Corruption owes little more to immoral union leaders than it does to predatory employers who, throughout the history of American business, have sought by cheating and violence to circumvent the strictures of competition, unionization and the law. It is a companion of the corruption in politics and law enforcement which for generations has characterized some of the major cities of the nation,  [**4]  sheltering the guilty and embroiling the innocent in crime. It owes a debt to the insanity of Prohibition and its enduring legacy of organized defiance of the law. It thrives in the procedural jungle of the American criminal law. It stems from the social conditions of the cities -- from the tensions of an immigrant society, the customs of racial discrimination and ethnic isolation, the miseries of the slums and the frustrations of the underprivileged, the ignorance of the poor and the indifference of the rich. It has, finally, drawn strength from a public philosophy which, in electing for the competitive society, has tended to trumpet only its virtues, according either praise or tolerance to the victors in a battle lightly burdened with rules."

"enterprise" includes any individual, partnership, corporations, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity . . . .

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(a)(1) Equal rights. -- Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.

(2) Freedom of speech and assembly. -- Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

(3) Dues, initiation fees, and assessments. -- Except in the case of a federation of national or international labor organizations, the rates of dues and initiation fees payable by members of any labor organization in effect on September 14, 1959 shall not be increased, and no general or special assessment shall be levied upon such members, except --

(A) in the case of a local labor organization, (i) by majority vote by secret ballot of the members in good standing voting at a general or special membership meeting, after reasonable notice of the intention to vote upon such question, or (ii) by majority vote of the members in good standing voting in a membership referendum conducted by secret ballot; or

(B) in the case of a labor organization, other than a local labor organization or a federation of national or international labor organizations, (i) by majority vote of the delegates voting at a regular convention, or at a special convention of such labor organization held upon not less than thirty days' written notice to the principal office of each local or constituent labor organization entitled to such notice, or (ii) by majority vote of the members in good standing of such labor organization voting in a membership referendum conducted by secret ballot, or (iii) by majority vote of the members of the executive board or similar governing body of such labor organization, pursuant to express authority contained in the constitution and bylaws of such labor organization: Provided, That such action on the part of the executive board or similar governing body shall be effective only until the next regular convention of such labor organization.

(4) Protection of the right to sue. -- No labor organization shall limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any court, or in a proceeding before any administrative agency, irrespective of whether or not the labor organization or its officers are named as defendants or respondents in such action or proceeding, or the right of any member of a labor organization to appear as a witness in any judicial, administrative, or legislative proceeding, or to petition any legislature or to communicate with any legislator: Provided, That any such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a four-month lapse of time) within such organization, before instituting legal or administrative proceedings against such organizations or any officer thereof: And provided further, That no interested employer or employer association shall directly or indirectly finance, encourage, or participate in, except as a party, any such action, proceeding, appearance, or petition.

(5) Safeguards against improper disciplinary action. -- No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.

(b) Any provision of the constitution and bylaws of any labor organization which is inconsistent with the provisions of this section shall be of no force or effect.

