581 F. Supp. 279, *; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19663, **;
115 L.R.R.M. 2829
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 560, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 82-689
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
581 F. Supp. 279; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19663; 115 L.R.R.M. 2829
February 8, 1984
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]
As Amended March 8, 1984; Affirmed and Remanded December 26, 1985.
CORE TERMS: membership, business agent, appointment, murder,
executive board, labor organization, racketeering, convicted, appointed,
conspiracy, indicted, pattern of racketeering activity, intimidation, election,
extortion, peace, secretary-treasurer, counterfeiting, payoff, predicate,
indirectly, indictment, incumbent, salary, incarcerated, sentenced,
incarceration, climate, leader, disappearance
COUNSEL: W. Hunt Dumont, United
States Attorney, for the District of New Jersey, By: Robert C. Stewart, Thomas
L. Weisenbeck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leopold Laufer, Special Attorney, United
States Department of Justice, Newark, New Jersey, For Plaintiff.
Edward A. Cohen, Esq., Schneider, Cohen, Solomon & DiMarzio, Jersey City,
New Jersey, For defendants Local 560 and the Severance Pay Plan.
Harvey Weissbard, Esq., West Orange, New Jersey, For defendants Provenzano,
Sheridan, Dildine, Reynolds, Sciarra and Jaronko.
Herbert New, Esq., Brenner, New & Brenner, Livingston, New Jersey, For
defendant Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund.
Mr. Stephen Andretta and Mr. Gabriel Briguglio, Pro Se.
JUDGES: Ackerman, District Judge.
OPINIONBY: ACKERMAN
OPINION: [*282]
ACKERMAN, District Judge.
John L. Lewis, former president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and
the United Mine Workers once said that "Labor, like Israel, has many
sorrows."
A careful review of the evidence in this unprecedented case reveals the verity
of that observation.
It is not a pretty story. Beneath the relatively sterile language of [**2]
a dry legal opinion is a harrowing tale of how evil men, sponsored by and part
of organized criminal elements, infiltrated and ultimately captured Local 560 of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, one of the largest local unions in
the largest union in this country.
This group of gangsters, aided and abetted by their relatives and sycophants,
engaged in a multifaceted orgy of criminal activity. For those that
enthusiastically followed these arrogant mobsters in their morally debased
activity there were material rewards. For those who accepted the side benefits
of this perverted interpretation of business unionism, see J.
Hutchinson, The Imperfect Union p. 371, (1970), there was presumably
the rationalization of "I've got mine, why shouldn't he get his." For
those who attempted to fight, the message was clear. Murder and other forms of
intimidation would be utilized to insure silence. To get along, one had to go
along, or else.
It is important to state what the evidence in this case does and does not show.
It shows that a trade union which is by origin and nature a voluntary
organization is susceptible to the malicious machinations of others, as Congress
perceived [**3] in enacting the Landrum-Griffin
and RICO Acts.
It does not demonstrate that unions or union officials in general are riddled
with racketeering or corruption. Most authorities are convinced that the
overwhelming number of unions and union officials are "untroubled by the
problem of corruption." Id. Crooks and racketeers are anathema to
a significant portion of the trade union movement. See id.; D. Dubinsky
& A. Raskin, David Dubinsky: A Life With Labor (1977); P. Jacobs, The
State of the Unions (1963). See also "The RICO Civil Fraud
Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg", 58
Notre Dame L.Rev. 237, 303 n.170 (1982).
As Professor Hutchinson observed in his book The Imperfect Union -- A
History of Corruption in American Trade Unions (1970) at p. 7-8:
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."
Applying these precepts and the law applicable to this case I find that the
record clearly demonstrates that the Provenzano brothers (Anthony, Nunzio and
Salvatore) and their group betrayed the membership of Local 560.
[*283] David Dubinsky, former President of
the International Ladies Garment Workers Union stated in his autobiography that
"racketeering is the cancer that almost destroyed the American trade-union
movement." D. Dubinsky [**5] & A.
Raskin, supra. The metaphor of disease is apt. See P. Johnson,
Modern Times p. 102 (1983). For reasons set forth below, I have
determined in this case, in accordance with law and to secure justice, to use a
judicial scalpel to excise this malignancy from this union and its members.
To do any less would be to ignore the laws of the land and do a disservice to
the thousands of labor leaders who earn their daily bread by honestly striving
to improve the wages, hours and working conditions of their members.
This is an action brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. n1 Plaintiff United States alleges, inter
alia, that Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Local 560), together with its
Welfare and Pension Funds (Funds) and its Severance Pay Plan (Plan), n2 has
become, through the actions of the individual defendants, a "captive labor
organization." The United States seeks, first, the appointment of a
receiver or trustee to serve in the capacity of the Local 560 Executive Board
until such time as the membership can freely nominate [**6]
and elect new officers. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief against
defendants Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano, J. W.
Dildine, Stanley Jaronko, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., and Michael Sciarra, inter
alia barring them from union office until such time as a democratic
election of officers by the membership may be held. Finally, the complaint seeks
injunctive relief against defendants Anthony Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano,
Stephen Andretta and Gabriel Briguglio, inter alia barring them from
any further contacts with Local 560.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Chapter 96 of Title 18, 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, was added to that title by Title IX of the Organized
Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 941.
n2 The Funds have been merged and split several times, the two most recent
events being the March 1, 1974 separation of Locals 617 and 641 from the
Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund (and Pension Plan) and the May
4, 1977 merger of the North Jersey Fund and Plan with that of the Trucking
Employees of Passaic and Bergen Counties.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**7]
The complaint charges that the "Local 560 Enterprise" n3 is an
enterprise within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 1961(4). n4 It further alleges that the individual defendants are
associated together under the leadership of defendant Anthony Provenzano as the
"Provenzano Group," and that this Group conspired, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(d), n5 to violate, and actually did violate, 18
U.S.C. § 1962(b) and (c). n6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 The complaint refers to the nominal defendants (Local 560, the Fund and the
Plan) collectively as the "Local 560 Enterprise".
n4 18
U.S.C. § 1961(4) provides:
"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 . . . .
n5 18
U.S.C. § 1962(d) provides:
(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.
n6 18
U.S.C. § 1962(b) and (c) provide:
(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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**8]
Specifically, paragraph 12(a) of the complaint alleges that the Provenzano
Group, aided and abetted by past and present members of the Executive Board of
Local 560 (including defendants Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Josephine
Provenzano, J. W. Dildine, Thomas Reynolds, [*284]
Sr., Michael Sciarra, and Stanley Jaronko) unlawfully acquired and maintained,
directly and indirectly, an interest in and control of the Local 560 Enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of § 1962(b) of the
RICO Act. This racketeering activity was alleged to have involved murder and the
systematic use of extortion, with the latter allegedly consisting of, according
to the complaint, "the wrongful use of actual and threatened force,
violence and fear of physical and economic injury in order to create within
Local 560 a climate of intimidation which induced the members thereof to consent
to the surrender of certain valuable property in the form of their union rights
as guaranteed by the provisions of Sections 157 and 411 of Title 29 of the
United States Code . . . ." n7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n7 29
U.S.C. § 157 is section 7 of the Taft-Hartley Act, while 29
U.S.C. § 411 was enacted as Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and is referred to as the "Bill of Rights of
Members of Labor Organizations." Section 411 provides:
(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.
The Supreme Court has recently noted that the emphasis of § 411 is "on the
rights of union members to expression without fear of sanctions by the union,
which in many instances could mean loss of union membership and in turn loss of
livelihood." Finnegan
v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 102 S. Ct. 1867, 1870, 72 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1982).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**9]
The particular acts of the defendants which allegedly created the climate of
intimidation [*285] which in turn allegedly
induced the surrender of the members' rights are set out as subparagraphs (1)
through (28) n8 of paragraph 12 (a). These alleged acts are:
(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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n8 Subparagraphs 12(a)(26), (27) and (28) were added to the complaint upon
application by the plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), which application was granted on September 20, 1982.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**12]
[*286] Paragraph 12(b) of the complaint
alleges that the Provenzano Group, aided and abetted by various others of the
individual defendants, "unlawfully did conduct and participate, directly
and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Local 560 Enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity . . ." in violation of §
1962(c) of the RICO Act. The "predicate acts" which are alleged to
have constituted this pattern of racketeering activity are set out as
subparagraphs (1) through (5) or paragraph 12(b). These alleged acts are: (1)
the extortion of $17,100 from Walter Dorn and his company (Dorn Transport, Inc.
of Rensselaer, New York) in return for "labor peace; (2) the wrongful
conversion by defendant Anthony Provenzano, aided and abetted by successive
defendant members of the Local 560 Executive Board, of approximately $223,785 in
Local 560 funds "by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, and pursuant to a scheme and artifice to defraud
. . .;" (3) the wrongful receipt by Provenzano Group members of payments,
loans and other things of value from certain employers (Interocean Services,
Inc. and Di-Jub Leasing, Inc.) in exchange for [**13]
"labor peace"; (4) the unlawful receipt by defendant Anthony
Provenzano, aided and abetted by Salvatore Briguglio, of certain fees,
kickbacks, gifts or things of value in the form of certain Florida real estate
because of, and with intent to be influenced with respect to, his actions and
decisions relating to the Benefit Fund; and (5) the wrongful receipt by
defendant Nunzio Provenzano, together with Irving Cotler and others, as
associates of the Provenzano Group, of "labor peace" payments by
certain employers, specifically Pacific Intermountain Express Company, Mason and
Dixon Lines, Inc., T.I.M.E. -- DC, Inc. and Helms Express.
