February 26, 1999
1600 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
RE : Order & Memorandum, Docket # 98-36P, Local 230 [ Manos, Julian & Oliveira]
Enclosed please find :
A. Letter from Local 230 Executive Board to Peter Vaira
B. LeConche Campaign Letter to Local 230 members
1. Your thirteen page letter granting the election protests of candidates Stephen Manos & Gene Julian includes forty-four "Findings of Fact".
You state that "There is a preponderance of evidence" showing Local 230 Business Manager Charles LeConche to be guilty of numerous campaign violations.
You further state [in conclusion # 8] that : "Those who commit election violations will not benefit from their defeated opponent dropping out."
However, your remedy for these many violations is to merely rerun the election.
This non-punitive "punishment " has the obvious effect of sanctioning the very violations extensively enumerated in your own report.
Please be advised that I was forced into early retirement from union activity due to fear for my physical safety at the hands of LeConche & his associates-in- fact.
As you are well aware, LIUNA General Executive Board Attorney Robert Luskin took no proper or direct action in regard to this well-documented assault & scheme but chose instead to further facilitate the scheme by merely issuing a mild reprimand, & subsequently, refusing to comply with a subpoena, pursuant to Rule 45 FRCP, which would produce evidence bringing out the truth in this matter.
2. You further state that if there are re-occurrences of campaign violations
" ... a trusteeship may be necessary."
If this unlikely event occurs, it would be incomprehensible to me that you would now take such action in light of your direct knowledge concerning a 18 USC 1962(d) associate-in-fact conspiracy within Local 230. [Please refer to U.S. v. Ricobene]
Specific is the fact that you neglected to mention or comment on the July 30, 1997 physical assault of then Local 230 Vice President Manos.
On that date & during a Local 230 Executive Board meeting held at Capriccio Restaurant in Hartford, Ct., Business Manager Charles LeConche made a murderous threat [verified by an audio-tape] against the person of Vice President Manos.
[ Hobbs Act, 18 USC 1951]
Manos was then physically assaulted [29 USC 530] by union officers while other union officials, including LIUNA Vice-President Vere Haynes & Union lawyer Thomas Brockett, witnessed these acts & took absolutely no action.
After being thrown bodily out of the fire-exit door of Capriccio Restaurant, Manos was subsequently pursued into the street & again attacked by Local 230 Business Manager Charles LeConche who was aided & abetted by his brother, Billy LeConche.
The same union officials, who witnessed the entire incident, again took no action to intervene, thereby, further facilitating the extortion of not only my personal LMRDA [Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act] membership rights but also the LMRDA rights of the union membership as represented by me as Local 230 Vice President.
These overt actions culminated with Local 230 Business Manager Charles LeConche shouting to me [as I fled to my car] that " We own you now !" [Hobbs Act, 18 USC 1951]
You further overlook the fact that LeConche has brought suit against me in U.S. District Court "charging", among other things, that I turned over evidence to the FBI [in the form of an audio-tape] directly depicting the entire incident including the assault on my person. [You personally have a transcript & copy of that same assault]
In amending his original complaint, LeConche brought additional "charges" claiming that I had testified before a U.S. House Subcommittee.
The utterly transparent purpose of this act was to cause me emotional distress & place me in financial jeopardy through extensive court & lawyer's fees.
I will address these criminal acts personally, where I have standing as a plaintiff, pursuant to18 USC 1964(c), namely in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, CT.
Also covered in this RICO action is LeConche's federal tort suit being identified for what it is [18 USC 1512, Witness Tampering].
Please answer the following questions :
1. Does the fact that I was forced out of the union, & into early retirement, prejudice my eligibility as a candidate?
2. WilI you mandate a mail-in ballot for the rerun election so as thwart the racketeering scheme within Local 230?
3. Since LeConche has seen fit to send a campaign letter to union members, will you mandate that my reply be mailed to these same union members ?
77 Hale Road
Glastonbury, Ct 06033
cc to : U.S. House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations