowing the Judge Hall blocked discovery in the D. C. Circuit 02-MS-354 by her fraudulent March 31, 2005 Ruling (Fraudulent Judicial Notice in the Bridgeport Division)7 (stopping contact with N.L.R.B. Judge Hon. Wallace Nations).

DEFENDANT LOPREATO (COIA SR. APPOINTED) SUPPLEMENTAL RICO CHARGE 18 U.S.C. 1503; 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)

On November 3, 2005, Defendant Lopreato took the stand and stated to the jury that the 12-month Rule readmission right expired after 12 months. Defendant Lopreato did so in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) for reasons of violating
18 U.S.C. 1962(c)8.


WRONGDOER NO. 2 LOCAL 230 (C0IA SR AND COIA JR APPOINTED) EXECUTIVE BOARD

On or about November 4th and November 5th of 2005, multiple members of the Executive Board of Local 230 (excluding James Lawson) testified fraudulently regarding the existence of the Right to Readmission, being a Right that can only be exercised in a 12-month period. The Wrongdoer Executive Board of Local 230 did so in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) by reasons of violating 18 U.S.C. 1962(b,c) in a pattern violating 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5)
[See Wrongdoer No. 2 Executive Board LIUNA at page 70 Standing Order]. See (Salerno Supra next page footnote 6 uncharged acts).

WRONGDOER NO. 7 AND NO. 8 (LUSKIN/COIA JR. “INFLUENCED”) U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS/ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING SECTION CRIMINAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. [STANDING ORDER PAGES 75-78]

Pursuant to the “Operating Agreement” (Luskin, Coia, Haynes Scheme) the United States Attorney Office Northern District of Illinois has jurisdiction in all LIUNA related matters in the United States. Since February 1995, set to expire September 2006, Luskin’s unprecedented corrupt influence has criminally influenced the U. S. Attorneys Office Northern District of Illinois, which has facilitated documented multiple (18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5)) violations, a (29 U.S.C. 530) assault, Hobbs Act violations and the open embezzlement of membership money (29 U.S.C. 501(c) 18 U.S.C. 664). See Wrongdoer No. One also, Arthur Coia, Jr. [Standing Order pages 62-70]9 for a clear understanding of the D.O.J./D.N.C./Luskin/Coia monetary and political buy-out of a 212 page RICO Compliant. The supplemental Wrongdoer Rico Charge involving Wrongdoer No. 7 and 8 are the multiple letters I sent to the Northern District of Illinois to U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, December 23, 2005 and February 3, 2006 (jurisdiction pursuant to signed agreement with the United States “Operating Agreement”), requesting the enforcement of the “Operating Agreement[s]” membership money embezzlement provision.
There was no response, a pattern by the U.S. Attorneys Office Northern District of Illinois and the D.O.J. O.C. Division (see page 34 Standing Order copy of two affidavits) of facilitating 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5) criminal activity by Coia’s RICO Enterprise. The facilitating is caused by the following clause signed by the D.O.J. and the Northern District of Illinois; Quote page 6 of the 1995 Agreement and page 7 of the revised 2001 Agreement in its relative part:
“Anyone, including a union officer, representative, member, contractor or vendor, or law enforcement organization may refer a complaint against a union official or member by filing it with the G.E.B. Attorney. The G.E.B. attorney or the Inspector General will investigate it and decide whether charging should be brought”.

The just quoted provision of the governments agreement with Luskin/Coia/Haynes and their RICO Enterprise (criminal protection sentence typed in bold), criminally privatized 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5). This is an extremely severe and harmful violation of the plaintiffs Constitutional Rights. See (Red Flags) Bivens Supra at 394, 395 citing Amos v. United States 225 U.S. 313, 317 (4th and 5th Amendment must be construed in pari material):
“In such cases there is no safety for the citizen except in the protection of Judicial Tribunals for rights which have been invaded by officers of the government professing to act in its name”[(Luskin “racketeering investigator” 18 U.S.C. 1961(7); “Operating Agreement” racketeering investigation 18 U.S.C. 1961(8)]

Cited also in the Complaint at VI as constitutional authority for grand jury relief, supported by documented facts in the Standing Order, summarized in Standing Order No. 20 pages 98-104 is “Red Flag Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 163:
“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the Laws, whenever he receives an injury”

WRONGDOER NO. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE JANET C. HALL BRIDGEPORT DIVISION DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (STANDING ORDER AT PAGES 78 AND 103 AND 104)