Finally, the initial portion of paragraph 12 of the complaint contains the
government's § 1962(d) allegations. It charges that defendants Anthony
Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, Thomas Andretta, Gabriel
Briguglio and others associated with the Provenzano Group unlawfully did
conspire together to violate § 1962(b) and (c) with the end of infiltrating,
dominating and exploiting the Local 560 Enterprise.
In its demand for relief, the government requests: (1) that the Provenzano Group
be enjoined from having any dealings, directly or indirectly, [**14]
with any officer or employee of the Local 560 Enterprise or of any labor
organization or employee benefit plan as defined in Title 29 about any matter
which relates directly or indirectly to the business affairs of the Local 560
Enterprise or other such labor organization or benefit plan; (2) that all
current Local 560 Executive Board members -- Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph
Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano, J. W. Dildine, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Michael
Sciarra and Stanley Jaronko -- be enjoined from acting in any official capacity
for or on behalf of the Local 560 Enterprise; (3) that the court appoint one or
more trustees to discharge all duties and responsibilities of the Executive
Board of Local 560 and such other tasks as the court may direct; (4) that at an
appropriate time the trustee be instructed to conduct, with the assistance of
the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, a general election in
order to select officers for the Executive Board of Local 560 -- the election to
be structured in such a way as to ensure that the nomination, primary and final
selection processes will not be vulnerable to forms of intimidation and will
reflect the decision, the government [**15]
requests, of at least eighty percent of the members who are eligible to vote;
(5) that the court permanently enjoin all individual defendants herein from
having any future dealings of any nature whatsoever, directly or indirectly,
with any officer, agent, representative or employee of the Local 560 Enterprise
or any other labor organization.
There have been a number of proceedings in this matter prior to trial which
merit mention. First, a consent order was entered on June 15, 1982 approving the
terms of a stipulation of settlement between the plaintiff United States and
defendant Anthony Provenzano, inter alia prohibiting the latter from
"any form of [*287] association with any
enterprise (within the meaning of Section 1961 of Title 18 of the United States
Code), which enterprise seeks, directly or indirectly, to dominate, control,
conduct or otherwise influence the affairs of any labor organization or any
employee benefit plan (within the meaning of Title 29 of the United States
Code)." A similar consent order was entered on September 15, 1982 with
regard to defendant Nunzio Provenzano, and, on January 14, 1983, with regard to
defendant Thomas Andretta.
Finally, on November [**16] 1, 1982 I denied a
motion brought by defendant Local 560 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) to
dismiss paragraph 12(a) of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
United
States v. Local 560, 550 F. Supp. 511 (D.N.J. 1982). Following a review
of the legislative history of both the Hobbs Act, 18
U.S.C. 1951, and of the LMRDA, and relying on United
States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1982), I concluded that the
rights guaranteed to union members by the LMRDA's Bill of Rights, 29
U.S.C. § 411, are intangible rights which fall within the ambit of the
Hobbs Act. I further concluded that the Hobbs Act as construed in this manner
was not impliedly repealed by the enactment of the LMRDA, and that conduct which
is regulated or proscribed by the LMRDA may also violate RICO. n9 RICO, like the
LMRDA, is, I determined, legislation intended to supplement the panoply of
remedies designed to reach racketeering. Id. at 524-25.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 I specifically determined that § 530 of the LMRDA does not prohibit the same
conduct prohibited under the Hobbs Act. Since allegations of Hobbs Act
violations serve as predicate offenses in this action, I found no merit in
defendant's argument that paragraph 12(a) in essence made § 530 a predicate
crime under RICO in violation of that statute's express definition of
"racketeering activity". 550
F. Supp. at 524.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**17]
By order dated March 25, 1982, my former colleague the Honorable H. Curtis
Meanor directed that the plaintiff's request for preliminary and final
injunctive relief be merged pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), and that the
case proceed to final judgment. On May 20, 1982, this matter was reassigned to
me from Judge Meanor.
The non-jury trial of this case began on January 25, 1983. The trial encompassed
fifty-one days of testimony, lasting through May 17, 1983, the testimony
comprising nearly 8,000 pages in transcript form. I have carefully considered
the live testimony, the exhibits and deposition testimony admitted at trial, and
the arguments of counsel. This memorandum constitutes the court's decision, and
includes the court's findings of fact and conclusion of law pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
I.
THE PARTIES
Defendant Local 560 is an unincorporated labor association which was originally
chartered on May 11, 1911 by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. It has
its offices at 707 Summit Avenue in Union City, New Jersey. As of May, 1982, it
had approximately 10,000 members employed by approximately 425 companies in the
metropolitan New Jersey -- New York area. As [**18]
such it is a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting interstate
commerce within the meaning of Section 402 of Title 29 of the United States
Code.
Under its constitution, seven elective officers are charged with managing the
day to day affairs of Local 560. These officers are: a president, a
vice-president; recording secretary; secretary-treasurer; and three trustees.
These seven officers together constitute Local 560's Executive Board. This
Executive Board is generally authorized and empowered to conduct and manage the
affairs of the organization between membership meetings.
Defendant Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. and its Pension
Account are located in Local 560's building in Union City. The funds were and
are today welfare and pension benefit plans within the meaning of Section 1002
of Title 29 of the United States Code. As such they are subject to the
provisions of the [*288] Welfare and Pension
Plans Disclosure Act (prior to approximately September 2, 1974) and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (after approximately September 2, 1974).
As noted previously, two other benefit plan entities were merged into the Funds
during May [**19] of 1977. These were formerly
known as the Trucking Employees of Passaic and Bergen Counties Welfare Fund and
the Trucking Employees of Passaic and Bergen Counties Pension Fund. Both of
these benefit plans were subject to the provision of the Welfare and Pension
Plans Disclosure Act at the time of their merger into the Funds.
The Funds are controlled by a governing body which is composed of four trustees
appointed by the Executive Board of Local 560 and four trustees appointed by two
employer associations whose member companies have collective bargaining
agreements with Local 560. The current employee trustees include defendant
Salvatore Provenzano, defendant Stanley Jaronko, and defendant Joseph Sheridan.
n10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n10 Thomas Reynolds, Sr. was a trustee of the Fund as of the time this
litigation commenced and for a period after the trial began, but has since
resigned.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan is also operated out of
Local 560's offices. It is an employee benefit plan within the meaning [**20]
of Section 1002 of Title 29 of the United States Code in that it provides
severance pay benefits to the employees of Local 560. The current trustees of
the Plan are Salvatore Provenzano and Josephine Provenzano.
A brief description of each of the remaining nine individual defendants may be
useful at this point. First, Salvatore "Sam" Provenzano has been the
President of Local 560 since approximately July of 1981, when the Executive
Board appointed him to that position. n11 Prior to that time he had been
employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between approximately November 10,
1959 and August 8, 1961; as a Trustee between approximately August 8, 1961 and
November of 1965, and again between approximately January and May of 1966; as
President between approximately May of 1966 and November of 1975; and as the
Vice-President between approximately December of 1975 and July of 1981.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n11 This appointment was presumably made pursuant to the Executive Board's
authority to fill officer vacancies which occur during the term of an office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**21]
Joseph Sheridan has been the Vice-President of Local 560 since approximately
July of 1981, when the Executive Board appointed him to that position. Prior to
that time he had been a Business Agent between approximately July 7, 1972 and
September 1, 1978, and thereafter a Trustee between approximately September 1,
1978 and July of 1981.
Josephine Provenzano has been the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 560 since
approximately June of 1978, when the Executive Board appointed her to that
position. Prior to that time, she had been employed by Local 560 as an office
worker from 1976 until the time of her appointment. Josephine Provenzano is the
daughter of defendant Anthony Provenzano and the niece of defendants Salvatore
and Nunzio Provenzano.
J. W. Dildine has been the Recording Secretary of Local 560 since approximately
1968, when the Executive Board appointed him to that position. Prior to that
time he had been employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between approximately
1963 and 1968.
Thomas Reynolds, Sr. has been a Trustee of Local 560 since February 9, 1977.
Before that time, he was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between
September 24, 1970 and February 9, 1977. [**22]
He is the brother-in-law of defendant Nunzio Provenzano and the father of former
Business Agent Andrew Reynolds.
Michael Sciarra has been a Trustee of Local 560 since May 28, 1981. Prior to
that time he was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between July 7, 1972
and September 30, 1976, and again between December of 1977 and May 28, 1981.
Sciarra [*289] has been a member of Local 560
since approximately 1954.
Stanley Jaronko has been a Trustee of Local 560 since July 13, 1981. Before that
time, he served Local 560 in the capacity of Business Agent between December 12,
1977 and February 19, 1981, and as a Trustee between February 19 and May 28,
1981.
Stephen Andretta, who testified at trial pursuant to a grant of use immunity
under 18
U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003, was a Business Agent for Local 560 between
approximately August of 1973 and October of 1976. His membership in Local 560
dates from the early 1950's, and he held the position of shop steward for Local
560 at Eazor Express Co. between the mid-1960's and August of 1973, and again
between approximately October of 1976 and 1980.
The evidence at trial indicated that Stephen Andretta had known Salvatore
Briguglio [**23] for over twenty years as of
the early 1970's. Either through Salvatore Briguglio or his brother Thomas,
Stephen Andretta met Armand Faugno sometime during the latter 1960's. Around
1971, notwithstanding his position as a shop steward with Local 560, Stephen
Andretta had an ownership interest in West End Trucking Company, which was
controlled at least in part by Armand Faugno. Further, during the period between
approximately 1971 and late 1972, Stephen Andretta and Salvatore Briguglio would
not infrequently visit Armand Faugno at the latter's place of business in Jersey
City, New Jersey. During the early 1970's, Stephen Andretta also knew Frederick
Salvatore Furino, and was friendly with Ralph Pellechia and Ralph Michael
Picardo.
On February 22, 1979, Stephen Andretta was indicted in the District of New
Jersey, along with Anthony Provenzano, Thomas Andretta, Gabriel Briguglio and
Ralph Pelleccia, on RICO charges (specifically 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d)) stemming inter alia from the demand for
and receipt of "labor peace" payments from trucking companies which
serviced Seatrain Lines between 1969 and 1977 (Seatrain Labor Peace Payoffs). On
July 10, 1979, following his conviction, [**24]
Stephen Andretta was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment, which he is
currently serving. See United
States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir. 1980).
Gabriel Briguglio was a member and officer of Local 84 of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has its offices at 1224 Anderson Avenue in Fort
Lee, New Jersey, until March 31, 1980. Local 84 merged with Local 560 in May of
1980. n12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n12 It should be noted that Gabriel Briguglio has as of yet not become a member
of Local 560 by virtue of or following the merger of these two Locals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gabriel Briguglio was indicted on February 22, 1979, in the District of New
Jersey, along with Anthony Provenzano and others, in the Seatrain Labor Peace
Payoffs case. On May 25, 1979, he was convicted of those charges, and on July
10, 1979 he was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. United
States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir. 1980).
As to the three individual defendants who have entered into consent judgments in
this matter, Anthony [**25] Provenzano was
employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between approximately 1948 and 1958,
as the President between approximately 1958 and May of 1966, and as
Secretary-Treasurer between November 24, 1975 and June of 1978.
Anthony "Tony Pro" Provenzano's history is a long one. On November 15,
1960 he was indicted in the District of New Jersey on one count of Hobbs Act
Extortion (18
U.S.C. § 1951) relating to the demand and receipt of what is commonly known
as "labor peace" payoffs from the Dorn Transportation Company between
1952 and 1959. On July 12, 1963, having been convicted on this count, Anthony
Provenzano was sentenced to a term of seven years. Between approximately May of
1966 and 1970 he was incarcerated on that sentence.
During 1962, Anthony Provenzano was indicted again in the District of New Jersey
for Taft-Hartley violations (28
U.S.C. § 186) relating to the wrongful receipt of a [*290]
house from Eastern Freightways Company. These charges were, however, dismissed
during 1967.
In 1975, Anthony Provenzano was indicted in the Southern District of New York
for conspiracy to violate the anti-kickback statute (18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 1954) relating to a proposed [**26]
loan from the Utica Teamsters Benefit Fund for the renovation of the Woodstock
Hotel. During July of 1978 he was convicted of these charges and sentenced to a
four year term of imprisonment.
On June 23, 1976, Provenzano was indicted in Ulster County, New York, along with
Salvatore Briguglio and Harold "K.O." Konigsberg, on charges of
conspiracy and murder (pursuant to New York Penal Law § 580-A and § 1044)
relating to the 1961 death of Anthony Castellitto. On June 14, 1978, he was
convicted on the murder count, while the conspiracy to commit murder count was
dismissed. On June 21, 1978, Anthony Provenzano was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Finally, on February 22, 1979, Anthony Provenzano was indicted in the District
of New Jersey, along with Gabriel Briguglio, Stephen and Thomas Andretta and
Ralph Pellecchia on RICO charges in the Seatrain Labor Peace Payoffs case. On
May 25, 1977, he was convicted of these charges, and, on July 10, 1979, he was
sentenced to a twenty-year term of imprisonment and remanded. He remains
incarcerated on that conviction today. See United
States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1979).
Nunzio Provenzano, the brother of Anthony and Salvatore [**27]
Provenzano, was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between approximately
1963 and August 6, 1966, as a clerk between approximately 1969 and 1970, again
as a Business Agent between approximately 1970 and January 25, 1973, as
Secretary-Treasurer between approximately January 25, 1973 and November 24,
1975, and as President between approximately November 24, 1975 and July of 1981.
On December 26, 1961, Nunzio Provenzano was indicted in New York County, New
York, along with Salvatore Briguglio and a third defendant, on charges of
conspiracy and Attempted Grand Larceny (New York Penal Law § 560 and 1294)
flowing from a scheme to demand what might be characterized as "labor
peace" payments from the Braun Company and Hubert J. Braun, Jr. during
December of 1961 (Braun Payoff Demand). On January 29, 1963, he was convicted of
attempted grand larceny, and, on March 5, 1963, he was sentenced to a term of
two to four years. He served this sentence in New York between approximately
August of 1966 and February of 1969.
On September 4, 1980, Nunzio Provenzano was indicted in the District of New
Jersey, along with Irving Cotler, Salvatore Provenzano, and Michael Sciarra, for
RICO violations [**28] (specifically 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d)) stemming from the wrongful demand and receipt of
"labor peace" payments from four trucking companies between 1971 and
1980, a series of incidents often referred to as the "City-Man Labor Peace
Payoffs." On May 5, 1981, Nunzio Provenzano was convicted on these charges,
and, on July 7, 1981, he was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment. He is
presently incarcerated on this conviction.
Finally, Thomas Andretta, the brother of Stephen Andretta, has been a member of
Local 560 during several periods since 1955, including from approximately August
30, 1955 through November 30, 1956; from October 29, 1959 through January 15,
1960; from January 10, 1962 through November 29, 1965; and from February 27,
1978 through July of 1979.
On March 31, 1967, Thomas Andretta was indicted in Middlesex County, New Jersey,
along with Armand Faugno, for having used threats to injure in the collection of
a loan between March 13 and 23, 1967, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:105-4
(Middlesex County Loansharking Transaction). See State
v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544, 545, 296 A.2d 644 (1972). On May 17, 1973,
Thomas Andretta pleaded guilty to that charge. On July [**29]
10, 1973, he was sentenced to [*291] serve
from one to two and a half years in prison.
During early 1968, while free on bail in the Middlesex County Loansharking
Transaction case, Thomas Andretta was indicted in the District of New Jersey,
along with Frederick Salvatore Furino, on charges of Theft from Interstate
Shipment, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 659, relating to the theft of Skil Tools at the Canny Trucking
terminal during January of 1968 (Skil Tools theft). Following his guilty plea in
that case he was, on or about April 17, 1969, sentenced to a one year term of
imprisonment and remanded.
