In the Matter of
Salvatore Timpani
Laborers’
International Union of North America
Independent Hearing Officer
Docket
No. 97-43D
Decided: August 12, 1998
This matter comes before the Laborers’ International Union of North
America (“LIUNA”) Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) pursuant to the LIUNA
Constitution (“Constitution”) and the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure
(“EDP”).
On July 22, 1997, Disciplinary Charges
were filed by the LIUNA General Executive Board Attorney (“GEB Attorney”)
against Salvatore Timpani (“Timpani”).
The charges are based on a violation of federal law to which Timpani has
already plead guilty, as well as related violations of the EDP.
The IHO held a hearing on November 19,
1997, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Timpani appeared and was represented by
counsel. The GEB Attorney and counsel
for Timpani submitted post-hearing briefs.
1.
Evidentiary
Considerations
2.
Hearsay
The IHO must base his decisions on
reliable evidence through a review of what is probative and reliable. Reliable hearsay evidence is admissible in
labor arbitrations. Associated
Cleaning Consultants and International Brotherhood of Printing and Allied
Trades Local 327, 94 LA 1246 (1990); In the Matter of Joseph P. Crincoli,
IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-04D (October 27, 1997); In Re: Trusteeship
Proceedings Chicago District Council, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-30T
(February 7, 1998); Elkouri and Elkouri,
How Arbitration Works (4th ed. 1994). Hearsay evidence has been admitted regularly in union
disciplinary proceedings arising under the Teamsters Consent Decree. United States v. IBT(Cimino), 964
F.2d 1308 (2d Cir. 1992), at 1312, aff’g United States v. IBT(Cimino)
777 F.Supp. 1130 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); United States v. IBT (Senese &
Talerico), 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1991), at 1297, aff’g United
States v. IBT (Senese & Talerico) 745 F. Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y.
1990). The test is whether the evidence
is reliable. Senese & Talerico,
941 F.2d at 1298 (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402
(1971)).
3.
Findings of Fact
4.
Extortion
Charge I: That from in or about 1980 through in or
about August 1985, Salvatore Timpani, a/k/a “Sal the Barber,” “Little Sal” and
“Talk About” while a member of LIUNA Local 394 (Elizabeth, New Jersey),
committed “barred conduct” in violation of the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary
Procedures by committing acts of racketeering as follows: extortion (18 U.S.C.
§ 1951; 18 U.S.C. § 2). On or about June 8, 1992, Timpani was sentenced upon
entry of a plea on those charges, in the matter of United States v.
Salvatore Timpani, Crim. No. 89-380 (AMW).
1. Timpani has been a member of LIUNA sporadically since
the early 1970’s and a member of LIUNA Local Union 394 (“Local 394”) in
Elizabeth, New Jersey since at least 1992.
Tr. 74. See also
Timpani Exhibit (“Ex. D”) 1.
2. John M. Riggi (“Riggi”) was the Business Manager of
Local 394 from approximately 1965 until approximately 1989 when he resigned
following his indictment for labor racketeering. Tr. 34-35.
3. The EDP defines barred conduct to include “committing
any act of racketeering as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code
Section § 1961(1).” LIUNA EDP “Barred
Conduct,” at 20 & Appendix A (1996 ed.). Section 1961 includes both 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951 and § 2. See 18 U.S.C. §
1961(1).
4. Timpani and Riggi were indicted on numerous counts of
racketeering in United States v. John Riggi, Crim. No.
89-380 (AMW) (D.N.J.). Tr.
8-9. See GEB Attorney
Exhibit (“GEB Ex.”) 1.
5. At his federal trial, Timpani was found guilty of one
count of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1951
and was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Tr. 9. See GEB Ex. 5 at
14. Timpani was denied bail pending
appeal.
6. On appeal, Timpani’s conviction was overturned because
the trial court had restricted recross-examination. See United States v. John M. Riggi, 951 F.2d 1368
(3d Cir. 1991), GEB Ex. 4. The case was
remanded to the trial court for a retrial.
Tr. 9-10. See also
GEB Ex. 4 at 1378.
7. On remand, Timpani entered a plea of guilty to the
extortion charge. Timpani admitted to
his involvement in the wrongful use of threatened force, economic harm, and
violence in order to obtain money and services from Crosby’s Heating Service, Inc.,
a heating company in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Tr. 9. See also
GEB Ex. 2-3.
8.
Timpani was given credit for time served,
given a suspended sentence and placed on probation for a period of five
years. Tr. 9-11. See also GEB Ex. 2.
9. Timpani admits he extorted Crosby and the conviction
for extortion is not disputed in the present case. Tr. 13.
10. I have chosen to reexamine the evidence of Timpani’s extortionate
activity with Riggi as set out in the record of CR-89-380. All references are to the Appendix (“A”) of
the trial transcript of CR-89-380 which is part of the Appellate record in 951
F.2d 1368 (3d Cir. 1991) unless otherwise designated.
11. In the time period covered by Charge I, Riggi was an officer of Local
394.
