February 26, 1999
Peter Vaira
IHO, LIUNA
1600 Market Street
Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19103
RE : Order & Memorandum, Docket #
98-36P, Local 230 [ Manos, Julian & Oliveira]
Dear Sir,
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 ?
Sincerely Yours,
s/Stephen Manos
Stephen Manos
77 Hale Road
Glastonbury, Ct 06033
cc to : U.S. House Subcommittee on
Employer-Employee Relations