On July 22, 1971, Thomas Andretta was indicted in the District of New Jersey,
along with Salvatore Briguglio, Armand Faugno and three others, on
counterfeiting charges under 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 472 474 (Counterfeiting case). He later plead guilty and,
on July 10, 1973, was sentenced to fourteen months of imprisonment.
During the early 1970's except when he was incarcerated, Thomas Andretta, along
with Ralph Picardo, was a regular and not infrequent visitor to the Local 560
offices, where he and Ralph Picardo were hosted by Salvatore Briguglio. During
roughly this period -- between [**30]
approximately 1970 and late 1972, Thomas Andretta was apparently employed by
Armand Faugno.
On February 22, 1979, Thomas Andretta was indicted in the District of New
Jersey, along with Anthony Provenzano and others, in the Seatrain Labor Peace
Payoffs case. Following his conviction in that matter, he was sentenced on July
10, 1979 to a twenty-year term of imprisonment. United
States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir. 1980). He is currently
incarcerated on this sentence.
The other individuals who figure in this matter, but who are not named as
defendants, include Robert A. Luizzi, who has been a Business Agent for Local
560 since September of 1978. Prior to that time he was employed by the Local as
a clerk between approximately 1960 and 1963, as a Business Agent between 1964
and 1967, and as a Trustee between May 15, 1967 and November of 1980. Luizzi
also held the position of Trustee for the Funds from March 12, 1974 until
November of 1980.
Salvatore Briguglio had been a member of Local 560 since the 1950's and was
employed by it as a Business Agent from September of 1961 to August 5, 1966;
from April 25, 1969 to June of 1973; and again from February of 1974 until
[**31] his death on March 21, 1978. Salvatore
Briguglio also held the position of Trustee of the Passaic and Bergen Funds from
1972 until June of 1973 and from early 1974 until January 25, 1975.
On December 26, 1961, Salvatore Briguglio was indicted in New York County, New
York, along with Nunzio Provenzano on the Braun Payoff Demand scheme. He was
convicted of Attempted Grand Larceny and was incarcerated in New York between
approximately August of 1966 and February of 1969 on that conviction.
On July 22, 1971, Salvatore Briguglio was indicted in the District of New
Jersey, along with Thomas Andretta, Armand Faugno and three others, in the
counterfeiting case. Following his plea of guilty on these charges, he was
sentenced on July 10, 1973 to a term of fourteen months of imprisonment.
Salvatore Briguglio was incarcerated on this sentence until approximately
February of 1974.
Between the late 1960's and the mid-1970's, except during the periods when he
was incarcerated, Salvatore Briguglio often socialized at the Chateau
Renaissance Restaurant in Hudson County, New Jersey, a place also frequented by
Stephen and Thomas Andretta, Armand Faugno, Frederick Salvatore Furino and Ralph
Michael [**32] Picardo. Salvatore Briguglio's
involvement with Picardo and the Provenzano Group is also exemplified by the
fact that during the period of the Seatrain payoffs, Salvatore Briguglio
promoted the interests of Picardo by persuading Salvatore Provenzano to
facilitate a meeting between Picardo and Thomas Durkin (Seatrain's attorney) so
that Picardo could drum up additional [*292]
business for Picardo's trucking company.
On June 23, 1976, Salvatore Briguglio was indicted in Ulster County, New York,
along with Anthony Provenzano and Harold Konigsberg for the 1961 Castellitto
murder. On March 21, 1978, while under indictment in that case, Salvatore
Briguglio was shot to death on Mulberry Street in New York, New York.
Armand Faugno was indicted on March 31, 1967, along with Thomas Andretta, in the
Middlesex County Loansharking Transaction case. State
v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544, 545, 296 A.2d 644 (1972). On July 22, 1971,
Faugno was indicted in the District of New Jersey, along with Salvatore
Briguglio, Thomas Andretta and three others, in the Counterfeiting case. n13
During December of 1972, while under indictment in both of these cases, Armand
Faugno "disappeared."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n13 While the exhibits relating to these two indictments may have inadvertently
or incorrectly been ruled inadmissible during the trial in this matter,
Salvatore Provenzano's testimony provides an alternative basis for my findings
of fact on these matters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**33]
Ralph Michael Picardo was a member of Local 560, as well as being the principal
operating officer of several trucking companies, including Lift-Van Transport.
Picardo was a friend and associate of Stephen Andretta and had an affiliation
with Seatrain Lines.
On February 22, 1979, Ralph Pellecchia was indicted, along with Anthony
Provenzano and others, in the Seatrain case. On April 26, 1979, he pleaded
guilty to related tax charges contained in that indictment. On July 2, 1979, he
was sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment.
Frederick Salvatore Furino was, during the late 1960's and early 1970's, a
friend and associate of Stephen Andretta, Thomas Andretta, Salvatore Briguglio,
and Michael Sciarra, and knew Ralph Picardo. In March of 1968, Furino was
indicted in the District of New Jersey in the Skil Tools Case. Later, during the
latter part of the 1970's, Furino operated a trucking company which provided
non-union labor to the Canny Trucking operation which was under contract to
Local 560. On June 11, 1982, the body of Frederick Salvatore Furino was
recovered. The crime has never been solved.
Finally, Salvatore Sinno played a prominent role at trial as one of the [**34]
government's chief witnesses. Sinno, a self-described criminal, was an early
associate of the Provenzanos and their friends.
CREDIBILITY FINDINGS
Salvatore (Sam) Provenzano
During the course of his direct testimony Salvatore Sinno was asked about
Salvatore Provenzano:
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]
Sam Provenzano presently is an International Vice President of the Teamsters
Union, President of Joint Council #73, and President of Local 560. He thus
wields great power on a national as well as local level.
He is intelligent, affable and likeable. Had Sam Provenzano decided to shed the
company he has kept for at least 25 years, there is little doubt in my mind that
he would occupy a prominent place on labor's scene today.
The evidence is highly persuasive that from the late 50's on into the 70's,
Anthony (Tony Pro) Provenzano, ran this union with an iron hand whether in or
out of prison or office. Sam and Nunzio played musical chairs in minding the
store for Tony to satisfy the technical requirements of the law.
At some point in the 70's Sam came into his own. With power at his fingertips,
he ran the show and still does. Did he stay "more or less" clean as
Sinno had testified? He did not. Most of the time he helped to steer the ship
the way Tony wanted it and made sure the same crew remained on board.
I listened in [**36] amazement to him
persistently proclaim his belief in the innocence of his brothers and other
members of this criminal syndicate with respect to various crimes that they had
been convicted of or pled guilty to.
Was he naive, blind or deaf? No. Salvatore Provenzano, in my judgment, knows the
truth and is oblivious to it.
Why? A revealing answer was provided on April 27, 1983 when he was asked on
cross examination:
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.
(emphasis supplied)
He still does. For Sam Provenzano inherited a legacy of corruption which has
been preserved by him to this very day. In speaking of Tony in partial response
to my question he said: "He would never do anything to hurt this
membership."
The record is otherwise.
JOSEPHINE PROVENZANO
Miss Provenzano, daughter of Anthony Provenzano, has been the
Secretary-Treasurer of Local 560 since 1978 when she was elected to that office
at the age of 23 to succeed her father who had been convicted of murder. She
presently earns $64,000 per year plus perks.
She has an engaging personality and has no illusions as to why she was
appointed. She said:
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].
Whatever experience Miss Provenzano lacks, she makes up in candor. Her
understandable love for her father transcends everything else.
STANLEY JARONKO
As pointed out previously, Mr. Jaronko has been a member of the Local since 1949
and a business agent since 1977. He was a shop steward for 17 years. He is a
trustee of the union and a union representative to the Trucking Employees of
North Jersey Fund (TENJ).
He was asked:
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.
He was asked:
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.
With respect to the Maislin Terminal incident involving Local 560 member August
Muller, described infra, I find Mr. Jaronko's testimony unconvincing
and his version of the story unbelievable.
A careful review of Mr. Jaronko's testimony reveals that, with one exception, he
steadfastly refused to accept a verdict of guilty involving the Provenzanos. His
rationale -- they were convicted on the testimony of an informer.
Overall, I found Mr. Jaronko to be fiercely loyal to the Provenzanos, completely
indifferent to the history of criminal activity on the part of various
individuals, including Anthony and Nunzio Provenzano. Mr. Jaronko's fealty to
the present regime is steadfast beyond question. [**42]
His testimony left much to be desired.