 
(1) the June 1961 murder of Anthony Castellitto; (2) the August 1961 appointment of Salvatore Provenzano to the position of Trustee formerly occupied by Castellitto; (3) the September 1961 appointment of Salvatore Briguglio -- the alleged murderer of Castellitto -- to the position of Business Agent; (4) the February 1963 appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Business Agent following his January 1963 conviction for extortion; (5) the May 1963 murder of Walter Glockner; (6) the 1964 appointment of Robert A. Luizzi to the position of Business Agent in spite of a record of criminal convictions; (7) the May 1967 appointment of Luizzi to the position of Trustee; (8) the February 1969 appointment of Salvatore Briguglio to position of Business Agent following completion of a term of imprisonment for extortion; (9) the April 1969 appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of clerk following completion  [**10]  of a term of imprisonment for extortion; (10) the 1970 appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Business Agent; (11) the 1971 appointment of Thomas Reynolds, Sr. to the position of Business Agent in spite of a record of criminal activity; (12) the 1972 appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Fund Trustee; (13) the 1972 appointment of Salvatore Briguglio to the position of Fund Trustee; (14) the allowance of frequent visitations by Armand Faugno and Thomas Andretta to the offices of Local 560; (15) the January 1963 appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Secretary-Treasurer; (16) the 1973 appointment of Reynolds to the position of Fund Trustee; (17) the 1974 resumption of duties as Business Agent by Salvatore Briguglio following completion of a term of imprisonment for counterfeiting; (18) the 1974 appointment of Luizzi to the position of Fund Trustee; (19) the November 1975 appointments of Anthony and Nunzio Provenzano to the positions of Secretary-Treasurer and President, respectively, in spite of a record of convictions for extortion; (20) the February 1977 appointment of Reynolds to the position of Trustee; (21) the July 1978 appointment of Josephine  [**11]  Provenzano to the position of Secretary-Treasurer following Anthony Provenzano's conviction for the Castellitto murder; (22) the July 1981 appointment of Salvatore Provenzano to the position of President following Nunzio Provenzano's forced resignation as a condition of bail on a labor racketeering conviction; (23) the Executive Board's failure to recover monies wrongfully converted by Anthony Provenzano; (24) the retention of Marvin Zalk as Fund Administrator in spite of payments accepted by him from an insurance company representative during the 1950's; (25) the retention of Ralph Torraco as the Fund's independent certified public accountant in spite of his federal indictment for systematically overbilling the Fund; (26) the extortion of contributions to the defense funds of the Provenzanos and Michael Sciarra from union members; (27) the 1981 appointment of Luizzi to the position of Business Agent; and (28) associations by some of the defendants with Frank "Funzi" Tieri and Matteo Alfredo Ianniello, reputed to be organized crime members.

 
Q Did you ever engage in any illegal activity with Salvatore Provenzano?
 
A No.
 
Q Did you ever talk to Salvatore Provenzano about illegal activity?
 
A No.
 
Q Mr. Sinno, did you ever receive any instruction from Anthony Provenzano about what you could or should talk to Salvatore Provenzano about?
 
A Yeah, they -- he never wanted Salvatore Provenzano, to get involved in anything illegal. We discussed that many a times, yes.
 
Q Can you tell us specifically what Mr. Anthony Provenzano's instructions to you were?
 
A He wanted to keep him more or less clean. He didn't want to get him involved in any way or other in illegal activities.
 
Q Did he give you the reason that, as you put it, he wanted to keep Salvatore Provenzano clean?
 
A Well, I imagine --
 
MR. WEISSBARD: Objection.
 
THE COURT: Don't imagine. Objection sustained. Answer the question.
 
A Yes. He  [**35]  mentioned that quite often, in regard, he didn't want Salvatore Provenzano with any kind of a record or anything, but, for the Union's sake.  [*293] 

 
Q Today, given all that has happened with Local 560 and all the indictments and this civil complaint and everything like that, if another indictment came down like the Seatrain indictment, would you, today, think it a prudent thing as the president of the union to make an inquiry to try and find out what the circumstances were with respect to the union contract and the alleged violation of the contract?
 
A To answer your question, yes. If I would have done it by reading the indictment is something else. I think it is prudent. I thought I answered that before, that I started to check out what was going on.
 
Q Okay.
 
A I never denied that. What I am saying is I didn't bother to read the indictments. But I was interested in what took place.
 
Q  [**37]  All right, sir.

Now, I think I understand you. You were interested then -- you were interested at the time of Seatrain in what was going on?
 
A Yes. Because my brother was involved, and I couldn't see how he was involved in the situation. That was my main concern.
 
Q Your brother?
 
A Yes, sir.
 
Q As opposed to the union?
 
A He comes first. I will say that.

 
A . . . what motivated them to do that, I have to say it is because -- not only that I was a Provenzano, that counts for weight, but  [**38]  I was Tony's daughter. See,  [*294]  there is only one Tony to them. Now, there was a big issue in this case as to what members believe, what they read in papers or don't they believe, were they influenced by it? I have to tell you the truth. I don't think they would have cared if it was true or not true. Because they know what he did for them. To them, in their minds, what did the press ever do for me? What did the government ever do for me? They take my taxes and they go on about a whole platform of things they disagree with the government. Look what Tony did for me. He gave me pensions, eyeglasses, he gave me dental. I have welfare payments. He saw me on the street and took me in the bar. We had a drink. He remembered my wife's name. He asked me how my daughter was, that had the concussion in the hospital. There is something about my father, sir, -- not that you can't get mad at him. You can get mad at him. There is something about the man. I mean you can't understand until you're like one of the guys from 560. They just -- I would have never believed it, if I wasn't in those meetings and I didn't hear those people go wild about him. I mean they liked him,  [**39]  but it is just incredible to me. It is just absolutely incredible to me. And to them, I am Tony's daughter . . . .