For the purpose of clarity in a Pro se10 showing of judicial fraud and corruption the plaintiffs must first quote their request Standing Order 20 at page 104:
“For these reasons also the plaintiffs respectfully request that the place of assignment of this case not be in the Bridgeport District where Judge Hall sits”

Subject to Federal Rules, this Rule 11 pro se plaintiff conducted, and is conducting (in third year) 11(b)(3) inquires, some inquires involving inquires to Chief Judge Chatigny (District of Connecticut) requesting relief from the judicial corruption in his (Nevas controlled) Bridgeport Division. The 3-year 11(b)(3) inquiries have exposed factual contentions that have evidentiary support, also exposed was the fact that not only were the plaintiffs denied non-assignment of the RICO Complaint to the Bridgeport Division (“where Judge Hall sits”). Not only were the plaintiffs denied what would have been the appearance of Justice, Judge Nevas insidiously directed the 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) OCCA/RICO Complaint to the Bridgeport Division where he could use Your Honors name on fraudulent documents using shared Law Clerks to commit unstable, bold (zealot prosecutor) severe Article II High Crimes obstructing Constitutional Rights
“to the protection of the laws” [Marbury Supra] of the United States. [Non-enforcement of Article II crimes makes worthless Article III Oaths]
Judge Hall, Judge Nevas insidious criminal use of Law Clerks in an intentional scheme to fraudulently obstruct Constitutional Rights of pro se plaintiffs has completely destroyed the integrity of the Bridgeport Division and the Second Circuit. See Standing Order at 103 and 104, also see pleaded in this instant Complaint DKT. # 47 “Date filed 0404/2004”

ADDITIONAL CAUSE FOR CONCERN RE: USURPATION OF CONSTITIONAL RIGHTS


On April 4, 2004, plaintiff Wall filed DKT. # 47 titled: (Docket Text)

“MOTION TO STAY JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY GARY R. WALL”


Your Honor’s Court (04-CV-91(WWE)) responded by DKT. # 49 “Date filed 06/10/2004” “Docket Text”:
“ORDDER 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 W. Eginton 06/9/04. (Sanders, C. (Entered: 06/10/2004)”

PLAINTIFFS ACTUAL TITLE OF DOCKET #47:

“RULE 11 PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS’ FILING SUBMISSION FOR CESSATION JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ACTS DISTRICT OF BRIDGEPORT REQUESTING LAW CLERK AND JUDGE DISCLOSURES (CONST. AMEND. 5)”

After experiencing multiple documented Nevas; Hall Law Clerk judicial fraud and obstruction of the pleadings in (3:97-CV-00942(JCH)) and (3:97-CV-2502(JCH) Claim I 1964(c) Action Claim II 5th Amendment Due Process), the courts (04-CV91(WWE) response to DKT. # 47 caused concern that the law clerks (directed by Nevas, Hall or both) once caught obstructing justice and due process transferred the case to the New Haven Division. Take special notice of the title of the “Docket Text”, Docket #49 “ORDER REASSSIGNING11 CASE.”
Next Step in the Judge Law Clerk[s] Scheme is exposed and occurs when the plaintiffs file DKT. # 68
“Docket Text: Motion for Leave to Supplement the Pleadings Pursuant to F.R.C.P. in Support of Judicial Notice by William Cooksey Sr., Stephen Manos, Gary R. Wall (Attachments #1 Exhibits) (Depino F.) (entered: 9/21/2004).”
PLAINTIFFS ACTUAL TITLE OF DOCKET # 68:
“PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 15(b) AGAINST WRONGDOER
NO. 9 DISTRICT JUDGE HALL’S INTENTIONAL MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE PLEADINGS”
Said Motion DKT. # 68 included two attached exhibits one a copy of plaintiffs L. Cv. R. 72.3(b) filed (stop fraudulent Judicial Notice D.C. Circuit). The second attachment – copy of Rule 59(e) Motion filed in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) dated September 10, 2004 was, as stated in the 59(e) Motion, the first part of Judge Hall’s scheme to obstruct the pleadings, doing so by fabricating facts (Judicial Fact Fraud) and circumstances (not even pleaded by defendants) in order to dismiss the 101, 609, 411, 529 unlawful discipline claims against Local 230 and its officers, in so doing fraudulently manipulating the case down to one perjury vulnerable issue 29 U.S.C. 402(o) Membership Rights.
The plaintiffs now attempt to overcome the judicial fraud by filing an appeal in the Second Circuit case number 05-0085CV. The Second Circuit on May 19, 2005, Ruled Sua Sponte that they lacked jurisdiction. Quote the Court’s finding:

“This Court has determined sua sponte that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because a final order has not been issued by the district court as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. 1291. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978); Citizens Accord, Inc. v. Town of Rochester, 235 F. 3d 126, 128 (2d Cir. 200) (holding that an order dismissing some, but not all claims, or defendants is non-final and may not be immediately appealed unless the trial court certified the appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Therefore, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.”[12]


Judge Hall committed the bold shameless, fraudulent, bifurcation scheme dismissal for two primary reasons. First, to protect her D.N.C./D.O.J. colleagues and secondly to bring the 8-year-old case down to the [one-issue membership rights], avoid any jury from the exposure of her multiple documented criminal acts of obstruction. This instant supplemental pleading is the “accomplishment” of a 1962(d) conspiracy at the district level involving extremely corrupt Judicial Actions helping in the accomplishment of the defendants 1962(d) conspiracy fabricating facts, (Judicial Fact Fraud) so there is no application to the statute and no case authority, doing so in order to fraudulently bring the (8) year old case down to [one perjury vulnerable issue].
During the trial when plaintiff Wall tried to make known to the jury his Right to protect his pension by being allowed readmission, Judge Hall stopped plaintiff Wall and stated to the jury (trial transcript at 456):
The Court: “Alright sir. I want to make a point to the jury, that there’s nothing in this case that relates to Mr. Wall’s pension, his right to a pension, how much has he earned with a pension, whether he has a pension or not, that’s not an issue in this case which was determined by this court in advance of the trial”13

Prior to the (judicial obstruction manipulated) trial on July 28, 2005 (pre trial hearing) Rule 11 plaintiff Wall protected our pro se Rights from the judicial obstruction subject to the Rule of Waiver by making the following statement (transcript page 20):
Quote July 28, 2005 pre trial hearing:
Mr. Wall: “---this is definitely obstruction of justice coming in. That’s what’s filed in the 351 Complaints.
The Court: “I understand you filed complaints. But I would like to have you focus on this case. Your have a case here in this Court that is ready to be tried. Are you going to comply with the pre-trial order?
Mr. Wall: “I guess I have to otherwise you will dismiss it. I will comply under objection.”
See also page 31:
Mr. Wall: “We have no trust. I told you that last time we were here.”
The Court: “I understand you don’t have trust. But that doesn’t change the fact that the case is assigned to me and I have an obligation to bring it to trial to final judgment. I see no reason why we shouldn’t be doing that. So I’m going to” –
Mr. Wall: “I will do it under objection”.”
(Rule of Waiver)

I also stated on the record to Judge Hall, multiple times that the D.O.J. is controlling her courtroom through Judge Nevas. Her response was no response; then changed the subject. It has also become obvious over this 9-year period that Judge Nevas can criminally influence the U. S. Attorney’s Office (source of stories) to back off newspaper reporters from attending hearing or printing anything about these cases. This Rule 11 plaintiff is a quiet family man that does not like publicity. In this case this Judicial/Executive Branch corrupt secret must be exposed. Judge Nevas and Hall cannot be allowed to obstruct all of our Rights and privileges in this Third World Police State manner (Justice can only be conceived if it is publicly known).
COPY OF JUDGE HALL’S VERDICT FORM:

VERDICT FORM

  1. Mr. Wall’s and Mr. Cooksey’s Membership Rights
  2. Have Mr. Wall and Mr. Cooksey proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the twelve-month limitation on the right to readmission did not exist?
Yes ________ No ________
If you answered “yes” proceed to question 3. If you answered “no,” proceed to question 2.
  1. Have Mr. Wall and Mr. Cooksey proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the twelve-month limitation on the right to readmission was not applied consistently and fairly?
Yes _________ No ________
If you answered “yes” proceed to question 3. If you answered “no” to both questions 1 and 2, proceed to the end of the verdict form and have your foreperson sign and date the form.”
The jury answered no to questions 1 and 2 and stopped; the “accomplishment” of a 1962(d) conspiracy involving multiple 8-year pattern of Article II High Crimes was now complete; Third World Criminal Judicial Corruption. In addition to Judge Hall fabricating facts so there would be only one perjury vulnerable issue (membership rights), perjury obstructed by fact fraud fraudulently creating non-application to the statute 101, 609, 411, 529, causing a manipulated bifurcation of the case. In addition, Judge Hall also fraudulently manipulated the jury by disallowing evidence (2 years of dispositions) and testimony that would support the plaintiffs 29 U.S.C. 402(o) Membership Rights14, and in so doing knowingly allowing the defendants to commit a line of perjury and obstruction of justice to the jury in violation of Article II by participat[ing] in the affairs (1962(d)) of an enterprise through a pattern of (Wrongdoer Judicial) racketeering activity. The judicial criminal bifurcation and manipulation of the case was for the purpose of fraudulent concealment of Wrongdoer Hall’s Article II High Crimes to obstruct pro se pleadings. In so doing, Judge Hall has created a racketeering tool that will inevitably be used by the enterprise to stop and punish any membership dissent in the union. In this case, Judge Hall’s criminal manipulation has caused plaintiff Cooksey to lose his membership after 26 straight years he cannot be readmitted. Even though the National Labor Relation Board found that Mr. Cooksey could not pay his dues because he was stopped from working by the union. Plaintiff Cooksey became divorced and was forced to work for welfare. Plaintiff Wall had his entire pension extorted by this Right to readmission scheme. Any Federal Judge, who facilitates or helps, is a shameless criminal who should not be a judge in any society. If ever there was a Federal Judge in a position of obligation to Canon 3(B)(3) it is Your Honor.
Clarification: The plaintiffs are not asking the Court to Rule on any claims in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH), that will be pleaded and exposed in 06-1264 Sec. Cir.. The plaintiffs are requesting Your Honor use Your Honor’s authority to stop a RICO Enterprises corrupt influence on the Bridgeport Division, by adhering to Canon 3(B)(3). Silence by Your Honor under these circumstances is participating in the affairs (with Nevas and Hall shared law clerks) of a RICO Enterprise.
We have never had a hearing in this 2-year-old case. In the Standing Order, we have illustrated documented facts obtained in 2 years of discovery in 3:97-CV-00942(JCH) putting the plaintiffs far beyond the requirement of (Rule 12 State a Claim). A 59(e) Motion showing the corrupt influence on this instant case (most likely by the shared, Nevas directed law clerks) has been pending for over a year. The same stall fraud and obstructionist tactics. This Rule 11 plaintiff questions, the soundness of Judge Nevas mind, that he commits such flagrant criminal acts of Judicial Obstruction.

UNPRECEDENTED JUDICIAL HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS DUE PROCESS 5TH AMENDMENT AND 14TH AMENDMENT

Attached to the accompanying Rule 65 Motion are 5 letters, one to the Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Chairperson Judicial Conduct 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee (Copies to members of Study Committee); Letter to Chief Judge Walker Second Circuit; Letter to Chief Judge Chatigny District of Connecticut; Letter to Senior Judge Winters Second Circuit; Letter to Congressman Sensenbrenner 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee letter to U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald – jurisdiction “Operating Agreement”.
The letters are attached to the Rule 65 Motion in support of the injunction hearing and to support this instant Rule 15(d) Supplemental pleading. Also by factual situation, the unprecedented judicial harm to the plaintiffs Civil and Statutory Rights is magnified subject to the fact that Your Honor is one of (5) respondents (who chose not to respond) in (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints filed July 27, 2005 [status]. Pending since February 10, 2006 by reason of a request to the Supreme Court Study Committee for an “Investigation of Judicial Counsel Rule 8(a) Review fraud.” Your Honor’s case (Eginton) No. 05-8541 – (Judge Nevas) case No. 05-8539 – (Judge Hall) case No. 05-8540 – (Judge Mukasey) sitting by (setup) designation 03-3117 case No. 05-8538 –(Chief Judge Walker) case No. 05-8537.
The mere fact that not one Judge tries to restrain, sanction or stop this Rule 11 petitioner/plaintiff is proof by itself of the “fraudulent concealment” of extreme criminal actions by a group of sociopolitical corrupt Federal Judges. In Your Honors case (11)(b)(3) Inquires gave evidentiary support that Judge Hall and Judge Nevas used Your Honor’s signature, and name to obstruct, justice, through law clerks, doing so insidiously from Chambers.
It is Your Honors responsibility and duty to protect the honesty and integrity of the Judicial Branch from insidious criminal actions by other Federal Judges (Canon 3(B)(3)). This Rule 11 plaintiff Wall is a pragmatic pleader everything averred against the Federal Judges is undeniable documented occurrences and facts. Because of that fact, the plaintiffs petition Your Honor to support an Inquiry into the (5) 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints that are already in front of the Supreme Courts 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Study Committee pursuant to “Rule 8(a) Disclosure Investigation Request.” Study Committee Request illustrated under the following titles: (Inter alia) “SUBSTANTIVE FACILE ILLUSTRATION OF THE CORRUPT USE OF 28 U.S.C. 351 PROCESS SECOND CIRCUIT/JUDICIAL COUNCIL” (at 2 “rule 8(a) investigation request”); “FACILE FACTS AND POINTS EXPOSING EXTRA JUDICIAL OBSTRUCTION OF 28 U.S.C. 351 STATUTORY PROTECTION (at 5”rule 8(a) investigation request”); “SECOND CIRCUITS ACT OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL REVIEW FRAUD” (at 7”rule 8(a) investigation request”); Ending with “PRESENT DAY JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT AND OBSTRUCTION FOR BRINGING THE 28 U.S.C. 351 COMPLAINTS”.
This is a very serious Constitutional and Statutory matter. The plaintiffs in this matter have followed the Rules and we have been respectful to everyone involved; we have taken unbelievable judicial abuse as we followed the Rules (documented). We must as citizens of the United States protect ourselves from this egregious corruption collusion of Federal Judges and Law Clerks. The cause being, the corrupt use of a Congressional Act, - The Organized Crime Control Act of (1970) RICO. Protected by Justice Department officials who are now Federal Judges. A Group of social political corrupt Federal Judges conspiring to violate pro se Rights by criminal manipulation and fraud usurping every right – ERISA; LMRDA; 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment, plus the protection from Title 18 crimes. The Bridgeport Division by documented fact is a Third World Police State Division.
Therefore, the plaintiffs request Your Honor in accordance with Rule 15(d), relevant part:
“If the Court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead to the supplemental pleading, it shall so order, specifying the time therefore”.