J. W. DILDINE
A business agent of Local 560 and Recording Secretary since 1968, Mr. Dildine
impressed me as an intelligent individual who in retrospect "sold himself
to the devil" twenty years ago when he agreed to come to work for Anthony
Provenzano as a business agent.
He testified in an extremely lucid manner when confronted with the sordid
history of the local and its leaders. He was calm and for a time quite
impressive and persuasive.
He testified as follows:
THE COURT: What is your feeling regarding all these involvements affecting Mr.
Nunzio Provenzano?
THE WITNESS: My personal feeling is that I would have to judge Nunzio Provenzano
as well as Salvatore Provenzano and Anthony Provenzano in my personal contact
with them and my personal relationship with them.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: It has always been one of a strict business, from the office. Over
the years we had grown, I guess, close because of our business association,
within that office.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: Outside of that office, we did no, how would I put it, personal
contact where we socialized or whatever. I came on the scene as a, as, [**43]
the expression, a new kid on the block. I had to prove myself. I came in through
the appointment of Mr. Anthony Provenzano. I dug in. I worked hard. I tried to
repay that appointment by dedication and hard work. So my association with these
gentlemen were always above board.
They never asked me to be involved in any kind of skullduggery, nor was I ever
aware that there was any skullduggery.
It was strictly, in that office, as even today, these people worked very hard.
They put in a lot of hours, and they really tried to do the job for the
membership.
So in answer to your question, your Honor, I don't know that there has ever been
a time that I, and I have had many conversations with Anthony as well as Nunzio,
when he was the President, and even today, Salvatore, and their main concern was
and is today getting the job done and beyond that, I don't know what more I can
say.
THE COURT: All right. Would it be fair then to conclude that, insofar as Nunzio
is concerned, Nunzio Provenzano, that you don't believe he was ever involved in
any skullduggery, to use your expression?
THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, no, sir.
THE COURT: And you believe in his innocence?
THE WITNESS: [**44] Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay, Now --
[*296] THE WITNESS: That was in the June
thing. The other one, that is another matter.
THE COURT: Well, I presume that your opinion is the same with respect to the
union conviction?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The most recent conviction?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You were here when the government produced this Professor
Summers, were you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Were you in the room?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.
THE COURT: Do you recall him testifying one day that, and I am paraphrasing it
now, that, so you will forgive me, Mr. Dildine, that, it's just not natural,
based on his expertise in unions, particularly after the state conviction, for
nobody to come out and say, 'he done wrong.' Forgive my English.
What is your reaction to that, to someone who is no longer the new kid on the
block?
THE WITNESS: My reaction, I was asked I think at the very beginning of my
testimony yesterday what my educational background was, and compared to
Professor Summers, I guess, my formal education is rather in remiss.
However, I guess, I have had 55 years at the school of hard knocks, and it's
[**45] to -- to try to compare his analyzation
from a classroom type of projection, you have to live it, you have to be a part
of it.
You have to be on the firing line. You have to be up front. You have to deal
with these problems on a daily situation. Mr. Anthony Provenzano is a very
unique personality. He has a charisma about him that he could relate to those
people sitting out there in the meetings, in the meeting rooms. To try to
dissect what the professor had to say about it, when you asked him what he
thought, in his learned position, would be the remedy, his analyzation, without
ever meeting me, without every talking to me, knowing me and my background, my
family, or any of the other people that I work with, his immediate response was
to remove everybody from office, right now, and appoint a trustee, and through
cross examination by Mr. Briguglio, he brought out the fact that he had been
offered the job as that trustee by the government.
And I am sitting over there, your Honor, and I am a kid from the poor side of
the block, and it's for, for me, it's a frightening thing to be confronted, and
to be sitting in this seat here as a defendant and be charged with violations of
[**46] the Hobbs Act, where I extorted
members, and to be in violation of everything that is holy, as far as being a
union representative goes.
And to be charged by the United States Government in this, it's frightening, and
I will tell you something, I have spent many hours on this, and I could probably
walk away tomorrow with a small retirement, but I wouldn't do it under these
conditions, because I have never, in my past, have done anything to deserve this
type of treatment, not from the Government, or anyone else, or the members that
I serve.
THE COURT: Do you feel it is a vendetta?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do, to the 'nth' degree, I think. I have been
associated with the people in my office for some 20 years.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: And there have been convictions. There have been millions of
dollars spent, of taxpayers money. They have, they don't have to answer to
anyone for this, to my knowledge.
They have unlimited time. We are here today having to defend ourselves, we have
to pay for our own counsel fees, and there are those among us, your Honor, that,
we are in financially terrible shape.
Some of us may have to mortgage our homes in order to pay our legal [**47]
fees. But even in the face of that, I can stand here [*297]
and I can look at these three gentlemen, eyeball to eyeball. I can look at Mr.,
what is his name, Dumont, and I can look at you, your Honor, and tell you that I
have not, nor have my associates, sitting here today, since we have been in
office, violated any law, federal or otherwise. Anybody can sit back and Monday
morning quarterback and say, why did you appoint young Josephine or why did you
do this. But these were done in good faith, forthright, and whatever, and each
one of these things, I have partaken in it, I have participated in it, but I do
not bow my head to this court, from any actions that I have taken.
Anyone can say, well, look, here was Tony got convicted, Nunzio was convicted,
Sal Briguglio was convicted. You brought these people back to work. Why did you
do these things? Why was he given a raise in pay? Why was he given a half
pension? And all those things, your Honor, if you had the luxury of time, if you
could attend one of our meetings, unannounced, and just sit in a corner where
they won't know who you were, you would see the response of those members.
It's not choreographed. Our people [**48]
stand up for what they think they want. We are mandated by their actions. The
raise in pay came from them, the half salary came from them, and each one of
these items, it was not a frivolous type of action by the executive board or
whatever. All these items were checked out legally.
We got legal opinions as to whether or not we could do these things. All these
pay raises and whatever, or back pay that was owed. It was reported on the tax
report, the LM 2's or whatever.
This is not a secret, your Honor.
These people, they came in here and they try to, they bring in people to testify
that I have never met, I don't know anything about them, they don't know
anything about me, and yet they would try to sway this court, and you are the
judge, and you are the jury and the trier of fact in this, and it will be your
opinion, is what will weigh heavy to we as a group, and I say to you, you Honor,
that we, as a group, have not indulged as a board, in any kind of violation of
our members' rights.
Now, I was rather longwinded, but --
THE COURT: It's all right.
THE WITNESS: But I feel, your Honor, there are things that you must know.
THE COURT: I am interested in this.
THE WITNESS: [**49] I feel that --
THE COURT: Tell me about the present President, Salvatore Provenzano. Tell me
about him. He is here in the Courtroom?
THE WITNESS: Salvatore Provenzano is the President of our Local Union. He is
also the President of the Joint Council for it, in the State of New Jersey.
He has been the Secretary for the Eastern Conference of Teamsters, whose main
office is in Bethesda, Maryland and he is also an International Vice President.
THE COURT: Of the International --
THE WITNESS: Of the International.
THE COURT: Right.
THE WITNESS: And he wears many hats, he has a wide variety of responsibilities.
And through the years that Mr. Salvatore Provenzano has been delegated to these
authorities, of course, his knowledge, has expended immensely because he has
been exposed to many more things on a national level and the conference level
than those of us in the local, of course, are not exposed to.
He has been on the firing line through negotiations, top level. So all these
experiences that he has acquired over the years, he has been there I guess since
the early 1960 or 1961, so he has had twenty some years as an officer and he was
also a member prior to that as [**50] a
driver, and his expertise has come over the so-called road of hard knocks, too.
He has earned disappointments. He has earned his way.
And those in the higher authority have evidently seen things that his leadership
[*298] ability and they have appointed him
into those offices, originally as a Vice President, International, and since
that time, he has also run in elections and he has been re-elected.
So my appraisal of Mr. Provenzano, not because he is sitting here, because over
the 20 years we have not always agreed on things.
But we argue these things out at board meetings and we come to a conclusion. He
has been one that has always, in my, to my knowledge, has requested the members
to take a part, an active part. He even tells us in the board meetings, if you
got something to say, say it.
So my association with him has been, as with Anthony and Nunzio, has been always
with a great deal of respect, and I hope that the respect is a two-way street.
THE COURT: Is he popular?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, he is very popular.
* * *
THE COURT: Okay.
Have you observed any political dissidence insofar as his tenure as a union
office holder is concerned?
THE WITNESS: [**51] No, sir, I think that over
the years, of course, when Anthony Provenzano was first taken away from the
membership, and then Salvatore, we call him Sam, so I will refer to him as Sam.
THE COURT: Sam, I gathered that. I am observing the formalities.
THE WITNESS: Sam took over the reins. I think there was a period of time that
the members, well, they were, you know -- he was Sammy's -- Tony's brother, but
in a very short time, I think that they recognized his ability and his zeal for
the job, and as time went on, of course, he went, he was appointed a general
organizer, and then from that, of course, he was made an international
vice-president, and of course, this gave our local a great deal of recognition
to the rest of the Country.
He was a part of that recognition, because of his dedication to the job, and I
think that Sam probably puts as much energy into this job as, and maybe more,
than most international vice-presidents.
THE COURT: So what you are telling the Court is he has earned his own spurs?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, without question, and I don't say it because he is
sitting here.
I did not get the impression that Mr. Dildine was completely comfortable with
the role [**52] he assumed. History teaches us
that every so often those that keep their mouths shut, and eyes and ears closed
in the face of evil are called to account. In a way his culpability is greater
than most others. He really should have known better. By his inaction he
facilitated the spread of the disease. As Edmund Burke stated in a letter to
William Smith dated January 19, 1795, "the only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Mr. Dildine spoke glowingly of his father's role in labor's struggles against
the Ford Motor Company in the 30's. When he decided to leave his job as a
terminal manager in 1963 and accept Tony Provenzano's offer he reflected:
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.
It is difficult to reconcile his professed idealism with the record.
SALVATORE SINNO
Mr. Sinno is a former racketeer, one of the murderers of Anthony Castellitto,
and was the chief witness against Tony Provenzano and others at the murder
trial. In this case he also assumed a prominent role in furnishing the court
with a graphic account of how it all began.
His testimony linking Anthony and Nunzio Provenzano to one of the most notorious
crime families in New York, and his recitation of a pattern of intimidation and
criminal activity which accompanied the takeover of Local 560 had the stamp of
credibility. Sinno, a huge man, seemed right out of central casting. As I
listened to his tale, it was obvious that this was the real life version of that
cinematic presentation "On the Waterfront."
Sam Provenzano in the course of his testimony in exculpating his brother, spoke
of various stupid mistakes Tony had made in various criminal entanglements which
had landed him in prison. The biggest mistake Tony ever made may have been to
initiate Sinno into his criminal fraternity. Sinno's testimony in this case was
extremely valuable. [**55] The past is truly
prologue.
JOSEPH SHERIDAN
Shop Steward since 1965, Business Agent since 1972, Trustee since 1978, and Vice
President of 560 since 1981. Mr. Sheridan presented a picture of an individual
whose family had taken an active role in the union in the pre-Provenzano period
and who had inherited the mantle. The other business agents, Mr. Sheridan
appeared to me to feel very comfortable with his earnings of $995 per week. He
is not a boat rocker. When asked about Nunzio Provenzano he said:
A Sir, if you know Mr. Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano like I know him, and I know
him quite a few years, I don't believe those allegations.
I know him to be an excellent labor leader for his people, a good family man and
a man I would be very proud to recognize in the morning. I don't believe them.
Q And if he were eligible to serve tomorrow, you, as trustee and vice-president
of the Local, would bring him back tomorrow?
A I would be happy to.
When asked about Anthony Provenzano he said:
A Sir, let me go back. I only served a couple of years with Mr. Anthony
Provenzano. I believe he came back in '75 to '78. I was on '72, he wasn't there.
So my experience with Anthony [**56]
Provenzano is only as a member of Local 560 for that period of time.
I know the men idolized him and I can see why they idolized him. He was a man,
he come off the trucks the hard way. I don't think that is something, I think I
said in my testimony, I said the man has charisma that I wish I had. I don't
have it. He is the type of man that can walk in a room with 5,000 hard hats
could be in there, and he is well-respected no matter where he goes, because I
don't think there is a man in our union, or in the labor [*300]
movement, that can say anything against him, about this man.
He is a fighter. He fights hard. And I will give you an example like I respect
him for. I think he just was incarcerated and he come out for a short time. I
think it was a two-week period.
Q Which incarceration?
A I think, I don't know if it is on the murder one or on the Seatrain. He was
out for about -- a couple of weeks. And with all on that man's mind, and any
conversation I had with Mr. Provenzano was hello, how are you, and nothing other
than that.
I am telling this Court today, your Honor, just the way I feel about this man. I
am choked up about it, that is the type of guy [**57]
he was. He would come down to my desk. He says 'Joey, how are you? I am sorry to
hear your wife has cancer.' He says, 'Anything I can do to help you, let me
know.' I said, 'I appreciate it, Mr. Provenzano.' He says, 'Hang in there and do
the best you can.'
That's the type of guy he is, with all that is on his mind, somebody else might
not even think of it, but he thought, just a little something like that, that
little charisma like that man has. Tomorrow morning, if you let him out of jail
he would win the election overwhelmingly, with all the supervision you want to
put up, he would walk away with the election.
THE COURT: If you felt he murdered Castellitto, would you still feel the same
way?
THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't.
THE COURT: Why?
THE WITNESS: If anyone takes anybody's life, I wouldn't even care if it was an
animal, I certainly wouldn't respect him or want any part of him or have
anything to do with him.
THE COURT: If you felt that he extorted Dorn's, how would you feel about it?
THE WITNESS: I certainly wouldn't respect him or admire him.
THE COURT: Would you vote for him?
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Would you vote for him?
THE WITNESS: I would [**58] have to weigh that
one, sir, because if he was convicted in my conscience, he did something wrong
like that, no, I don't think I would.
THE COURT: What about Nunzio's conviction in 1981, if you felt he was truly
guilty?
THE WITNESS: If I thought Mr. Nunzio Provenzano was truly guilty of the crime, I
know I wouldn't.
THE COURT: You know what?
THE WITNESS: I would not vote for him.
THE COURT: All right.
Let me ask you this. Mr. Dildine testified in this courtroom that he felt the
government has pursued a vendetta. I think that was the word he used originally,
and then I picked up on it, against Local 560.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You were in the Courtroom for that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. What does the government have have to do, in your mind, I am
talking about Joseph Sheridan's mind, if I may use the shopworn phrase, to put
the ball across the line, to convince you that these individuals who Mr. Laufer
has been talking about the last few minutes, were guilty of crimes. What -- in
other words -- let me back up a moment.
Like all of us, I am sure you read the newspapers, right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Every day we pick up the paper, [**59]
we read Joe Smith convicted of murder or robbery in some hamlet in the United
States; right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. You read that article, you don't know Joe Smith, I am assuming
that. What reaction do you have, as a normal human being?
[*301] THE WITNESS: As reading that in the
article, I certainly wouldn't think much of the individual who caused that
crime.
THE COURT: Do you think the man has had a trial by a jury, right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: The jury has deliberated and found him guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Would it be fair to conclude that, on the basis of what you read, the
man is guilty? He has been found guilty; right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Now, all these cases that we have been talking about, with
one exception, I think, I mentioned to Mr. Dildine the plea of guilty by Mr. Sal
Briguglio, the counterfeiting case, there were verdicts handed down. Why, in
your mind, Joseph Sheridan's mind, do you have a different reaction?
THE WITNESS: Sir, I guess, like you say, if you read something in the paper and
you don't know somebody, you are fast to judge an opinion, [**60]
which we all do. I do it myself.
THE COURT: Right.
THE WITNESS: But I got to tell it to you the way I know it, is that I didn't
really know the Provenzanos. I just knew of them being our leaders in the union
and I personally, as Joe Sheridan, never really got to know them until I became
part of an organization. I can speak for my family, my wife, and I am not just
saying that in here, I consider myself a very devout man, a religious man, and I
bring my family up this way. I have been in their company on not many occasions.
They are respected people in their community. They have lovely children. They
brought them up to respect their parents, and I don't see this aura of, you
know, what we are talking about, because I am there almost -- I am there 11
years, and I can say that, as God is my judge, all I know these people to be is,
no one ever, in the 11 years I am up there, said to me, Joe Sheridan, this is
the contract.
Your Honor, I believe you asked me the question yesterday, when you said, can
you, as Joe Sheridan, make a decision without picking the phone up? I can tell
you companies where -- and this is not done in all unions, where if I go out to
negotiate a contract [**61] and if I know I
got the best that I can, I don't have to go to that phone, sir, and I never
have.
I will just say, that's the contract. If the people ratify it, I will come in
the next day and I will tell whoever the president is at the time, sir, this is
our contract. I got this and I got that. That is how I know these people, sir.
THE COURT: I understand that. But as a devout individual, and that is the way
you have described yourself.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Haven't you ever questioned, that is my -- haven't you ever
questioned in your own mind, I mean aside from the fact that you are on the
payroll, and I am being real up front with you --
* * *
THE WITNESS: I am sitting in the courtroom when Mr. Sinno was here, and we are
going through testimony, and they are talking about the Mafia, and the 'hit
men', and all these here people, your Honor, like I said, unless I am most naive
people in the world, I am up there 11 years, I never met that type of
individual, I never come in contact with them, and I don't know these people to
be anything but good labor leaders, and responsible family men. I will go to my
grave saying that.
They are good fighting people [**62] for the
people they represent. Sure, the things that went on in the past, you can say
quarterbacking on a Monday morning, maybe this or that should have been done,
but they try, even to the membership, Sam said to me, he says, we have the
contract for the Meadowlands, he said Joey, do you think you can get the Brendan
Bryne Arena, [*302] he says, I got to try
something and see if we can't get this membership out.
* * *
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you know the hardest thing I think you have to fight,
being a member of our Local, you can be invited out for a party, has nothing to
do with unions or any union officials there, and it has happened to me quite a
lot. The conversation, what do you do for a living. Business agent for 560. Oh,
boy. You know, it is that type of stuff where, I think the papers have done a
job, and it is a household word, as far as, you know, I think everyone thinks
that this is a racketeer local, and it is a dominated local.
Joseph Sheridan: decent, devout, blind and bought.
MICHAEL SCIARRA
Michael Sciarra has been a member of Local 560 since the mid-1950's. He was
appointed a business agent in July of 1972, and held that position until 1976.
He [**63] was reappointed in 1977. He became a
trustee of the union in 1981.
Mr. Sciarra, in very emotional terms, spoke of his love for the union and its
members and their love for him. During the course of his testimony, he stressed
his devotion to his duties and his desire to do everything which would benefit
the membership. Yet, the government was able to demonstrate that his
"love" did not cause him to vigorously police Canny Trucking Company,
where his good friend Fred Furino was funneling in non-union drivers for Canny's
operation. The situation allegedly came to light only after Mr. Furino was found
murdered. Mr. Sciarra testified that he was shocked when he learned of it. As
noted elsewhere in this opinion, I am persuaded that his explanations concerning
this whole affair were lame.
His love affair with the Provenzanos is more passionate. On that score the
record is clear. He was asked:
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.
He was further asked by me:
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.
It is perfectly understandable why Mr. Sciarra supported the motions to vote Mr.
Anthony Provenzano a salary increase and a half pension. Mr. [**67]
Sciarra is an excellent example of how the Provenzano Group has been able to
survive and dominate Local 560.
II.
Continuously between approximately the late 1940's and the present, Anthony
Provenzano has been the leader of a group of individuals who have been
associated together in fact as an enterprise within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 1961(4), the activities of which have affected interstate
commerce. n14 This group of individuals, [*304]
the "Provenzano Group", has included (in addition to Anthony
Provenzano), Nunzio Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, Thomas Andretta, Gabriel
Briguglio, Andrew Reynolds, Salvatore Briguglio (until his murder in 1968),
Salvatore Sinno (until his defection in 1961), Harold "K. O."
Koningsberg (until his incarceration in the mid-1960's), Armand Faugno (until
his "disappearance" in 1972), Ralph Michael Picardo (until his
defection in 1975), Ralph Pellecchia (until his imprisonment), and Frederick
Salvatore Furino (until his murder in 1982). The evidence adduced at trial
clearly demonstrates that these individuals conspired to and actually did
conduct the affairs of the Provenzano Group Enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity, in violation [**68] of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), involving murder and labor racketeering offenses
on a protracted and continuing basis so as to enrich themselves and perpetuate
the existence of their criminal association. The evidence further demonstrates
that the Provenzano Group has maintained an ongoing organizational structure in
the form of a hierarchy and protocol, which has controlled the affairs and
conduct of the Provenzano Group's associates during approximately the past
thirty-five years. Finally, it has also been conclusively demonstrated that the
Provenzano Group has had an existence separate and apart from simply the pattern
of activity in which it has engaged.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n14 The defendants' assertion that the characterization of the Provenzano Group
as an enterprise represents an unfair and prejudicial "last minute"
altering of the government's theory of the case is without merit. I find that
paragraph 12 of the complaint gave adequate notice to defendants as to this
allegation. A mere recharacterization of facts and claims which had been
previously fully alleged in the complaint, to harmonize them with changing
caselaw, see United
States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1983), cannot be considered
prejudicial. It is, as Judge Wood has stated, "a basic principle of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a litigant is not bound by the selection
of a particular theory of relief." Lance,
Inc. v. Ginsburg, 210 F. Supp. 272, 274 (E.D. Pa. 1962). Moreover, this
theory was fully tried by the government with the implied consent of the
defendants. The court may accordingly base its decision on this theory and may
deem the pleadings amended accordingly. MBI
Motor Company, Inc. v. Lotus/East, Inc., 506 F.2d 709 (6th Cir. 1974); Smith
v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 247 F.2d 761, 766 (3d Cir. 1957).
I further note that the government has elected not to press the averments
regarding the recovery of salary increases (paragraph 12-a-23 of the complaint),
the averments regarding Marvin Zalk (paragraph 12-a-24) and those regarding
Ralph Torraco (paragraph 12-a-25) in view of testimony that there was reliance
upon advice of counsel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**69]
A.
Sometime during the late 1940's, Anthony Provenzano invited Salvatore Sinno to
become associated with him and others in a criminal organization, the Provenzano
Group herein. Sinno accepted this invitation. From this association, Sinno
learned that the Provenzano Group, operated as an organized racketeering
enterprise, and, through its leader, was a faction of a larger New York-based
criminal organization. This larger organization was at that time headed by Mike
Miranda, who was serving as "acting boss" while its former head Vito
Genovese was imprisoned. Prior thereto the organization was led by an individual
whom Sinno identified as "Lucky" Luciano.
The larger criminal organization of which the Provenzano Group was a faction had
a settled hierarchy. The positions which constituted this hierarchy were
"boss", "underboss", "captains", and
"soldiers", which were also known as "made members" or
"button men". Anthony Provenzano was a part of this hierarchy and held
the position of "made member" within the larger organization. Others
who held such positions during Sinno's period of association with the Provenzano
Group included Toby D'Amico, Mike Sabella, Earl Collucio, Tony [**70]
Salerno, Peter LaPlaca, Bobby Manna, Gyp DeCarlo, Nick Perry, Pete DiFeo and
Jerry Catena (the latter four of whom were "captains").
The associates or members of this larger criminal organization were then
permitted by its protocol to engage in a variety of criminal activities, such as
gambling, extortion, trafficking in stolen property and the corruption of law
enforcement authorities to ignore criminal violations, but were prohibited from
involvement in narcotics, prostitution and counterfeiting. Pursuant to the
directions of Anthony Provenzano, and apparently in accordance with the larger
organization's protocol, Sinno and others participated in the commission of a
number of criminal offenses indicative of the relationship between the larger
criminal organization and the Provenzano Group. One such criminal offense was
the operation by Sinno and others of an illegal monte card game in New York City
over a period of several years, from which the larger organization received a
"tribute" payment of three percent for having allowed the game to
operate. An illegal monte card game was also operated in Hoboken over a period
of time which involved the payment of [*305]
money to [**71] law enforcement authorities
for "protection." Jersey City was the situs for the operation of an
illegal dice game over a several year period prior to 1961, another criminal
offense. Anthony Provenzano provided Sinno with $5,000 in operating capital for
the Jersey City game in exchange for a ten percent share in the profits. n15
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n15 Anthony Provenzano also caused an employer to place Salvatore Sinno's name
on its payroll so that Sinno's tax records would reflect a legitimate source for
his income from the various gambling activities seemingly undertaken at Anthony
Provenzano's behest. This provides another example of an act consistent with and
reinforcing of the organizational structure of the enterprise and which promoted
both organizational and individual well-being.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In September of 1961, Salvatore Sinno disassociated himself from the Provenzano
Group. At that time, Nunzio Provenzano was an associate of the Provenzano Group
and, like Sinno, had been proposed for full membership in the larger criminal
organization. [**72] Nunzio Provenzano's
involvement in both organizations is highlighted by his presence at the
"drop" where, by prearrangement, Sinno "gave up" his truck
to be "hijacked."
Following the period described by Salvatore Sinno, the Provenzano Group
continued to exist as a racketeering enterprise, notwithstanding the
incarceration of Anthony Provenzano between approximately the mid-1960's and
1970 and the incarceration of Nunzio Provenzano (as well as Salvatore Briguglio)
between approximately 1966 and 1969. First, I find that between approximately
1969 and 1977, Anthony Provenzano, Gabriel Briguglio, Stephen Andretta and
Thomas Andretta unlawfully conspired to and did conduct the affairs of an
enterprise (the Provenzano Group) through a pattern of racketeering activity,
consisting of multiple violations of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29
U.S.C. § 186, and involving both Local 560 and several carriers for
Seatrain Lines. Further, between approximately 1971 and 1980, Nunzio Provenzano
and others conspired to and did conduct the affairs of an enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity, again consisting of multiple violations of the
Taft-Hartley Act, and involving four interstate carriers. [**73]
The continued vitality and viability of the Provenzano Group is further
demonstrated by a number of pieces of inferential evidence which, taken
together, lend cumulative support to this proposition. First, at a deposition on
August 17, 1982, Andrew Reynolds, a Business Agent for Local 560, invoked his
Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer when asked whether he knew Bobby
Manna, and whether he had met with Nunzio Provenzano and Bobby Manna at the
Fountain Restaurant and Cafe, located at the corner of Houston and Sullivan
Streets in New York City. This meeting, which had lasted for approximately one
hour on July 15, 1980, had been observed by the F.B.I. During Sinno's time,
Bobby Manna had been a member of the Genovese-led larger criminal organization,
and had been a partner of Anthony Provenzano and Salvatore Sinno in the Jersey
City dice game. Bobby Manna had also been held in contempt on July 19, 1971 for
refusing to answer questions concerning organized crime and racketeering. In
re Manna, 124 N.J.Super. 428, 307 A.2d 619 (App.Div. 1973). n16
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n16 While I may have inadvertently excluded this opinion from evidence, I may,
of course, take judicial notice of it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**74]
During the August 17, 1982 deposition, Andrew Reynolds also invoked his Fifth
Amendment privilege in refusing to answer when asked whether he knew Matthew
Ianniello, whether Reynolds reported to Ianniello concerning his activities as
an employee of Local 560, whether Ianniello and the "Genovese Family"
control Local 560 through Reynolds and others, and whether he had met with
Nunzio Provenzano and Ianniello on Mulberry Street on July 29, 1980. The three
had been observed together by the F.B.I. Matthew Ianniello is reputed to be a
"captain" in the "Genovese Family" and has been identified
as a friend of Anthony Provenzano as well as an acquaintance [*306]
of Salvatore and Josephine Provenzano and Robert Luizzi. Additionally, Salvatore
Provenzano had testified at a deposition on July 29, 1982, and in his testimony
at trial that he knew Matthew Ianniello through Anthony Provenzano and
considered Ianniello to be a friend of Anthony Provenzano.
Andrew Reynolds further invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to
answer whether he knew Funzi (Frank) Tieri. Salvatore Provenzano testified at
his deposition that Frank Tieri is reputed to be a significant organized crime
figure. [**75] One of his connections to Local
560 and the Provenzano Group is through Vincent Passaro, who has been a Local
560 Business Agent for Local 84. Vincent Passaro is, according to Thomas
Reynolds, reputed to be the "son" of Frank Tieri.
This invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege by Andrew Reynolds -- who was
appointed to the position of Business Agent within Local 560 by Nunzio
Provenzano and retained in that position by Salvatore Provenzano -- is
admissible in a civil trial against both him and his coconspirators under Rule
601(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as the Executive Board of
Local 560. In these circumstances I draw an adverse inference from his silence.
n17 See Baxter
v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 47 L. Ed. 2d 810, 96 S. Ct. 1551 (1976).
Specifically, I find that had he responded truthfully to those questions, his
answers would be incriminatory.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n17 I note that Andrew Reynolds no longer holds the position of Business Agent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.
During the past thirty years, Anthony Provenzano [**76]
and other members of the Provenzano Group have engaged in a pattern of criminal
and other improper acts, the object of which was to gain control over and to
exploit the Local 560 Enterprise.
First, between approximately January 1, 1952 and June 1, 1959, within the
District of New Jersey and elsewhere, Anthony Provenzano, while an official of
Local 560, extorted "labor peace" payoffs from Walter Dorn and his
company, Dorn Transport, Inc. of Rensselaer, New York. During this period,
Anthony Provenzano held the positions of Business Agent, and later, of
President, and obtained a total of $17,100 from Dorn. n18
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n18 This pattern was to some extent repeated when, between November 30 and
December 12, 1961, Salvatore Briguglio and Nunzio Provenzano attempted to extort
labor peace payments (attempted grand larceny) in the Braun Payoff Demand case,
discussed infra.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Next, at the time of his nomination and appointment as a Business Agent for
Local 560, Anthony Provenzano directed Salvatore Sinno and Earl Coluccio to
[**77] attend the membership meeting in
question in order to intimidate and if necessary discipline any
"rambunctious people" -- meaning those members who might presume to
voice opposition to his appointment. Similar tactics were employed by the Group
in preparation for Local 560's January 10, 1960 election, which was hotly
contested. As one such step, Anthony Provenzano directed Nunzio Provenzano,
Thomas Reynolds and Robert Luizzi to "sign up" ineligible members in
order to increase the Group's voting strength. Salvatore Sinno, at Anthony
Provenzano's behest, persuaded some six of his friends to vote for the
Provenzano slate in that election, although each of them was, in fact,
ineligible to so vote. Salvatore Sinno himself was able to (and did) vote in the
1960 election because Anthony Provenzano had brought Sinno's membership
"book" up to date by falsifying entries to show that Sinno was a
member of Local 560 in good standing.
Third, in order to enhance his own power and that of the Provenzano Group within
Local 560, and apparently to punish what he regarded as a breach of the Group's
protocol, Anthony Provenzano recruited Harold "K. O." Konigsberg and
Salvatore Briguglio to kill [**78] Anthony
Castellitto -- which they, together with Salvatore Sinno and others, did on June
6, 1961. Prior to his "disappearance," Anthony Castellitto was one of
the most popular members of [*307] Local 560.
He had been, for example, the only candidate to run unopposed in Local 560's
1960 election. Anthony Provenzano considered Anthony Castellitto to be a serious
threat to his control over Local 560 and felt that Anthony Castellitto might be
assisting the opposition party within Local 560. n19
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n19 Anthony Provenzano also expressed the belief that Castellitto had informed
on him to law enforcement authorities regarding the "labor peace"
extortion of Dorn Transport.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To carry out Anthony Provenzano's directive, Harold "K. O." Konigsberg
enlisted Salvatore Sinno and others sometime shortly before June 6, 1961 to
assist him with the planned murder. n20 On June 6, 1961, in Ulster County, New
York, Konigsberg, Sinno, Salvatore Briguglio and others killed Anthony
Castellitto by striking him on the head with a blunt [**79]
object and strangling him about the neck with a cord. Thereafter, Anthony
Provenzano rewarded Konigsberg for his part in the Castellitto murder by paying
him the sum of $15,000. Anthony Provenzano rewarded Salvatore Briguglio for his
part in the Castellitto murder by making him a Business Agent in Local 560.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n20 Konigsberg, a reputed loan-sharker, at that time operated a "claims
collection" agency in the building owned by Local 560 in Union City, New
Jersey, and occupied those premises at the sufference of Anthony Provenzano.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On or about December 20, 1962, approximately one month after Anthony Provenzano
had been indicted in the Eastern Freightways case, the membership of Local 560
voted, upon the motion of Michael Sciarra, to increase the salary of its
President, Anthony Provenzano, from approximately $20,800 to approximately
$45,800 annually. Sciarra testified that his motivation in making the motion was
the common knowledge within the Local that Anthony Provenzano faced substantial
legal expenses in connection [**80] with his
defense on the Dorn charges. His salary was again increased on February 14,
1963, and upon the motion of Stephen Andretta, from approximately $45,800 to
approximately $95,800 annually. Andretta testified, in turn, that he was
prompted to make the motion because of the feelin