There can be, to the members of Local 560, no higher recommendation in this entire world. And if I don't believe that, well, I wouldn't be here right now because I wouldn't be a member of the executive board of Local 560.

It is -- I don't know how to put it into words. It is more like an emotion you feel. He has an uncanny ability of making people relax, and making them know he cares. He is not a big deal. He is not very well-educated, book-wise. He might have gone to the fourth or fifth grade. But you give him a contract, he can read it. I don't know how he can read it. He just can. You put him in a room with 500 truck drivers. Nobody in this world is going to talk to them that they will understand more than my father. You put him in a room with ladies, and you never see him. My girlfriends -- when my father -- there is articles in the papers or -- they cry. They call me on the phone in tears. 'How could they say that about your father?'

I tell them, 'Hey, listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion. You know better. Don't cry. Don't get upset. Don't  [**40]  read it. That's all.'

He just commands such love and respect, and admiration and loyalty, not only from his family, but from the members of Local 560. Anyone that comes into contact with him. I don't know what else to say, your Honor. I mean, I don't even know if I expressed myself properly or adequately, but that is just how I feel. I am so proud to be my father's daughter. [Emphasis supplied].

 
Q Have you, to the best of your knowledge, ever done anything that a member might think was designed to intimidate him from coming to meetings or speaking out his mind?
 
A Nope, never did it. Never will.

 
Q Mr. Jaronko, if Nunzio Provenzano was able to come back to the union tomorrow, you as one member of the Executive  [**41]  Board would vote him on in a minute, I take it, right?
 
A Yeah. I believe there is a law that he can come back. But after he does what is he supposed to do? Yes, I would.
 
 [*295]  Q And if that law didn't exist and he could come back tomorrow, you would take him back tomorrow, right?
 
A Yes. And I believe the members will, too.
 
Q And you would do the same thing with Anthony Provenzano, assuming he could come back tomorrow, you would take him back tomorrow?
 
A Yes.

 
Q When did your next discussion take place and what did you do about it in the meantime, if anything?
 
A Well, in the meantime, of course, I had a lot of sleepless nights, I guess you would call it, because I had worked pretty hard at what I was doing, and I was trying to get ahead in life, I guess you would call it, and I felt that there was a future for me in that job, although I was being underpaid, I felt that the pay would come eventually if I really proved myself out. With the title  [**53]  comes the pay, I guess, but I felt that, well, I would like to get involved in this, and I did a lot of thinking about this, because my history as a young kid, I go back, back in the thirties during the Depression years, and my father, he worked for Ford Motor Company in Detroit, and he was one of the first three men to be fired for union activities back during that period.

 [*299]  And I recalled it and I relived that over and over again, and the fact that he was almost killed several times leading the pickets against, at that time, a company that was so big you just could never beat it. And he was one of the leaders of that strike. He was part of the so-called walkway, where they drop buckets with lead in the bottom on the pickets, when they brought in strike breakers and whatever. And I recall during those days as a kid walking picket lines with my father, and those were hard days, when unions were starting. I never forgot those days.

So that had a lot to do, I think, with my decision, and I thought deeply and I talked with my family about it, and whatever, and it is going to be a whole new change of life, lifestyle, and I also felt that, hey, my father would have been  [**54]  proud of me. So that had a lot to do with it.

 
Q In fact, you stated at your deposition that Anthony Provenzano is your idol; is that correct?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Is your what?
THE WITNESS: My idol.

 
THE COURT: Now, you recall my question, my question was, do you recall Miss Josephine  [**64]  Provenzano telling the Court, even if all these charges were true, the local union members would welcome back the Provenzanos?
THE WITNESS: Overwhelmingly. Overwhelmingly.
THE COURT: Even if the charges were true.
THE WITNESS: Even if the charges were true.
THE COURT: Would you welcome them back?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I got my own opinions. I am not the same as the members. I told you my opinions and my feelings.

The members would welcome them back with open arms. Nunzie, whom I have known a little better, I got closer to over the years than I did with Anthony, was a hell of a business agent, your Honor.
THE COURT: So that even if, and you have expressed yourself very strongly, and I am not being critical, and very emotionally concerning the charges in which you were involved in and which you were acquitted of. Even if you knew that Nunzio was guilty, and there was no bar, would you bring the guy back?
THE WITNESS: I would definitely vote for him. He would help tremendously.
THE COURT: I was going to ask you why, in other words --
THE WITNESS: Because of his knowledge of the business, his handling of people, he knows how to handle men, and he handles women very well, too,  [**65]  by the way. And I don't mean that facetiously. We have a lot of women we represent. And the women and the men, I have never heard one bad remark about Nunzie Provenzano.
THE COURT: And --
 [*303]  THE WITNESS: I would welcome him back with open hands, any one of them.
THE COURT: That includes Mr. Anthony Provenzano?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: In other words, if you knew, for example, that the charges -- if you were convinced that the charges involving the murder of Anthony Castellitto were true insofar as Mr. Anthony Provenzano is concerned, and you had the power, I realize, it sounds -- it sounds rather improbable, but I am trying to get your mind set --
THE WITNESS: I understand.
THE COURT: I am trying to find out how you think, Mr. Sciarra. If somehow the doors would open, and Anthony Provenzano would come out --
THE WITNESS: I would pray.
THE COURT: You would what?
THE WITNESS: I pray for that.
THE COURT: You would welcome him back; is that what you are saying?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I am not trying to put words in your mouth.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: Can you tell me why, assuming you knew that --
THE WITNESS: Providing all the laws permitted  [**66]  him to?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Again, his leadership, his -- I don't know about his knowledge too much any more, being he has been away so much. I know his leadership and the following he had. Man, I would gladly welcome him back, your Honor.

I know he would be a value to the Local Union. The membership alone loves him.
THE COURT: Would that be true with respect to Mr. Stephen Andretta?
THE WITNESS: Stephen, yes. Stephen was a good business agent.
THE COURT: All right. In other words, you don't believe the charges?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I know Steve very well. We are very close, him and I. He is one of the reasons for my going down to the Company K a lot, when he was down there.
THE COURT: Okay. If you felt the charges were true, nevertheless, you would welcome him back?
THE WITNESS: If the charges were true on Steve, I would have him back. He doesn't know anything but the trucking business, your Honor. If he is forgiven by the law and by the Lord and he served his time, okay. I will gladly welcome him back.

 
(a) Thomas Andretta, the brother of Business Agent Stephen Andretta, who had been convicted of the use of extortionate means in the collection of debt in Middlesex County in 1967 (indicted together with Armand Faugno), the theft of Skil Tools from the Canny terminal during 1968 (convicted together with Frederick Salvatore Furino), and counterfeiting during 1971 (convicted along with Salvatore Briguglio, Armand Faugno and three others). In addition, Thomas Andretta had been convicted in or around 1960 for theft from Interstate Shipment. Notwithstanding these convictions, Thomas Andretta was a frequent visitor at the office of Local 560 during the late 1960's and early 1970's.
 
(b) Armand Faugno had been convicted in 1967 with Thomas  [**108]  Andretta in the Middlesex County Loansharking Transaction and with various other in the 1971 Counterfeiting case. In spite of this record, Faugno sometimes visited the offices of Local 560 before his disappearance in December of 1972. While there is no evidence introduced at trial that Faugno was known to any rank and file member of Local 560 who might have been visiting the office at the same time, word of his relationships with Provenzano Group associates most certainly spread among certain segments of the membership following his disappearance while under indictment together with Thomas Andretta and Salvatore Briguglio.

 
-- Notwithstanding these perceptions, the Executive Board of Local 560 appointed Anthony Provenzano to the position of Secretary-Treasurer in November of 1975.
 
-- Notwithstanding these perceptions, on July 5, 1978, the Executive Board appointed Anthony Provenzano's daughter Josephine Provenzano to fill the position of Secretary-Treasurer for  [**110]  the unexpired term of her father as his surrogate, upon the latter's conviction in Ulster County, New York, for the 1961 murder of Anthony Castellitto.
 