Order the cited defendants in this supplemental pleading to plead and defend themselves. In addition, it is also Your Honors duty, to Your Honors Oath, to stop this judicial criminal abuse. Non-enforcement of Article II High Crimes makes worthless Article III Oaths.
Non-enforcement of Article II High Crimes in this matter has now created an unprecedented situation where an appeal has just been filed in the Second Circuit, while judicial collusion, in the Second Circuit concerning 28 U.S.C. 351 self-policing process fraud, is pending in front of the Supreme Court’s 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Study Committee. Pending subject to a “Rule 8(a) Ballot Disclosure Investigation Request”. Said request illustrates and documents Second Circuit collusion in obstruction of pro se Due Process Rights. This is a very harmful Constitutional situation, that being, the filing of an appeal into a circuit where Article II fraud complaints are pending. Proximate harm caused by the corrupt use of a Congressional Act.

CONCERNING WRONGDOER NO. 9 DISTRICT JUDGE JANET C. HALL

Wrongdoer No. 9 Judge Hall’s criminal actions, quote primary issue of Notice of Appeal text:
“NOTICE OF APPEAL”
Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) Gary R. Wall and William Cooksey Sr. hereby give notice and appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit from judgment denying plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motion [DKT. # 352] for reconsideration of plaintiffs Rule 59(a) Motion, on grounds the (membership only issue) was part of an extra judicial scheme to obstruct Statutory and Civil Rights”