12. Bill Crosby (“Crosby”) owned Crosby’s Heating Service, Inc. In the late 1970’s, Charlie Alfano
(“Alfano”), an employee of Crosby’s Heating Service, Inc., introduced Crosby to
Timpani who told Crosby he could get Crosby jobs. A1308-09. Timpani also
introduced him to Joe Colletti (“Colletti”).
A1308-09. At a wedding in the
fall of 1980, Crosby was introduced to Riggi, to whom he was told to refer as
“Uncle John.” A1312. Riggi invited
Crosby to take a walk down the block and, once outside, Riggi told Crosby he
could get Crosby a lot of work but that Crosby was not to contact Riggi
directly. A1312. Crosby was told to communicate with Riggi
through Timpani or Colletti.
A1312. The same instructions
were reiterated later by Timpani who also emphasized that Crosby should not
even mention Riggi’s name on the telephone.
A1323, A1323.
13. In 1980, Crosby reached an agreement with Timpani and Riggi: they would give him work and Crosby would
pay them a commission. A1315. Pursuant to this agreement, Riggi would
receive 10% and Timpani 5%, with payments made in cash through Timpani. A1315-16. At the direction of Riggi and
Timpani, Crosby later put Timpani on the payroll for $240 per week. A1316-22; A1359. Although he was on the payroll, Timpani performed no work for the
company and only went to the office to receive paychecks. A1316-22; A1328-29; A1359.
14. Although Crosby came to be accepted by Riggi, Alfano and Timpani, he
was afraid of them. A1324-26. His fear was well founded: Timpani told him that once Crosby was in
with them, there was no getting out.
A1326. The only way out, Timpani
told him, was to be dumped in the bay with his feet encased in concrete. A1326.
15. Riggi directed jobs to Crosby who performed them and paid a commission
to Timpani. A1328-419. Riggi’s associates maintained the atmosphere
of fear which allowed Riggi to control Crosby. For example, when Crosby
complained that Alfano was not working on a job, Alfano answered: “If Uncle John [John M. Riggi] tells me to
do something, then I’m going to do it.
If he tells me to run you over with a truck and dump you in the bay,
I’ll do that too.” A1363-64; A1653-54.
16.
In late 1991, Crosby spoke to Timpani
about ending their relationship because Crosby could not earn money while
making payoffs to Timpani, Riggi and other associates. A1366-67. Timpani told Crosby he could not
end the relationship and threatened:
“[Y]ou’ll take what we give you or else.” Crosby understood this to mean that he would be harmed if he
ended the relationship and he feared for the safety of himself and his
family. A1367-68.
17. Crosby paid for some of Timpani’s bills and did free work on the homes
of Riggi’s children because he was afraid to refuse. A1368-84. When Crosby,
through Timpani, asked Riggi for payment, Crosby was told to forget about
payment and consider the work done a “favor.”
A1376; A1383-83.
18. Crosby approached the FBI and agreed to wear recording devices and have
them planted in his office. The recordings
corroborate Crosby’s testimony that Riggi and Timpani dominated him. A1483-515; A668-702.
19. One of the architects with whom Crosby was working demanded a Cadillac
from Crosby as a payoff. A1416-19. The recordings reveal that when Crosby told
Timpani and Riggi about the architect’s attempt, Riggi who had not approved the
architect’s demands, told Crosby “You’re not to give nothing to nobody …. [T]he
only guy you got allegiance to is right here,” indicating Timpani. A669-70; A1488. Riggi then stated what he wanted to do with the architect, “I
could fuckin’ rap him in the head.”
A674.
20. Timpani threatened Crosby that he [Crosby] was not to communicate with
anyone other than Riggi about payoffs:
“Did you hear what he [Riggi] said? You don’t talk to nobody about
giving you anything, nobody …. He’ll tell you what, what it is.” A673.
21. Crosby made payoffs to Riggi and Timpani through 1985. A1515-21.
22. District Judge Alfred M. Wolin, who presided over Timpani’s federal
trial, made the following factual findings at Timpani’s initial sentencing:
The jury found that you
extorted Bill Crosby, and for that, you must be punished. I agree with their verdict.
When Crosby finally had enough of your extortion and sought to disassociate himself from you and Riggi, you warned him, the only way to get out is with cement on your feet. Without the power wielded by Riggi through his union position and crime family connection, you would have been unable to extort Crosby in the manner in which you did.
Crosby currently lives in fear under the auspices of the Witness Protection Program. You were a contributing cause to that fear, a fear that has ruined his life and that of his family.
There are those who say you are a member of the Mafia….Certainly your associations based on the evidence in this case point you in the direction of Mafia membership. GEB Ex. 5, at 13-14.
5.