-- Notwithstanding these perceptions, following the labor racketeering conviction of Nunzio Provenzano during May of 1981, the Executive Board (then including Salvatore Provenzano, Josephine Provenzano, J. W. Dildine, Sr. and Stanley Jaronko) took no action to remove him from the position of President. This was so despite the fact that his federal conviction in the "City-man" case involved a direct, protracted and egregious breach of trust vis-a-vis the membership of Local 560.
 
-- Notwithstanding such perceptions, in July of 1981 -- following the resignation of Nunzio Provenzano which had been forced upon him as a condition of bail -- the Executive Board appointed Salvatore Provenzano to the position of President. This appointment was made despite the fact that Salvatore Provenzano had held the position of President between May of 1966 and November of 1975, during part of which period Anthony Provenzano and Nunzio Provenzano had committed separate labor racketeering violations involving Local 560, namely the "Seatrain" and  [**111]  "City-man" cases respectively.

 
I don't think anyone can cure graft completely, but we made a strong effort to. I am proud of what we did. . . . I had in my desk all the time the undated resignation of every officer just to protect the union if we had trouble of that kind. In the thirty-four years I was president and the two years before that as secretary-treasurer, a total of ninety-three people had to be dismissed from office for taking money from employers.

Labor racketeering is not a single crime; it includes the infiltration, domination, and use of a union for personal benefit, generally by members of various organized criminal groups. Labor racketeering thus comprises both traditional overt physical crime and more sophisticated covert white-collar offenses. The challenge of law enforcement has been to demonstrate that relationship -- the invidious nature of white-collar crime when committed by a criminal group as an element of a pattern of racketeering activity.

 
An agreement merely to commit the predicate offenses would not be sufficient to support a RICO conspiracy. Nor is it sufficient if the defendants merely participate in the same enterprise . . . . This is so because, under RICO, it is an agreement 'to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of [an] enterprise's activities' through the commission of predicate offenses that is prohibited, not an agreement to commit a pattern of racketeering activity alone.

 
.. . . The fact that an individual has served as a lookout during the commission of a crime is a clear indication of participation in the  [**167]  wrongdoing. Long v. United States, (D.C. Cir. 1966), 124 U.S. App. D.C. 14, 360 F.2d 829. Verbal encouragement of an assault has been held sufficient evidence of complicity in the wrongdoing. Kuney v. Dutcher, 1885, 56 Mich. 308, 22 N.W. 866. Those who make no assault but undertake to intimidate the victim and block his escape are criminally associated with a robbery. Williams v. United States, D.C. App. 1963, 190 A.2d 269. Flight from the scene of the crime with the actual perpetrators has been said to justify the same inference. Corbin v. United States, D. C. App. 1968, 237 A.2d 466. Even remaining with a group after disclosure of the intention of members of the group to commit a crime has been held to be sufficient evidence of association with the criminal venture. People v. Hill, 1968, 39 Ill. 2d 125, 233 N.E. 2d 367.

 
(a) The Castellitto murder, committed on June 6, 1961, by Anthony Provenzano, Salvatore Briguglio, Harold "K.O." Konigsberg and Salvatore Sinno in violation of the laws of the State of  [**168]  New York.
 
(b) The Middlesex County Loansharking Transaction committed during March of 1967 by Thomas Andretta and Armand Faugno in violation of New Jersey law (extortion).
 
(c) The Skil Tool Theft, committed during 1968 by Thomas Andretta and Frederick Salvatore Furino in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659.
 
(d) The counterfeiting committed during 1971 by Salvatore Briguglio, Thomas Andretta, Armand Faugno and three others in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472.
 
(e) The Seatrain "Labor Peace" Payoffs, committed between 1969 and 1977 by Anthony Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, Thomas Andretta and Gabriel Briguglio in repeated violation of 18 U.S.C. § 186.
 
(f) The City-man "Labor Peace" Payoffs, committed between 1971 and 1980 by Nunzio Provenzano and Irving Cotler in repeated violation of 29 U.S.C. § 186.
 