In this instant case part of an extra judicial scheme to obstruct Statutory and Civil Rights has been pleaded by supplement to the pleadings DKT. # 68 Rule 15(b) supplement; this instant Rule 15(d) supplement is the completion and accomplishment of the first supplement; that being, the trial extortion of Membership Rights 18 U.S.C. 1951, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) to protect an enterprise in violation of 1962(b,c) judicial protection of the politically and monetary powerful longest Standing RICO Enterprise by judicial fraud are the highest High Crimes that can be committed (Article II Const.) against the Civil and Human Rights of plaintiffs.
This is a clearly pleaded RICO Complaint averring by documentation “Enterprise Racketeering Injuries”15. The plaintiffs in this matter are “any person[s]” under the Rights of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). If Your Honor rules against this instant motion (and the same day filed Rule 65 Injunction) then Your Honor will be putting the plaintiffs in an extremely prejudice position of bringing an appeal in the Second Circuit where multiple extra judicial acts of obstruction in multiple cases are documented including the judicial obstruction of (5) Judicial Council 28 U.S.C. 351 Complaints, (including Eginton No. 05-8541) pending subject to a 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Committee Oversight request for 28 U.S.C. 351 process fraud. In the interest of justice, meaning the activity of justice, (Article III), Your Honor should stop this. Preferably by referring this case to the 28 U.S.C. 351 Conduct Committee (see 28 U.S.C. 351 follow up request letter attached to the Rule 65 Injunction) pursuant to Your Honor’s Oath and Obligation under Canon 3(B)(3) to do so is a moral and legal imperative. As an alternative direct the defendants, and request the wrongdoers cited answer this Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading.
Notice of this Rule 15(d) Supplemental Pleading has been sent by letter communication attached to the Rule 65 Injunction Request (See Rule 65 Injunction filed this same day) to the Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Chairperson Judicial Conduct 28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee (Copies to members of Study Committee); Letter to Chief Judge Walker Second Circuit; Letter to Chief Judge Chatigny District of Connecticut; Letter to Senior Judge Winters Second Circuit; Letter to Congressman Sensenbrenner
28 U.S.C. 351 Study Committee letter to U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald – jurisdiction “Operating Agreement”.
The purpose of the notice is the protection of Constitutional Rights first, fifth, fourteenth Amendment.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
GARY R. WALL, Rule 11 Pro se plaintiff
60 Carriage Hill Drive
Wethersfield, CT.
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 Wall and Cooksey Rule 15(d) Memorandum in support of Motion for Leave to File supplemental Pleadings’ has been sent FedEx and first class postage pre-paid this 2nd 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
FEDEX

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














1 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.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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”.

5 See Standing Order Defendant Luskin and Haynes pages 3-28 discovery documented violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)(b)(c), 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1,4,5). Take notice that defendant Luskin is, by documented time line fact, not “an outside attorney”, as required by the signed agreement with the United States. Defendant Luskin, by documented (discovery fact 3:97-CV00942(JCH)), was and continues to be, Arthur A. Coia’s RICO Enterprise attorney. Also take notice that defendant Haynes was an “associate in fact”, cited target in the D.O.J. 212-page RICO Complaint.

6 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).”

7 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).

8 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.

9 Arthur Coia Jr. is a Wrongdoer not a defendant by reason of the documented fact that Robert Luskin has taken control of Coia’s RICO 1961(4) Enterprise, and by reason of that fact defendant Luskin is and has since 1995 committed predicate violations and facilitated documented in (discovery 3:97-CV-00942(JCH)) pattern violations of 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), 18 U.S.C. 1962(d, b, c) and in so doing criminally influencing the D.O.J. Northern District of Illinois, and the Washington, D.C. O.C. Division to facilitate the crimes of a RICO Enterprise. Arthur Coia Jr. is not a defendant in this complaint. 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the Lawful Functions of the United States) is the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. But see for this instant Complaint United States v. Salerno 108 F.3d 730, 739 (7th Cir.) (Allowing government to use uncharged criminal acts in RICO prosecution to prove enterprise and defendant’s participation in it to establish an enterprise and a criminal pattern (18 U.S.C. 1961(1,4,5).

10 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.

11 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.

12 By reason of the multiple obstructions committed against the plaintiffs, by law clerks in the district of Connecticut and the Second Circuit (directed by Federal Judges) the just quoted summary order of the Second Circuit most probably is one of those schemes. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) Inquiries will be sent to former Chief Judge Winters, Chief Judge Walker. Attached to the accompanying Rule 65 Motion instant memorandum as exhibits.

13 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.

14 Judge Hall would not allow the testimony of Mr. Eugene H. Methvin former member of President Reagan’s Crime Commission who investigated LIUNA, Coia Sr. and Coia Jr. at the time. Judge Hall also would not allow Mr. Ron Fino to testify. Mr. Fino has been classified as an expert witness by the United States Justice Department concerning Labor Racketeering. Mr. Fino’s affidavit was filed on 3/12/04 in this case DKT. # 26 titled: “Motion for Leave to File Affidavit in Support of Grand Jury Relief (Complaint At VI); Also Judge hall directed the plaintiffs not to mention any findings in Wall et al v. Local 230 224 F 3d 168. The only witness we could use were our two affiants, who were already removed by violence (also could not mention the violence 18 U.S.C. 1951 29 U.S.C. 530). If any member testified as to the non-existence of the 12-month Rule it would cause them also economic execution 18 U.S.C. 1951 blanket Hobbs Act by a RICO Enterprise added and abetted by Judge Hall (inter olios).

15 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)).


Return to Laborers.org