U.S. v. Local 560 of Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America

Decision Date03 February 1986
Docket NumberNos. 84-5333,84-5334,s. 84-5333
CitationU.S. v. Local 560 of Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, 780 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1986)
Parties121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2121, 54 USLW 2379, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,941, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6132, 19 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 944 UNITED STATES of America v. LOCAL 560 OF the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Salvatore Provenzano, President, Joseph Sheridan, Vice-President, Josephine Provenzano Septembre, Sec-Treasurer, J.W. Dildine, Recording Secretary, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Trustee, Stanley Jaronko, Trustee, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., Salvatore Provenzano, Employee Trustee, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Employee Trustee, Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan, Salvatore Provenzano, Trustee and Administrator, Josephine P. Septembre, Trustee and Administrator, Anthony Provenzano, individually, Nunzio Provenzano, individually, Stephen Andretta, individually, Thomas Andretta, individually, Gabriel Briguglio, individually. UNITED STATES of America v. LOCAL 560 OF the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Salvatore Provenzano, President, Joseph Sheridan, Vice-President, Josephine Provenzano Septembre, Sec-Treasurer, J.W. Dildine, Recording Secretary, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Trustee, Stanley Jaronko, Trustee, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., Salvatore Provenzano, Employee Trustee, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Employee Trustee, Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan, Salvatore Provenzano, Trustee and Administrator, Josephine P. Septembre, Trustee and Administrator, Anthony Provenzano, individually, Nunzio Provenzano, individually, Stephen Andretta, individually, Thomas Andretta, individually, Gabriel Briguglio, individually. Appeal of LOCAL UNION NO. 560, Appellants. Appeal of Salvatore PROVENZANO, Joseph Sheridan, Jay Dildine, Josephine Provenzano, Thomas Reynolds, Michael Sciarra and Stanley Jaronko, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Harvey Weissbard(argued), Weissbard & Wiewiorka, West Orange, N.J., for appellants.

Edward A. Cohen(argued), Schneider, Cohen & Solomon, Jersey City, N.J., for appellant Local UnionNo. 560.

W.H. Dumont(argued), U.S. Atty., Ralph A. Jacobs, Chief, Appeals Div., Thomas L. Weisenbeck, Asst. U.S. Atty., Leopold Laufer, Sp. Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Claudia J. Flynn, Victor Ashrafi, Faith S. Hochberg, Asst. U.S. Attys., Newark, N.J., for appellee.

Before GARTH and BECKER, Circuit Judges, and ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GARTH, Circuit Judge:

This appeal culminates a lengthy and complex civil action brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961, et seq., by the United States against several defendants who allegedly acquired an interest in, and effectively dominated, Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Local 560").The district court, concluding that Local 560 was a "captive labor organization," enjoined certain defendants from any future contacts with Local 560, and removed the current members of the Local 560 Executive Board, replacing the Executive Board with a temporary trusteeship until free elections could be held.The district court's opinion appears at 581 F.Supp. 279(D.N.J.1984).The district court stayed its injunction pending appeal to this Court.We now affirm.

I.

On March 9, 1982, the government filed its civil complaint naming as defendants twelve individuals, Local 560, and Local 560's Welfare Fund and Severance Pay Plan.The government alleged that five of the named defendants: Anthony Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano, Steven Andretta, Thomas Andretta and Gabriel Briguglio, were members of an ongoing criminal confederation--the Provenzano Group 1--which, through acts of extortion and murder, effectively acquired an interest in, and control of, Local 560, an enterprise within the meaning of RICO, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(b).2The government also charged these defendants, as the Provenzano Group, with unlawfully participating, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of Local 560's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c)3 and with conspiring to violate the above two provisions of RICO(Secs. 1962(b) and (c)) in contravention of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d).4

Finally, the government charged the remaining seven individual defendants: Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano, J.W. Dildine, Thomas Reynolds, Michael Sciarra, and Stanley Jaronko, who, at the time the suit was brought, constituted the Executive Board of Local 560, with aiding and abetting the Provenzano Group in violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(b) and (d).5

As stated above, the government avers that the Provenzano Group, aided and abetted by past and present members of the Executive Board of Local 560, violated 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(b) by acquiring an interest in and control of Local 560 through a pattern of racketeering activity.The Provenzano Group's racketeering activity, the government argues, consisted of various acts of murder and extortion, the extortion element consisting of:

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 157and411 of Title 29 of the United States Code[the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157 and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 411].

App.at 174A.Specifically, paragraph 12(a) of the Complaint alleged that The Provenzano Group extorted the membership's rights to vote, speak, and assemble freely by systematic acts of intimidation, including, as the district court summarized:

(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 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 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.

App.at 10-12.

In addition to committing acts of murder and extortion for the purpose of dominating Local 560, the individual members of the Provenzano Group, according to the government's complaint, allegedly committed several other illegal acts in its participation in the conduct of the affairs of the Local 560 enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c).The predicate illegal acts which comprised the Provenzano Group's "pattern of racketeering activity" under Sec. 1962(c) as alleged in the government's Complaint were summarized by the district court as follows:

(1) the extortion of $17,000 from Walter Dorn and his company (Dorn Transport, Inc. of Rensselaer, New York), in return for "labor peace"; (2) the wrongful conversion by...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
118 cases
  • U.S. v. Runnels
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 19 Octubre 1987
    ...754 (1987) (in light of McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987)) (labor); United States v. Local 560, 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir.1985),cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2247, 90 L.Ed.2d 693 (1986) (same); United States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919 (3d Cir.198......
  • Fleischhauer v. Feltner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 31 Agosto 1989
    ...Armco Industrial Credit Corp. v. SLT Warehouse Co., 782 F.2d 475, 480-81 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Local 560, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 780 F.2d 267, 279-80 n. 12 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140, 106 S.Ct. 2247, 90 L.Ed.2d 693 (1986). Appellants' contentions were rai......
  • US v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 24 Marzo 1988
    ...(Colombo Family); United States v. Langella, 804 F.2d 185 (2d Cir.1986) (the Commission of La Cosa Nostra); United States v. Local 560, 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1140, 106 S.Ct. 2247, 90 L.Ed.2d 693 (1986) (Provenzano Group of Genovese Family); United States v. San......
  • Cullen v. Margiotta
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 Febrero 1987
    ...Armco Industrial Credit Corp. v. SLT Warehouse Co., 782 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir.1986), United States v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 780 F.2d 267, 279-80 n. 12 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2247, 90 L.Ed.2d 693 (1986), that the Town, or the......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
13 books & journal articles
  • Published writings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part II. Documentary evidence
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...was hearsay and was not admissible in action by the computer purchasers against the manufacturer. United States v. Teamsters Local 560 , 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985). In a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action, the U.S. sought admission of newspaper and magazine ar......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part IV - Demonstrative Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ..., 104 F.Supp.2d 480 (E.D.Pa. 2000), §20.200 U.S. v. Talley , 790 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1986), §§9.300, 9.504 U.S. v. Teamsters Local 560, 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985), §24.203 U.S. v. Thomas , 571 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1978), §5.403 U.S. v. Two Bulls , 925 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir. 1991), §21.410 U.S. ......
  • Published writings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2019 Documentary evidence
    • 2 Agosto 2019
    ...was hearsay and was not admissible in action by the computer purchasers against the manufacturer. United States v. Teamsters Local 560 , 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985). In a RICO (Racketeer Inluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action, the U.S. sought admission of newspaper and magazine art......
  • Published Writings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part II - Documentary Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ...was hearsay and was not admissible in action by the computer purchasers against the manufacturer. United States v. Teamsters Local 560 , 780 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1985). In a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action, the U.S. sought admission of newspaper and magazine ar......
  • Get Started for Free