(g) Receipt of kickbacks by Anthony Provenzano, aided and abetted by Salvatore Briguglio and Stephen Andretta, in connection with the Romano loans between 1974 and 1977, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1954.
 
(h) Continuously between approximately 1961 and the present, Anthony Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, Thomas Andretta, Salvatore Briguglio, aided  [**169]  and abetted by the defendant officers and business and business agent of Local 560, unlawfully affected commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce by extorting certain intangible property rights -- rights to union democracy under § 401 of the LMRDA -- from the membership of Local 560, in repeated violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1951. 
(i) Union members enjoy the federally protected right to participate in the affairs of their labor organization in a democratic fashion. Fundamental to the democratic process is the right to voice publicly one's opposition to and criticism of the policies, decisions, proposals and activities of the incumbents, the right to run for union office and the right to promote the candidacy of others against the incumbents. The ability to exercise such rights free from unreasonable interference constitutes property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 1951. United States v. Local 560, 550 F. Supp. 511 (D.N.J. 1982).
 [*334]  (ii) The wrongful use of actual or threatened force or violence or of fear of economic or physical harm in order to cause the membership of a labor organization to surrender such federally protected rights  [**170]  constitutes extortion within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). United States v. Sweeney, 262 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1959), United States v. Kenny, 462 F.2d 1205 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 409 U.S. 914, 93 S. Ct. 234, 34 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1972); Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 4 L. Ed. 2d 252, 80 S. Ct. 270 (1960); United States v. Provenzano, 334 F.2d 678 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 947, 13 L. Ed. 2d 544, 85 S. Ct. 440 (1964) (fear of wrongfully threatened economic loss also satisfies Hobbs Act); Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 740 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, Sica v. United States, 377 U.S. 953, 84 S. Ct. 1626, 12 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1964) (knowledge or belief that defendants were "underworld" men or "strongarm" men sufficient); United States v. DeMasi, 445 F.2d 251, 257 (2d Cir. 1971); United States v. Stubbs, 476 F.2d 626 (6th Cir. 1973) (reputation for violence sufficient); United States v. Billingsley, 474 F.2d 63, 66-67 (6th Cir. 1973) (general bad reputation sufficient).
(iii) The climate of intimidation -- which has been generated within Local 560 as a result of the Castellitto murder and the allegations regarding  [**171]  the Glockner murder, the many other criminal acts attributed to the Provenzano Group (as detailed in section II B of this opinion), the repeated appointment of convicted criminals and persons reputed to be involved in criminal activity to positions of trust within the Local, and their persistent refusal to remove such persons from positions of trust and to prevent known criminals from frequenting the union offices or to take any other steps to ensure union democracy -- has created a justifiable perception and resulting fear among a substantial portion of the membership of Local 560 that such a wrongful use of actual and threatened force and violence and of disastrous and irreparable economic harm are likely to result from any public or visible demonstration of opposition to or criticism of the policies, proposals, decisions or activities of the incumbents of the Provenzano Regime.
(iv) The use of such extortion against the membership of Local 560 does affect commerce and the movement of articles and commodities in such commerce. United States v. Provenzano, 688 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1982); United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1980). (Local 560 party to contracts  [**172]  with companies engaged in interstate shipment of commodities).

 
(a) the repeated appointment of numerous individuals who had substantial criminal records (often involving crimes of violence or labor racketeering offenses) without any offsetting basis to believe that the individual would  [**178]  abstain from criminal conduct and meet the standards for ethical and appropriate conduct in administering the labor organization.
 
(b) the refusal to take any action to remove those appointees whose conduct, once in office, was clearly improper -- particularly the refusal to take such action in the face of compelling circumstances such as formal allegations or proof of renewed criminal conduct, or a subsequent criminal conviction for a crime involving a direct breach of trust to the membership.
 
(c) the expenditure of Local 560 assets for the benefit of Anthony Provenzano who has three times committed offenses while in office, each of which constituted a direct and serious breach of trust towards the Local's membership.
 
(d) the reckless indifference to the persistent and systematic misconduct of fellow incumbent officers with respect to, (1) a pattern of, at best, unsuitable appointments, (2) a pattern of access to the union's offices by known or reputed criminals, and (3) a pattern of non-beneficial expenditures of Local 560 assets.