Knowing Association
with Organized Crime
23. The Disciplinary Charges allege that Timpani engaged in barred conduct
by being a member of organized crime, and knowingly associating with members of
organized crime:
Charge II:
That from in or about 1980 through in or about August 1985, Salvatore Timpani,
a/k/a “Sal the Barber,” “Little Sal” and “Talk About” while a member of LIUNA
Local 394 (Elizabeth, New Jersey), committed “barred conduct” in violation of
the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedures by having knowingly associated
with La Cosa Nostra Crime Family members: John M. Riggi, an acting boss of the
DeCavalcante Crime Family, John J. Riggi, an associate of the DeCavalcante
Crime Family and the youngest son of John M. Riggi, Vincent Riggi, an associate
of the DeCavalcante Crime Family and a son of John M. Riggi, and James Palermo,
a caporegime in the DeCavalcante Crime Family.
On or about June 8, 1992, Timpani was sentenced upon entry of a plea for
knowingly associating with the named La Cosa Nostra crime family members, in
the matter of United States v. Salvatore Timpani No. 89-380 (AMW).
Charge III:
That from in or about 1980 through in or about August 1985, Salvatore Timpani,
a/k/a “Sal the Barber,” “Little Sal” and “Talk About: while a member of LIUNA
Local 394 (Elizabeth, New Jersey), committed “barred conduct” in violation of
the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedures by having been a member and
soldier in the DeCavalcante Crime Family and, accordingly, having knowingly
associated with members and associates of La Cosa Nostra. On or about June 8, 1992, Timpani was
sentenced upon entry of a plea for his knowing criminal association with
members and associated of the DeCavalcante crime family, in the matter of United
States v. Salvatore Timpani, Crim.
No. 89- 380 (AMW).
24.
The GEB Attorney called Jack Elko, a former
law enforcement officer, as an expert witness.
I have previously found Elko to be an expert in his field, and he is a
credible witness.
25.
Although Elko has been accepted by me as
an expert on other occasions, in this particular matter, the facts upon which
Elko bases his opinion are less than compelling.
26.
Elko related the hearsay statements of a
FBI agent who further related the testimony of a person the FBI agent describes
as a reliable informant and a member of an organized crime family. Without further description, Elko reports
that the FBI agent’s informant said Timpani is a member of the DeCavalcante
family. There is no detail to explain
any of the activities that this opinion is based upon.
27.
Elko further related a conversation with
Thomas Riccardi (“Riccardi”), a person in the federal witness protection
program. Riccardi told Elko that the
acting boss of the Lucchese crime family once introduced Timpani to him as “a
friend of ours.” Riccardi also said
that Timpani was a member of the DeCavalcante family.
28.
Elko further stated he had conversations
with specific persons from the Union County Prosecution’s Office who said that
Timpani was a member of organized crime.
He also verified this information with New Jersey State police.
29.
All the statements related by Elko are
similar to those so often heard in organized investigations, that all the
investigators agree that Timpani is affiliated in some way with organized
crime.
30.
There is no detail of Timpani’s
associates, or specific activities or history of his involvement with illegal
activities as have been detailed in other LIUNA proceedings such as described
in Chicago District Council, IHO 97-30T and In Re: Bifulco, IHO Order and Memorandum, 95-48D (March 17,
1998.)
31.
I can find no support in the fact that
Timpani plead guilty to the extortion count which incorporated the allegations
of organized crime association contained in the RICO count. In the plea colloquy, the Court did not
question Timpani about the organized crime allegations.
32.
I note that Timpani and Riggi were both
acquitted of the RICO charge in the indictment in United States v. Riggi,
supra, which alleged that both Riggi and Timpani were members or
associates of organized crime.
33.
The hearsay declarations of Elko do not
have the specificity nor are they corroborated in material aspects to the
extent that they are sufficiently probative of Timpani’s association with
organized crime.
34.
I do not find that evidence of Timpani’s
organized crime association in this record is proved by a preponderance of the
evidence.
6.
Conclusions
1. There is a preponderance of the evidence that Timpani committed an extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1951.
2. Timpani’s extortion was a systematic and violent
episode, well-planned and executed, in conjunction with Riggi, a corrupt LIUNA
officer.
3. There is not a preponderance of evidence that Timpani
is a member of an organized crime family or is associated with organized crime.
7.
Decision
The GEB Attorney has proved
Charge I by a preponderance of the evidence.
The GEB
Attorney has not proved Charges II and III by preponderance of the evidence.
8.
Penalty
Although I have found that the GEB
Attorney has not proved that Timpani is a member of or is associated with
organized crime, the proof of Timpani’s conduct in the extortion of Crosby, in
conjunction with Riggi, can only be described as shocking.
The activities of Timpani set out in the
trial transcript of the federal trial leave no doubt that he is a violent
individual and willfully utilized Riggi’s association to extort money from
Crosby. Timpani associated himself with
a ruthless labor leader to shakedown a contractor. Regardless of any allegations of organized crime association,
Timpani’s tactics are such that his membership in LIUNA cannot be tolerated, no
matter what his conduct has been since
his release from prison.
Timpani’s membership in LIUNA is
permanently revoked. Timpani may not be
employed by any LIUNA related entity.
Timpani is notified that he has a right
to appeal this Order to the LIUNA Appellate Officer by filing a Notice of
Appeal with the Appellate Officer within 10 days of the date of this Order.
PETER F. VAIRA
INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER