In The Matter of Arthur A. Coia
Laborers’ International Union of North America
Independent Hearing Officer
Docket No. 97-52D
Decided March 8, 1999
This Order and Memorandum addresses the disciplinary charges of November 6, 1997, as amended on March 23 and April 8, 1998, filed by the Laborers’ International Union of North America (“LIUNA” or “International Union”) General Executive Board Attorney (“GEB Attorney”) against Arthur A. Coia (“Coia” or “Respondent Coia”), the International General President of LIUNA.
Introduction
The Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) held a hearing which began on April 14, 1998 and ended on June 23, 1998. There were 22 hearing days. The transcripts from the hearing total over 5500 pages, and over 500 exhibits were submitted into evidence. Both the GEB Attorney and counsel for Coia submitted post-hearing briefs on September 25, 1998, and post-hearing responsive briefs on November 24, 1998.
Coia has been charged with sixteen charges arising out of five separate subject categories which may be described as follows: Coia’s Knowing Association with a Member of La Cosa Nostra’s (“LCN”) New England Crime Family; Coia’s Role in the Trusteeship of Local 66; Coia’s Role in the International Union’s Investigation of Ronald Fino's Allegations; Coia’s Appointment of John Serpico as Chairman of the GEB Hearings Panel; and Coia’s Dealings with Viking Oldsmobile.
The incidents in question span the time period from 1981 to the present and involve periods of Coia’s career from his early involvement in LIUNA to his ascent to the offices of International General Secretary-Treasurer and International General President.
In this matter, the GEB Attorney has presented much evidence which is far outside the scope of the charges. The IHO has dealt with these occasions as they arose and has made no blanket prohibitions.
General Legal Standards
The following standards apply to the charges.
Barred Conduct
Pursuant to the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedures (“EDP”) and the LIUNA Ethical Practices Code (“EPC”), union officers are prohibited from engaging in “barred conduct,” which is defined to include:
a)committing any act of racketeering, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1);
b)knowingly associating with any member or associate of the organized crime syndicate known as La Cosa Nostra (LCN);
c)knowingly permitting any member or associate of the LCN to exercise control or influence in the conduct of the affairs of the Union; or
d)obstructing or interfering with the LIUNA Inspector General, the GEB Attorney, or the Independent Hearing Officer . . . .
EDP, Section 1, Ethical Practices Code; EPC, Barred Conduct.
Knowing Association with the LCN and Permitting LCN Influence on the Union
According to the EDP and the EPC, “knowing association” occurs when:
a)an individual knows that the person with whom he or she is associating is a member or associate of the LCN;
b)the association relates directly or indirectly to the affairs of the Union; and
c)the association is more than fleeting or casual.
EDP, Section 1, Ethical Practices Code; EPC, Barred Conduct. See also In the Matter of Rocco J. Napoli and Thomas Fallacara, IHO Order and Memorandum, 96-65D at 5-6 ¶19 (September 25, 1997)(defining “knowing association”).
Knowledge is established if an individual: (a) had actual knowledge that the person with whom he was associating was an LCN member; (b) reasonably should have known that the person with whom he was associating was an LCN member; or (c) deliberately remained ignorant of facts that would demonstrate that the person with whom he was associating was an LCN member. Fallacara, 96-65D at 7.
The relationship to the affairs of the union need not on its face affect the operation of the union; it need only reflect that the “knowing association” permits undesirable individuals to have easy access to the union officers and members in the total atmosphere of the labor union operation. See In the Matter of Trusteeship Proceeding Chicago District Council, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-30T at 9 (February 7, 1998). See also Fallacara, 96-65D at 6 ¶ 20.
The GEB Attorney must also demonstrate that the charged party’s association was “more than fleeting or casual.” See generally United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Am., 824 F. Supp. 410, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Am., 745 F. Supp. 908, 917-18 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), aff’d, 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091 (1992)(contact that was “knowing, purposeful and not fleeting” was enough to constitute “knowing association”).
The EDP and EPC incorporate certain exceptions to the definition of “knowing association” which are contained in a Consent Decree entered in the case of United States v. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of The United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., No. 90 Civ. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 364443 at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“the Carpenters’ Consent Decree”). Those exceptions would permit a LIUNA officer to:
1)Meet or communicate with a “barred person” who is an employer to discuss the negotiation, execution or management of a collective bargaining agreement, or a labor dispute, when the officer represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership the employees of that employer.
2)Meet or communicate with a “barred person” who is a representative of a labor organization to discuss union matters.
3)Meet or communicate with an officer, employee or member of LIUNA and its constituent locals.
See id.
The Carpenters’ Consent Decree also permits a “member” who holds no elected, appointed, or salaried position in the union or any constituent local, to meet or communicate with “barred persons regarding matters unrelated to the union or any constituent local.”[1] Id. at 4.
“A ‘barred person’ is (1) any member or associate of any La Cosa Nostra crime family or any other criminal group, or (2) any person prohibited from participating in Union affairs.” EDP, Appendix B.
Obstruction of the GEB Attorney and Inspector General
The LIUNA Appellate Officer has determined that in “obstruction” cases involving false testimony during depositions, the GEB Attorney must show that the testimony was material and would have impeded the Inspector General’s (“IG”) investigation by being misleading and intentionally deceptive. See In Re Martire, 1997 A.O. 81 (97-008D). In order for a statement to be considered material, “the statement must have a ‘natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision making body to which it was addressed’.” United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995) (citing Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)).
Title 29 U.S.C. § 501(a)
The GEB Attorney also cites the following statutory provision in support of his claims:
The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization. A general exculpatory provision in the constitution and bylaws of such a labor organization or a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any such person of liability for breach of the duties declared by this section shall be void as against public policy.
29 U.S.C. § 501(a)(1959).
The IHO has determined that section 501(a) was intended to prevent misuse of union funds and to forbid union officials from receiving payments from third parties or making a private profit from union contracts. Thus, the statute pertains only to financial transactions. See In the Matter of Baker, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-55D at 13 (July 21, 1998). See also Guarnaccia v. Kenin, 234 F. Supp. 429, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), aff’d sub nom. Gurton v. Arons, 339 F.2d 371 (2d Cir. 1964) (ruling 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) not a catch-all for breaches of fiduciary duty).
The Uniform Local Union Constitution
Article III, Section 3(d) of the LIUNA Uniform Local Union Constitution requires that all members refrain from “interfering with the proper conduct of all the business of the Organization.” Uniform Local Union Constitution, Article III, Section 3(d).
In Baker, the IHO determined that, in order to establish a violation of Article III, Section 3(d) of the Constitution, the GEB Attorney must show that the charged member committed a deliberate affirmative act which would constitute interference with the proper conduct of union business. Baker, IHO 97-55D at 11. Mere nonfeasance on the part of the member is insufficient.
Knowing Association with a Member of the New England LCN
Charge I alleges:
Barred Conduct - Knowing Association with LCN Member: From in or about 1981 until in or about 1987, ARTHUR A. COIA knowingly associated with a member of the Patriarca Family, Raymond Patriarca, Jr., in violation of the barred conduct provisions of the LIUNA EDP and EPC.
Charge II alleges:[2]
Barred Conduct - Permitting LCN Influence: In or about 1987, ARTHUR A. COIA knowingly permitted a member of the Patriarca Family, namely Raymond Patriarca, Jr., to exercise control or influence over the conduct of Union affairs, to wit: at the behest of Raymond Patriarca, Jr., Coia assisted Nino Cucinotta in joining Local 271 and in receiving job referrals, in violation of the barred conduct provisions of the LIUNA EDP and EPC.
Charge III alleges:
Breaching Constitutional Duties of LIUNA Members and Officers: In knowingly associating with an LCN member and/or permitting him to influence Union affairs, as alleged more specifically above in Charges I and II, ARTHUR A. COIA failed to honor his obligation as a LIUNA member to refrain from interfering with the proper conduct of LIUNA business, and breached his duty as an Executive Board member of Local 271 to see to it that the affairs and business of his Local Union were properly conducted, in violation of Article III, Section 3(d) and Article IV, Section 4(H)(9) of the Uniform Local Union Constitution.
Chronology
The following chronology[3] is relevant to understanding the context of the above charges:
·In the late 1950s, at the age of 13, Thomas Hillary (“Hillary”) met Raymond Patriarca, Jr. (“Patriarca, Jr.”) in Providence, Rhode Island. Patriarca, Jr. is the son of Raymond Patriarca, Sr. (“Patriarca, Sr.”), an LCN member.
·Hillary dropped out of school at age sixteen in order to spend his time at the Patriarca family headquarters known as “the Office.”
·Patriarca, Jr. married in the mid-1960s and Patriarca, Sr. moved out of the Patriarca family home. Thereafter, Hillary and Patriarca, Sr. lived together in a one bedroom apartment.
·Patriarca, Sr. went to prison in 1969 and remained there until 1973.
·In the early 1970s, Hillary rendered some minor assistance to a political campaign in which Albert Lepore, Jr. (“Lepore, Jr.”) was a candidate for Rhode Island State Representative. Lepore, Jr. was Coia’s law partner.
·In 1974, Hillary moved to Las Vegas, Nevada where he remained until 1980.
·Hillary moved to Boston, Massachusetts in 1980.
·In 1981, Coia and his father, Arthur E. Coia (“Coia, Sr.”), were indicted, along with Lepore, Jr. and Patriarca, Sr. in Miami, Florida.
·In 1982, Patriarca, Sr.’s case was severed from the Florida prosecution and was transferred to the District of Rhode Island due to his illness.
·Antonino “Nino” Cucinotta (“Cucinotta”) became Patriarca, Jr.’s driver in 1981 and continued in that role until approximately 1986.
·Between 1981 and 1984, Patriarca, Jr., on behalf of his father, visited Coia’s law office, Coia & Lepore, to meet with defense attorneys working on the case in Florida.
·Sometime between 1981 and 1984, Coia and Patriarca, Jr. attempted to breed one of Coia’s champion male Rottweilers with one of Patriarca, Jr.’s champion female Rottweilers at Coia’s kennel, Southwind Farms, in Rehoboth, Massachusetts.
·Patriarca, Sr. died in 1984.
·The case in Florida was dismissed against Coia and the other defendants in December of 1984.
·Hillary moved to Palm Springs, California in 1985.
·Hillary returned to Boston in 1988.
Introduction
Charges I and III are based upon the following three alleged incidents:
· Patriarca, Jr. visited Coia’s law firm, Coia & Lepore, between July of 1984 and April of 1986.
· Coia allegedly represented Patriaria, Jr. in a legal matter.
· In 1982 or 1983, Patriarca, Jr. attempted to breed his champion female Rottweiler with Coia’s champion male Rottweiler at Coia’s kennel, Southwind Farms.
The GEB Attorney alleges that Coia knowingly associated with Patriarca, Jr., a member of the LCN, from 1981 through 1987, in violation of the EPC, EDP, and the LIUNA International Union Constitution (“International Constitution”).
In addition, the GEB Attorney alleges certain other incidents which occurred outside of this 1981 to 1987 time period. These incidents are:
·In the early 1970s, Coia participated in his law partner’s campaign for a seat in the Rhode Island State Legislature and, during this campaign, an LCN member assisted with one of the campaign’s advertising projects.
·In the late 1980s, Coia and Patriarca, Jr. allegedly had a brief conversation on a construction site in Rhode Island.
·In 1990, Coia allegedly had a conversation with Hillary regarding a young man who was engaged to Coia’s daughter.
In his opening statement on April 14, 1998, the GEB Attorney asserted that the core of the evidence on Charges I through III would come from the testimony of Cucinotta, but that the context of the charges -- the “relationship” between the Patriarca family and the Coia family -- would come from Hillary. Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) 11. The GEB Attorney further asserted that, “[A]t every point of tangency between Tommy Hillary and Nino Cucinotta, Mr. Hillary [would] confirm Mr. Cucinotta in every significant respect.” Tr. 15.
As demonstrated below, Hillary failed to corroborate Cucinotta on any material point. In his post-hearing briefs, the GEB Attorney informed the IHO that Cucinotta was not credible on some points. GEB Attorney Response Brief (“GEB Resp. Br.”) at 2. He specifically abandoned his reliance on Cucinotta and conceded that “Cucinotta’s testimony should be credited only in certain respects,” but not all respects as originally intended. See id. (emphasis added). The GEB Attorney failed to identify what those “certain respects” were other than to say that Cucinotta’s description of the inside of Coia & Lepore was extremely detailed. Id. at 5. The GEB Attorney also dropped Charge II, which was based on Cucinotta’s testimony. GEB Br. at 52 n.2. The evidentiary effect of these concessions will be discussed infra at ¶¶ 63-4.
Findings of Fact
The Hillary Allegations
History/Background
1. Coia has been a member of LIUNA since 1957. General Executive Board Attorney Exhibit (“GEB Ex.”) 200, Tab B at 7. During the time period of 1981 through 1987, Coia served as LIUNA’s Assistant Regional Manager for the New England Region, the Business Manager for the Rhode Island Laborers’ District Council, and the Vice President of Local 271. GEB Ex. 200, Tab B at 7-8, Tab E at 31-32. He and Lepore, Jr. were also partners during this same time period in the law firm of Coia & Lepore located in Providence, Rhode Island. Tr. 4804.
2. Hillary became friends with Patriarca, Jr. in the late 1950s, when they were both 13 years old. Tr. 394-95.
3. Hillary also knew Patriarca, Sr. very well and regularly visited the Patriarca home. Tr. 397-98. Patriarca, Sr. grew to like Hillary and confided in him. Tr. at 397.
4. Hillary quit school in the early 1960s when he was 16 years old and moved into the Patriarca home in Providence. Tr. 397. Patriarca, Sr. told Hillary that he was having trouble with “the Feds” and asked him to take care of his wife who was dying of cancer. Tr. 399-400. Hillary took care of Mrs. Patriarca every day until she died in the mid-1960s. Tr. 400. He went to her funeral in the Patriarca family car. Tr. 401. In the mid 1960s, Hillary was the best man for Patriarca, Jr. at his wedding. Tr. 401. When Patriarca, Jr. married, his father moved out of the family home and turned it over to Patriarca, Jr. and his new wife. Tr. 401-02. Hillary and Patriarca, Sr. then moved into a one bedroom apartment, where they lived together for about a year. Tr. 402-03.
5. Hillary, who is currently in the Federal Witness Protection Program, testified herein on April 15 and 16, 1998. Tr. 382-825. The GEB Attorney asserted in his opening statement that Hillary was called as a witness for two purposes: to establish the “context” of the Patriarca-Coia connection and to corroborate Cucinotta’s testimony. Tr. 11-15.
6. Patriarca, Sr. was the Boss, or the head, of the New England LCN family[4] and conducted his illicit mob operations from the premises of his family business, Coin-o-matic Distributers, National Cigarette Service (“Coin-o-matic”) located on Atwells Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island. Tr. 404. The family referred to the Coin-o-matic location as “the Office.” Id. Hillary and Patriarca, Jr. frequented “the Office” whenever they were not in school. Tr. 397.
7. Hillary was at “the Office” every day from the early 1960s until Patriarca, Sr. went to jail in 1969. Tr. 404-05.
8. Hillary testified that Patriarca, Sr. and Coia, Sr. were good friends, and he saw Coia, Sr. at “the Office” on a regular basis. Tr. 411-12.
9. The GEB Attorney portrayed Hillary as a person with knowledge of the inner workings of the Patriarca family, its members, and associates. He characterized Hillary as a “surrogate son to Raymond Patriarca, Sr. and . . .very well the son that Raymond Patriarca, Sr., wished he had had.” Tr. 12.
10. Hillary’s testimony was offered to show Coia’s purported connection with Patriarca, Jr. and he testified to three events which, according to the GEB Attorney, demonstrated this illicit association. Those events are set out below.
Coia’s Association with Hillary During Lepore, Jr.’s Campaign
11. Hillary testified that, in the early 1970s, Lepore, Jr., Coia’s law partner, ran for a seat in the Rhode Island State Legislature. Tr. 441, 657, 717-31.
12. Lepore, Jr. had participated in Rhode Island politics for a number of years prior to this campaign. Tr. 3736-37.
13. Hillary testified that his contribution to the campaign consisted of renting a trolley and driving it around Providence as a means to promote Lepore, Jr.’s candidacy. Tr. 451-53, 724, 729.
14. Hillary stated that he saw Coia “around” during the campaign but no testimony was offered as to what activity Coia performed during the campaign. Tr. 453.
15. The GEB Attorney concedes in his responsive brief that there was “nothing sinister” about Hillary’s supposed contact with Coia during Lepore’s political campaign. See GEB Resp. Br. at 3.
16. The conclusion one is to draw from these facts is unclear. It appears the GEB Attorney is alleging some connection between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. due to the fact that Hillary had some minor participation in the same political campaign as Coia. Aside from this vague suggested connection, Hillary’s testimony on this matter was sharply contradicted on all major points, including the year of the campaign and who the candidate was. Tr. 730-31. There was no evidence that Coia and Hillary actually met or spoke during the campaign.
17. The fact that Coia and Hillary may have had some unspecified contact during a political campaign in the early 1970s carries little, if any, weight in the factual determination of this matter.
The Kendall Estates Incident
18. In 1988, Hillary returned to New England after a three year absence. Tr. 465-66.
19. Hillary testified that, sometime in the late 1980s, he was with Patriarca, Jr. at Kendall Estates which was a housing development Patriarca, Jr. was building outside of Providence, Rhode Island. Tr. 468-70, 656, 697.
20. While at Kendall Estates, Hillary testified that he saw a car operated by Coia drive onto the site and that Patriarca, Jr. allegedly approached the vehicle and spoke briefly to Coia, before the car drove away. Tr. 698-701.
21. At the time in question, Hillary had not seen Coia in approximately fifteen years and could not explain how he identified him as the driver. Tr. 701, 708-09. The record further reflects that Hillary:
·was unable to provide any distinguishing characteristics about the driver;
·heard none of the conversation involved;
·did not discuss the matter with Patriarca, Jr. after the car departed;
·could not remember whether anyone else was in the car at the time; and
·could not remember what kind of car it was.
Tr. 699-700; 708-09.
22. Hillary stated that this incident at Kendall Estates was the only time he saw Coia with Patriarca, Jr. Tr. 656.
23. Hillary’s testimony concerning the Kendall Estates incident carries little, if any, weight in the factual determination of this matter.
The Union House Incident
24. During the late 1980s, Philip Ottavianni, Jr. (“Ottavianni, Jr.”) was a LIUNA International Representative and his family owned the Union House Restaurant located in the same building as the Massachusetts District Council. Tr. 473, 736. Ottavianni, Jr. was also engaged to marry Coia’s daughter. Tr. 732-33.
25. Hillary testified that, during an evening in 1989 or 1990, he was in the bar of the Union House when he encountered Coia, whom he had not seen in approximately fifteen years.[5] Tr. 476-77. Ottavianni, Jr. was also present in another area of the bar. Tr. 476.
26. Hillary told Coia that he had “taken over” the Framingham area and Coia’s response was “good.” Tr. 478.
27. Coia allegedly asked Hillary about the reputation of Ottavianni, Jr. and was told that the young man was financially indebted to many people and that he was involved in gambling and drug usage. Tr. 478-79.
28. The entire conversation between Hillary and Coia in the bar at the Union House lasted only a few minutes. Tr. 478-79.
29. From this short conversation between Hillary and Coia, the GEB Attorney argues that 1) Coia had knowledge of Hillary’s mob connections and 2) Coia had sought the advice of a mob figure. The GEB Attorney further asserts that Hillary’s testimony shows that Coia was “part of an overall network of quid pro quos, of favors, of back-scratching” between Coia and the LCN. Tr. 15-16.
30. Even if this event took place, the conversation between Hillary and Coia is hardly indicative of an LCN-related encounter in which favors were exchanged.
31. Hillary’s comment that he had “taken over” the Framingham area, and Coia’s alleged response of “good,” is meaningless in this context. There is no evidence to give it a sinister connotation.
32. The IHO does not find Hillary’s testimony concerning this incident to be indicative of any relationship between Coia and the LCN, nor does such testimony establish any association between Coia and any organized crime associate or element.
Coia’s Meetings With Patriarca, Jr. at the Offices of Coia & Lepore
Meetings during the Time Period from 1981 through 1984
33. In September of 1981, Coia was indicted along with his father, Lepore Jr., and Patriarca, Sr. in United States v. Coia, No. 81-417-CR-JLK (S.D. Fla.) (the “Hauser case”).[6] See Respondent’s Exhibit (“R. Ex.”) 32.
34. Coia and Lepore, Jr. were indicted for allegedly accepting a $30,000 legal fee from a Florida insurance company as a ruse to transfer a bribe from that company to Coia, Sr. who, at the time, was LIUNA’s General-Secretary Treasurer. Tr. 4809.
35. Due to his illness, Patriarca, Sr.’s case was severed and was transferred to the District of Rhode Island in February or March of 1982. See R. Ex. 32, 32A.
36. Attorneys for the defendants in the Hauser case held joint defense meetings at the law offices of Coia & Lepore. Tr. 3752, 3994-95, 4550. Patriarca, Jr. attended these meetings on behalf of his father who was ill and unable to attend. Tr. 4815. Coia met Patriarca, Jr. for the first time at these meetings. Tr. 4813.
37. The Hauser case was dismissed in December of 1984 on a Rule 29 motion at the end of the government’s case. R. Ex. 124 at 2716-17.
38. The GEB Attorney concedes that Coia, as a defendant in a criminal matter, could properly associate with Patriarca, Jr. for the purposes of the joint defense meetings held at Coia & Lepore. See GEB Br. at 58.
39. The IHO finds that Coia’s meetings with Patriarca, Jr. at Coia & Lepore for purposes of the joint defense were not an association amounting to “barred conduct.”
Meetings Between 1984 and 1987
40. The GEB Attorney further argues that Coia and Patriarca, Jr. continued to meet after the Hauser case was resolved and that, during this time period, Coia performed legal work for Patriarca, Jr. GEB Br. at 57. These alleged meetings, he contends, were “barred conduct.”
41. The GEB Attorney attempted to prove that these alleged meetings occurred through Cucinotta=s testimony. Tr. 19.
42. Cucinotta, who is currently incarcerated and in the Federal Witness Protection Program, testified herein on April 16 and 17, 1998. Tr. 839-1059.
43. Cucinotta testified that he was Patriarca, Jr.’s driver for approximately five years and that he drove Patriarca, Jr. to the offices of Coia & Lepore two to four times a week for a period of two years from July of 1984, after Patriarca, Sr. died, until April of 1986. Tr. 875-76 (testifying that he drove for Patriarca, Jr.), Tr. 884-86 (testifying that he drove Patriarca, Jr. to Coia & Lepore), Tr. 963-65 (indicating dates he drove Patriarca, Jr. to Coia & Lepore). See also R. Ex. 49. Cucinotta stated that he waited for Patriarca, Jr. inside the law offices and, while waiting, he spoke briefly to the secretaries and often fell asleep in a chair near where the secretaries were working. Tr. 885-86, 965.
44. Cucinotta was born on January 1, 1942, in Sicily. Tr. 839-40. He has a fifth grade education and began work as a butcher when he was eight years old. Tr. 840-01. In 1961, when he was 19 years of age, he came to the United States and continued to work as a butcher. Tr. 841.
45. Cucinotta met the Patriarcas for the first time in 1975. Tr. 846-47. He knew the Patriarcas were mobsters, but began spending time at the Coin-o-matic in order to make money. Tr. 846-49. He sold sandwiches, coffee, and sodas at the Bradford Club, located above the Coin-o-matic, and Patriarca, Jr. gave him a cut of the money that was collected from card games played there. Tr. 848-49.
46. In 1994, Special Agent William Shay of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) reported to the local police that “Cucinotta was brought over from Italy years ago to do a hit for [the] Patriarca [family], and after the hit he became a made man and [Patriarca’s, Jr.’s] driver.” R. Ex. 45 at 2. This same story was told by Shay to Luigi Reali (“Reali”), a former Rhode Island State Trooper, who testified herein. Tr. 4278.
47. During the more subdued portions of Cucinotta’s testimony, he attempted to portray himself as a reluctant mob member and a gentleman gangster who ended up in the LCN by accident. When asked if he spoke to a certain secretary at Coia & Lepore, he said, “I just show all kind of respect to any lady.” Tr. 966.
48. Cucinotta related an incident that took place in either 1975 or 1976, in which Patriarca, Jr. told him to go to a restaurant and tell a man named Johnny Carr (“Carr”) that Jackie Sisilini (“Sisilini”) wanted to see him in his office. Tr. 849-50. Cucinotta delivered this message and Carr was killed when he went to the location. Later, when discussing Carr’s murder, Cucinotta was told “another guy went to California” (had been murdered) by Sisilini, Billy “Blackjack” DelSanto, and Frankie “Bo Bo” Maurapisi. Tr. 853-56. Cucinotta claimed that he had no idea Carr was being set up for the hit when he delivered the message. Tr. 857. The IHO finds this statement not credible.
49. Cucinotta stated that, after this incident, he felt afraid and he came to realize that he was getting involved in the mob. Tr. 857-58. The IHO finds this statement not credible as well.
50. Cucinotta was inducted into the LCN during a formal ceremony in October of 1977. Tr. 861-66. He testified, however, that he was unaware the ceremony would take place; he was simply called to a meeting and, once there, found out that he was to be inducted. See id. The IHO does not find credible Cucinotta’s testimony that he was inducted into the LCN by surprise.
51. In 1988, Cucinotta sustained a head injury which apparently caused the onslaught of certain psychiatric problems which remain to this day. Tr. 920-21 (describing head injury). In fact, he stated at the hearing herein that his “head [was] not right” and that it had not been right since 1988. Tr. 993-1000.
52. Cucinotta admitted he has a history of psychiatric problems consisting of depression, feelings of hopelessness, suicidal tendencies, anxiety attacks, persistent headaches, and difficulty with concentration. Tr. 993-1000; R. Ex. 48. These conditions are corroborated by medical records from the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Board. Id.
53. Cucinotta began suffering from depression in 1989 and once admitted to a doctor that he felt like going to the highest bridge and jumping. Tr. 993-1000. He has contemplated suicide and often breaks down and cries. (He broke down at least twice on the witness stand in this case). See Id. Cucinotta testified that he sometimes became so confused while driving his car that he was unable to find his way home. Tr. 996. When this happened, he would park the car “and just stay there and break down and cry.” Id.
54. When questioning Cucinotta about his criminal history, the GEB Attorney asked him if he had committed a double murder on April 1, 1994. Tr. 922.
55. Cucinotta described the night he committed the double murders of Ronald Capola (“Capola”) and Peter Scarpallini (“Scarpallini”) in shocking detail. His narrative reminded one of an actor performing the Stanislavsky method of using mental recall of past experience to portray the present. The drama with which he related the story of the night he murdered the two men was chilling. He had clearly removed himself from reality and then recounted the murders as though they had happened only moments before. As he stood in the witness box, the story flowed from him with mixed emotions of intense anger, sadness, regret, bitterness, and defeat and, once he began to speak, he was not to be stopped until his confession was complete. Tr. 923-37.
56. Cucinotta’s testimony about the murders is summarized as follows: On April 1, 1994, he was at the St. Mary’s social club in Johnston, Rhode Island with his close friend Nicky Leonardo, whom he referred to as “Nicole.” Tr. 925. Capola, whom Cucinotta referred to as a long time “close friend,” was also at the club. Tr. 926. Cucinotta testified that he was getting a beer from behind the bar when he was interrupted by Scarpallini who told him that Capola no longer wanted him in the club. Tr. 929. This infuriated Cucinotta. He left the club, retrieved a handgun, then returned and shot Capola and Scarpallini to death. Tr. 929-37.
57. On May 2, 1995, Cucinotta pled guilty to second degree murder for the Capola and Scarpallini killings. R. Ex. 46-47. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 120 years in prison. Id.
58. After Cucinotta finished his testimony concerning the murders, the IHO put the following statement on the record:
[D]uring the last 10 minutes of this testimony, [Cucinotta] was standing and it is my impression that he was very emotional, his voice broke a number of times. He did not sit and was extraordinarily agitated, and I think the record ought to reflect that the testimony was not in a peaceful manner. He stood up and was extremely agitated, gestured a lot and hammered the table and broke down several times.
Tr. 943-44.
59. In December of 1994, as part of a plea agreement, Cucinotta was scheduled to testify at the sentencing hearing in a federal criminal case involving Patriarca, Jr. Prior to that hearing in October of 1994, the trial Judge examined him for two days in camera and the transcripts of that examination remain under seal. R. Ex. 36. In a published opinion, however, United States District Court Judge Wolf stated that, “Cucinotta, while competent for the purpose of deciding whether to cooperate with the government, was emotionally very fragile and plainly vulnerable to being effectively impeached.” United States v. Patriarca, 912 F. Supp. 596, 630 (D. Mass. 1995). See R. Ex. 37. Cucinotta did not testify at the sentencing hearing.
60. When questioned about a cooperation agreement into which he had entered with the government in the Patriarca, Jr. matter and his concomitant motions for sentence reduction, Cucinotta denied having any knowledge of them. Tr. 1003-04, 1017-18; R. Ex. 39, 41, 42. He tried to explain that “I got the fifth grade [education]. . . . I know how to just read and write in Italian. . . . I don’t know how to read and write in English.” Tr. 1004. When pressed further about the existence of his 1995 motion for sentence reduction, he stated, “They didn’t make no deal with me. . . I don’t know. I don’t know if yes, if not, I don’t know.” Tr. 1018.
61. In his responsive brief, the GEB Attorney candidly concedes that Cucinotta’s evidence does not establish the “frequency of meetings” between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. GEB Resp. Br. at 2 n.1. This concession should be considered with the GEB Attorney’s dismissal of Charge II. Cucinotta’s testimony was to be the evidence to support that charge also. Cucinotta’s bizarre performance on the witness stand and his severe psychiatric problems, in combination with the GEB Attorney’s concession and his dismissal of Charge II, leads to the conclusion that, as a witness, Cucinotta is not credible.
62. Cucinotta’s testimony was contradicted by additional credible evidence, including:
·The FBI surveillance files of Patriarca, Jr. at Coia & Lepore;
·The testimony of former Rhode Island State Trooper Reali;
·The testimony of certain former secretaries at Coia & Lepore;
·The testimony of Armand Sabitoni (“Sabitoni”); and
·The IHO’s site visit to the offices of Coia & Lepore.
These will be discussed seriatim.
The FBI Surveillance Files
63. On April 16, 1998, counsel for Coia received a letter from Assistant United States Attorney Craig Oswald regarding a review of the FBI surveillance files of Patriarca, Jr. GEB Ex. 7.
64. The FBI surveillance files produced by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) reveal that Patriarca, Jr. was seen at the offices of Coia & Lepore on only four occasions: March 3, 1982, June 2, 1982, June 7, 1982, and June 9, 1982.[7] R. Ex. 33.
Luigi Reali
65. Reali has been the Director of Security for LIUNA since July 1, 1995. Tr. 4208-09. Although he often works as Coia’s bodyguard, his testimony was independently corroborated by at least six other witnesses, as well as other credible evidence. The IHO finds Reali’s testimony to be credible.
66. Reali was a member of the Rhode Island State Police for 18 years, from 1971 through 1989, and was a member of the department’s organized crime intelligence unit, from 1983 until his retirement in 1989. Tr. 4209-11.
67. From January of 1985 through May of 1985, Reali was the head of a squad detailed to surveil Patriarca, Jr.’s movements 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Tr. 4213. This surveillance was later scaled back to the daylight hours from May of 1985 though September of 1985. Tr. 4215-16.
68. Reali testified that neither he nor his squad ever saw Patriarca, Jr. at the law firm of Coia & Lepore during this surveillance and never saw Patriarca, Jr. meet with Coia. Tr. 4215.
69. In January of 1986, a task force created among the Rhode Island State Police, the FBI, and the Providence Police placed a listening device, “a bug”, in Patriarca, Jr.’s car. Tr. 4219. The bug was placed in the vehicle in January of 1986 and it required continuing surveillance of Patriarca, Jr.’s car. Tr. 4220-21.
70. Reali stated that the Rhode Island State Police worked closely with the FBI on a daily basis from September of 1985 through 1986 and that he was unaware of any sightings of Patriarca, Jr. visiting Coia & Lepore or any contact between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. during this time. Tr. 4224-25, 4285-86.
71. In response to a court order, the legal counsel to the Rhode Island State Police sent Coia a letter which stated,
. . . please be advised that the Rhode Island State Police files specifically relating to Arthur A. Coia, Arthur E. Coia, Raymond Patriarca, Jr. or the Laborers International Union of North America covering the period 1984 to 1986 do not contain any documents that would tend to indicate that Patriarca, Jr. visited several times per week for many weeks with Arthur A. Coia or at the Arthur E. Coia building at 226 South Main Street, Providence, Rhode Island.
R. Ex. 363.
72. Affidavits were submitted herein by Richard Tamburini, the head of the Providence Police Department’s Organized Crime Division from 1981 to 1988 and the current Chief of Police in Johnston, Rhode Island and John Scuncio, a former member of the Rhode Island State Police Intelligence Unit and currently the Chief of Police in Hopkington, Rhode Island. R. Ex. 364, 365. The affidavits indicate that they have no knowledge of any association between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. or that any regular meetings between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. took place at Coia & Lepore or elsewhere from 1984 through 1986. See Id. The IHO credits these affidavits.
The Former Secretaries of Coia & Lepore
73. Nancy R. Hermiz (“Hermiz”), Lisa Aceto (“Aceto”), Linda Moretti (“Moretti), Anna Menna (“Menna”), and Ramona Santos (“Santos”) testified herein on June 10-11, 1998, in Providence, Rhode Island.
74. They were employed by Coia & Lepore in the following capacities:
|
Hermiz |
Full-time Secretary |
June 1975 –April 1986 |
|
Aceto |
Full-time Secretary |
April 1981–1983 |
|
Moretti |
Full-time Secretary |
1977-1986 |
|
Menna |
Full-time Secretary |
1981-June 1986 |
|
Santos |
Receptionist then Full-time Secretary |
September 1983 -March 1998 |
Tr. 4091, 4115-16, 4151, 4184, 4207.
75. Menna, Hermiz, Aceto, and Moretti all remembered the Hauser case and recalled that the defense attorneys visited Coia & Lepore to prepare for the trial. Tr. 4115-16 (Aceto recollecting Hauser case); Tr. 4091 (Hermiz recollecting Hauser case); Tr. 4151 (Moretti recollecting Hauser case); Tr. 4184 (Menna recollecting Hauser case).
76. Hermiz saw Patriarca, Jr. at Coia & Lepore two or three times prior to, but never after, August of 1984. Tr. 4093.
77. Moretti testified that she may have seen Patriarca, Jr. at Coia & Lepore six or seven times prior to, but not after, August of 1984. Tr. 4152-53.
78. Menna stated that Patriarca, Jr. visited Coia & Lepore five or six times prior to, but not after, August of 1984. Tr. 4186-87.
79. Aceto, Moretti, and Menna recalled that Patriarca, Jr. was always accompanied to Coia & Lepore by Cucinotta. Tr. 4126 (Aceto testifying to Cucinotta’s presence with Patriarca, Jr.), 4154 (Moretti testifying to Cucinotta’s presence with Patriarca, Jr.), 4188 (Menna testifying to Cucinotta’s presence with Patriarca, Jr.).
80. Santos was a receptionist from September of 1983 until March of 1984 when she became a full-time secretary. Tr. 4204-05. After March of 1984, her desk was located in the common area of the office space. She testified that she never saw Patriarca, Jr. at Coia & Lepore and that she would have noticed him at the office had he visited. Tr. 4206-07. See R. Ex. 359 (map of office).
81. Although all five women are former employees of Coia, they corroborated one another, and their testimony is consistent with other credible evidence herein. As such, the IHO finds them to be credible witnesses.
Armand Sabitoni
82. Sabitoni, International Vice President and New England Regional Manager, testified herein on June 2-3, 1998, in Washington, D.C. Tr. 3727-4049.
83. Sabitoni was an associate attorney at Coia & Lepore in the early 1980s and became a partner in August of 1986. Tr. 3731.
84. Sabitoni testified that he recalled the Hauser case and the joint defense meetings that were held at Coia & Lepore. Tr. 3750 (recollecting Hauser case); Tr. 3752 (recollecting defense meetings). He was present at the firm during one of these meetings and learned from the secretaries that there had been others. Tr. 3752-55.
85. During the 1980s, Sabitoni spoke with Coia several times a day since their offices were only about 30 feet apart, and he would have known if Patriarca, Jr. had been a regular visitor to the firm. Tr. 3762-70, 3816-18. Sabitoni stated that between August of 1984 and April of 1986, Patriarca, Jr. did not visit Coia & Lepore. Tr. 3769.
86. Although Sabitoni now works closely with Coia as an International Vice President, and has had a personal friendship with him for many years, his testimony is corroborated by Reali, the five former secretaries of Coia & Lepore, and the FBI surveillance files. The IHO finds his testimony to be credible.
The IHO’s Site Visit to Coia & Lepore
87. On June 10, 1998, the IHO and all counsel made a site visit to the law firm of Coia & Lepore. Tr. 4173-78. The firm’s office suite consists of a reception area and a separate office enclave in which the individual attorney’s offices open onto a central area containing the secretaries’s cubicles. These cubicles are approximately four feet high and a secretary seated behind one could easily see the entire office space.
88. If Cucinotta sat in the inner office area which he described, he would have been plainly visible to everyone in the office. The room is such that any person passing through would be seen by all of the secretaries. Sabitoni stated during the site visit that the center office space was “wide open” in the early 1980s because only four secretaries cubicles were there at the time, rather than the six currently there. Tr. 4172-73. Sabitoni also stated that the area was not as congested then as it was during the IHO’s site visit. Tr. 4174.
89. Based upon the site visit, the IHO finds that Patriarca, Jr. could not have visited Coia & Lepore on a regular basis without the secretaries and other attorneys in the office being aware of it. As such, their testimony is inconsistent with Cucinotta regarding the frequency of meetings both prior to and after 1984.
90. The IHO places no weight on Cucinotta’s testimony and credits the testimony of the office personnel and the other sources of information.
Legal Work Performed by Coia & Lepore for Patriarca, Jr.
91. The GEB Attorney alleges that Coia performed legal work for Patriarca, Jr. and, indeed, it appears that Coia & Lepore incorporated one of Patriarca, Jr.’s companies. Tr. 4855-58; GEB Ex. 213. When asked about this work, James Lepore, another attorney in the firm, stated that the matter comprised only five or six hours of billable time. GEB Ex. 213; R. Ex. 389. The invoice sent to Patriarca, Jr. for this work was in the amount of $711.85 and it reflected that the services and costs involved were: the incorporation of a business, filing fees, a corporate kit, and the preparation of the annual report and minutes. GEB Ex. 213, R. Ex. 389.
92. Coia testified that he never worked on the file and that he only learned of its existence when he was preparing for one of his depositions in this case. Tr. 4855-56.
93. The IHO does not find the evidence of any legal work performed by the law firm probative as to a “business relationship” between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. or to Coia’s alleged relationship with the LCN.
Coia’s Association with Patriarca, Jr. and the Rottweiler Breeding
94. From the early 1980s until either 1990 or 1991, Coia and his wife owned a dog breeding kennel known as Southwind Farms. R. Ex. 369. This facility had been recognized by the American Kennel Association and was renowned for producing champion Rottweilers. Tr. 4823, 4827. See R. Ex. 369-377A-C.
95. Coia testified that during the preparation of the joint defense in the Hauser case, Patriarca, Jr. saw pictures of Coia’s champion Rottweilers in his office at Coia & Lepore. Tr. 4850. Patriarca, Jr. was also a Rottweiler enthusiast and he sent one of his own dogs to be bred at Southwind Farms in 1982 or 1983. Tr. 4852-53. Coia’s wife and a dog handler conducted the breeding, which was unsuccessful. Tr. 4854. There is no indication that Coia had any contact with Patriarca, Jr. during the course of the breeding.
Patriarca, Jr.’s FBI 302 Statement
96. An FBI report (commonly known as an “FBI 302”) of an interview, given by Patriarca, Jr. to the FBI on August 8, 1996, (the “Patriarca 302”), was offered into evidence during the hearing. R. Ex. 49A. The Patriarca 302 was made available to Coia by the DOJ.
97. The Patriarca 302 contains the following language:
. . . [although] Coia, Sr. and [Patriarca, Jr.’s] father had a long term business relationship, he never had such a relationship with Arthur A. Coia. Patriarca added that >no one who reports to him [Patriarca, Jr.] has any such relationship to Arthur A. Coia=, and added that >Arthur [A. Coia] does not have the balls to be a gangster.
R. Ex. 49A.
Discussion
A complicating factor in determining Charges I and III is the relationship between Coia, Sr. and Patriarca, Sr. It is a factual element which confuses the analysis of the charges. In this proceeding and others heard by the IHO, there was testimony that Coia, Sr. had a relationship with Patriarca, Sr. as well as other LCN members across the country.[8] Some allegations are credible, others are patently incorrect. Coia, Sr. died in March of 1993, and no issue regarding his activities has been presented to the IHO for a determination. Nevertheless, allegations of certain acts or relationships of Coia, Sr., correct or incorrect, are necessarily present in the chronology of this and other cases.
The problem for the fact finder with the background presence of Coia, Sr. is that events are often described with him being the actor, with an inference that his son, who was also in the union hierarchy at the time, shared responsibility or knowledge of them. Indeed, the GEB Attorney often makes the statement that Coia was “the son of a legendary Rhode Island labor leader within LIUNA and himself an heir apparent for high office within LIUNA.” GEB Br. at 58-59. See GEB Resp. Br. at 6. Another example of this appears in the testimony of Hillary and Cucinotta, both of whom stated that persons were sent to Local 271 by the Patriarcas to obtain jobs and that, allegedly, Coia, Sr. made the arrangements. No witness, however, implicated Respondent Coia in obtaining jobs for them at Local 271 and, indeed, the GEB Attorney abandoned this allegation. In reading the transcript, however, the questioning by the GEB Attorney of certain witnesses implied that Respondent Coia was deeply involved in arranging jobs for Patriarca family members and associates merely by invoking the name Coia, Sr.
The GEB Attorney’s position on Patriarca, Jr.’s visits to Coia & Lepore should be viewed in a historical spectrum. At the outset, the GEB Attorney contended in his opening statement that Coia met regularly with Patriarca, Jr. from 1984 through 1987 at Coia & Lepore. These meetings were to be proven by Cucinotta and then corroborated by Hillary although Hillary had no firsthand knowledge of these matters. The GEB Attorney said that the core of the evidence would be from Cucinotta and Hillary would confirm Cucinotta in every significant respect. Tr. 11, 15.
Both parties agree there were visits to Coia & Lepore by Patriarca, Jr. during the pendency of the Hauser case. The problem arose that Cucinotta, perhaps out of simple mistake, perhaps out of his desire to testify somewhere in order to obtain a sentencing reduction, or perhaps a combination of both, testified that the visits continued for far beyond the period of time that any other witness recalled. As determined above, this testimony runs contrary to the surveillance evidence, witness testimony, and common sense.
Moreover, Cucinotta’s bizarre performance on the witness stand, and his impeachment during cross examination, caused the GEB Attorney to distance himself from him. In fact, the GEB Attorney stated in his post-hearing brief that the evidence did not establish “. . . the frequency of meetings between Coia and Raymond, Jr. after 1984 as recalled by Raymond, Jr.’s driver, Anthonio [sic] Cucinotta.” GEB Resp. Br. at 2 n.1. In other words, although Cucinotta is the GEB Attorney’s witness, one cannot believe everything he said. As noted earlier, Hillary made no contribution to the proof of this matter. Although asserted to be probative by the GEB Attorney in his opening statement, the Hillary/Cucinotta combination simply disintegrated once both witnesses appeared on the witness stand, and there is no evidence of Patriarca, Jr. and Coia meeting after 1984.
Nevertheless, the GEB Attorney argues in his post-hearing briefs that, due to Coia’s position in the 1980s as an up and coming LIUNA labor leader and Patriarca, Jr.’s position as a made member of the LCN and the son of the Boss of the New England LCN family, “any contact between Coia and Raymond, Jr. conveyed the unmistakable message that the LCN had significant influence within LIUNA.” GEB Br. at 59 (emphasis omitted). See GEB Resp. Br. at 5-6. He further argues that the “unique positions” of Coia and Patriarca, Jr. send a message to the union membership that the LCN has “easy access to the Union officers and members in the total atmosphere [of the] labor union operation.” GEB Br. at 60, (citing, Fallacara, 96-65D at 6, ¶ 210). This argument flies in the face of his concession that the joint defense meetings between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. were proper.
The GEB Attorney also relies extensively on the Patriarca family influence at Local 271. Although, historically, the Patriarcas may have had influence at that Local during Coia, Sr.’s tenure, it is not relevant to the charges here against Respondent Coia and will not be considered by the IHO in rendering his final decision.
The GEB Attorney also implicitly argues that there was an improper relationship between Local 271 and the law firm of Coia & Lepore since it shared office space with the Local and did extensive legal work for it. This argument does not have any probative value relative to the charges in this matter.
The GEB Attorney, citing the Fallacara test for “knowing association,” also contends that the mere appearance of mob access to the union is sufficient to discipline a union official. See supra pp. 2-3. There is no indication in the record, however, that Patriarca, Jr. had access to the union. He visited Coia at Coia & Lepore on only a few occasions. No credible evidence was put forth to show that he and Coia were together at any other time.
Teamsters Case Law
The GEB Attorney offers a number of cases decided by the Court appointed Independent Administrator of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT” or “Teamsters”) as well as certain federal court decisions to support his position, but the language quoted therefrom is taken out of context. All of those cases deal with Teamster union officials who either invited LCN figures into their union, regularly socialized with them, or sought their assistance in union affairs. An examination of the facts in those cases reveals far different fact patterns than the one presented here.
In all of the Teamsters’ cases cited by the GEB Attorney, the relationships between the charged persons and the LCN members and associates continued for a number of years, on regular social and business levels.
In United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Am. (“DiGirlamo”), 824 F. Supp. 410 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), DiGirlamo was the bookkeeper for IBT Local 41 in Kansas City, Missouri and the evidence therein established that he associated with four men -- Charles Moretina, James Moretina, Peter Simone (“Simone”), and Frank Tousa (“Tousa”) -- whom he knew to be members of the Kansas City LCN. Id. at 414-416 (discussing association with C. Moretina, J. Moretina, P. Simone and F. Tousa).
DiGirlamo’s car was observed by the FBI outside of Charles Moretina’s house during working hours. He also attended Charles Moretina’s criminal trial and visited him several times in prison. Id. at 416. James Moretina and Simone hired DiGirlamo as an accountant for their business -- Be Amused Vending Company-- and he would occasionally go to Simone’s illegal gambling hall to pick up the company’s books. In fact, during his tenure as the company’s accountant, the FBI seized illegal gambling equipment which the company owned, and James Moretina and Simone were eventually convicted for money laundering and illegal gambling. Id.
DiGirlamo also visited James Moretina’s home and spoke with him daily on the telephone. Id.
DiGirlamo and Simone had known each other since childhood. They had participated in community sporting and charity events together, and had spent time at one another’s homes. Id.
DiGirlamo had also prepared Tousa and his wife’s personal tax returns and had spent time in the Tousas’s home while doing so. Id.
In United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Am. (Adelstein), 998 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1993), Adelstein held the positions of Secretary-Treasurer of IBT Local 813, President of IBT Local 1034, and Secretary-Treasurer of the Executive Board of IBT Joint Council 16.
There was evidence that he had “decades-long relationships with an entire cast of characters who were members of organized crime.” Id. at 123-24 (quoting Independent Administrator). Adelstein assisted Gambino family member James Failla (“Failla”) in the mob’s control of both the garbage industry and of IBT Local 813 in New York City. Id. at 122. He was an associate of the Gambino family and answered to Failla. He and Failla often attended the same social affairs, charity affairs, and funerals. Id. at 125.
In United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Am. (Yager), 761 F. Supp. 315 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), the Independent Administrator prevented the appointment of Yager to the IBT’s General Executive Board since there was evidence that he had been seen with members of the LCN. Id. at 320. Moreover, the LCN had a history of influence over the IBT Central States Pension Fund, of which Yager was an officer, and had once engaged in a scheme to bribe a former United States Senator using pension fund assets. Id. The Independent Administrator concluded that Yager knew of this, yet did nothing to stop it. Id.
The GEB Attorney also cites Judge Edelstein’s statement in United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Am. (Cozza), 764 F. Supp. 797, 813 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), that “there is no such thing as a purposeful, yet innocent or non-reproachful association of an Union leader and an underworld figure.” The facts of that case, however, are far different from those herein. There, Cozza admitted that he knowingly associated with five members of the Pittsburgh LCN. This association included daily visits with John S. LaRocca, who was the Boss of the Pittsburgh family from 1956 until his death in 1984. Id. at 806.
In a case brought under the Carpenters’ Consent Decree, United States v. District Council of New York City (Fiorino), 941 F. Supp. 349 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), Fiorino knowingly associated with two members of the Genovese family, Liborio Bellomo and Ralph Coppola. Id. at 357. Although Bellomo was married to Fiorino’s sister, the Court found that their relationship went beyond the ordinary contacts of family members. Id. at 368. For example, there were 372 telephone calls made in a ten month period from Bellomo’s home to Fiorino’s beeper. Id. at 369. Fiorino also admitted that he had met with Coppola on the street, visited him at home, and spoke with him on the telephone. Id.
The contact alleged by the GEB Attorney herein is of a far different character than that found in the above cases. In this matter, there was no credible evidence presented to show any contact between Patriarca, Jr. and Coia at any time except for the joint defense meetings at Coia & Lepore.
Conclusions
1. The GEB Attorney has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that an ongoing social or business relationship existed between Coia and Patriarca, Jr. which constituted barred conduct.
2. The IHO finds that the GEB Attorney has not proved Charges I and III by a preponderance of the evidence. As noted above, Charge II has been withdrawn.
The Trusteeship of Local 66
Charge IV alleges:
Barred Conduct: Permitting LCN Influence: From in or about April, 1990 through 1994, ARTHUR A. COIA knowingly permitted members and/or associates of the LCN to exercise control or influence over the affairs of the Union, to wit: by his actions and failures to act, he allowed officers of Local 66 who were influenced and controlled by the LCN to remain in power, thereby allowing the LCN to continue its control and influence over Local 66.
Charge V alleges:
Violation of Duty of Loyalty: From in or about 1990 until in or about 1994, ARTHUR A. COIA violated the obligation of undivided loyalty incumbent upon all members, officers, and employees of LIUNA, including but not limited to those duties set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) and the LIUNA Ethical Practices Code, to wit: through his actions and failures to act, he did not take adequate steps to investigate and remedy organized crime corruption at Local 66, and he participated in a course of conduct that permitted and facilitated the continuation of that corruption during and after the time that LIUNA placed Local 66 under trusteeship in 1990 through 1992.
Charge VI alleges:
Constitutional Duties of LIUNA Members: In permitting the LCN to exercise influence over Union affairs, as alleged more specifically above in Charge IV, ARTHUR A. COIA failed to honor his obligation as a LIUNA member to refrain from interfering with the proper conduct of LIUNA business, in violation of Article III, Section 3(d) of the Uniform Local Union Constitution.
Introduction
In Charges IV through VI, the GEB Attorney asserts that Coia failed to take adequate measures to ensure that LCN influence was eradicated from LIUNA Local Union 66 (“Local 66”) after he was appointed as the Hearings Panel Officer to rule upon an emergency trusteeship for the Local.
Findings of Fact
1. Local 66 is located in Melville, New York. See GEB Ex. 32.
2. From 1985 through December of 1989, the following persons served as officers of Local 66:
Michael LaBarbara, Jr. (“LaBarbara, Jr.”)
Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer;
James Abbatiello, Sr. (“Abbatiello, Sr.”)
Assistant Business Manager and Recording Secretary;
Peter Vario (“Vario”)
Vice President of Local 66 and Administrator of Local 66's Benefit Funds;
Benjamin DeLucia (“DeLucia”)
President;
Santo Ippolito (“Ippolito”)
Executive Board Member and Field Representative;
Frank Chimento (“Chimento”)
Executive Board Member;
James Abbatiello, Jr. (“Abbatiello, Jr.”)
Executive Board member;
Michael LaBarbara, III (“LaBarbara, III”)
Field Representative;
Gerald Losquadro (“Losquadro”)
Field Representative; and
Bruno Leone, Jr. (“Leone”)
Field Representative.
See R. Ex. 120.
3. On December 12, 1988, a 51 count federal indictment was returned against three officers of the Local 66 Executive Board (“the Board”) -- Vario, LaBarbara, Jr., and Abbatiello, Sr. -- charging them with using Local 66 to engage in a course of racketeering activity for the benefit of the Luchese crime family. GEB Ex. 10.
4. At the January 26, 1989, Local 66 Board meeting, the remaining members of the Board voted to pay for the legal expenses incurred by Vario, LaBarbara, Jr., and Abbatiello, Sr. in their defense against the indictment. GEB Ex. 9, Tab 23; R. Ex. 110. In all, Local 66 would eventually pay approximately $400,000 in legal expenses on their behalf. GEB Ex. 9, 11.
5. The Local’s attorney, Jeffrey S. Dubin (“Dubin”), advised the Board that it was legal for the Local to pay the attorneys= fees. Tr. 1100-01. This advice was incorrect. Tr. 1237-38; GEB Ex. 41.
6. On December 14, 1989, LaBarbara, Jr. and Abbatiello, Sr. resigned from the Board and, as severance packages, the Local gave each a new Lincoln Town car. GEB Ex. 17-18 (resigning from posts), 21-23 (receiving automobiles from Local). Vario was given a cash payment of $35,769.50 in lieu of a car.[9] GEB Ex. 24, 25. Dubin had advised the Board that it could make this cash award to Vario. GEB Ex. 9, Tab 28.
7. On September 26, 1989, LaBarbara, Jr. and Abbatiello, Sr. pled guilty to various federal charges and, on December 15, 1989, they were each sentenced to 14 months in prison, two years probation, and fines of approximately $37,000. GEB Ex. 14, 19, 20. On March 29, 1990, Vario was convicted and sentenced to 46 months in prison, three years probation, and a fine of $106,360. GEB Ex. 30, 32.
8. On January 8, 1990, Samuel Caivano, the Regional Manager in whose jurisdiction Local 66 was located, wrote a letter to General President Angelo Fosco (“Fosco”) requesting that Local 66 be placed under trusteeship. GEB Ex. 26. Samuel Caivano said:
Because of circumstances surrounding the conviction and incarceration of several key local union officials, I strongly recommend that emergency trusteeship be placed over Local Union 66, Melville, New York.
This Regional Office has been monitoring the current situation at Local Union 66, and I believe that the only way to guarantee quality representation for the membership as well as restoring the integrity of the Local Union is through the immediate imposition of emergency trusteeship.
Your immediate attention to this problem would be appreciated.
Id.
9. On March 15, 1990, in response to Samuel Caivano’s recommendation, Fosco placed Local 66 under emergency trusteeship pursuant to Article IX, Section 7 of the International Constitution which authorizes the General President to do so when necessary to correct corruption or financial malpractice, assure the performance of collective bargaining agreements, restore democratic procedures, carry out the legitimate objects of the local union or protect the organization as an institution. International Constitution, Article IX, Section 7. See R. Ex. 31, 54, 58, 59.
10. In conformance with Article IX, Section 7, Fosco convened a Special Hearings Panel (“the Panel”) to determine if the emergency trusteeship over Local 66 was properly imposed and if it should be continued. R. Ex. 60. Such a Panel usually consisted of one or more International Vice Presidents who acted as Hearing Officers. International Constitution, Article VIII, Section 2(a-vii). They were assisted by one or more attorneys from the LIUNA General Counsel’s[10] office. Tr. 3584. Coia, who was then the International General Secretary-Treasurer, was appointed to sit as the sole member of the Local 66 Panel. Tr. 1175-76. Two attorneys from the General Counsel’s office, David Elbaor (“Elbaor”) and Ted Green (“Green”), accompanied him to the hearing. See Id.
11. As the Hearing Officer assigned to the Local 66 Panel, Coia’s sole duty was to determine whether the trusteeship was properly imposed and whether a good faith basis existed to continue it. See International Constitution, Article IX, Section 2(a-vii), Section 7. See Id. Article X, Section 4.
12. The hearing was convened on April 10, 1990, and evidence was presented to the Panel regarding financial malpractice and corruption at Local 66. See generally R. Ex. 63. An audit report revealed that approximately $400,000 of the Local’s funds had been spent on legal fees for Vario, LaBarbara, Jr., and Abbatiello, Sr. See Id. at 4, 6, 39.
13. As was the practice at that time, the Panel’s report was drafted by the attorneys who accompanied Coia to the hearing. Tr. 1431, 3585, 4587, 4590. Coia approved the report, signed it, and submitted it to the GEB for its approval. GEB Ex. 34. The report made the following findings:
1. In December 1989, the Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, and the Recording Secretary/Assistant Business Manager of the Local Union pled guilty to indictments alleging numerous violations of RICO and Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act involving the taking of money from contractors for personal benefit. The Business Manager and Recording Secretary/Assistant Business Manager immediately resigned from office. In March 1990, the Vice President, who was also an Organizer of the Local Union and the Administrator of the Local Union Funds, was convicted for his part in the same course of conduct.
2. The Local Union has paid the