United States v. Boffa
| Decision Date | 12 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 80-36. |
| Citation | 513 F. Supp. 444 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eugene BOFFA, Sr., Francis Sheeran, Louis Kalmar, Sr., Robert Boffa, Sr., Chandler Lemon, David Mishler, and Robert Rispo, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joel M. Friedman, Edward J. Levitt and Ronald G. Cole, Philadelphia Strike Force, Philadelphia, Pa., Kenneth F. Noto, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and James W. Garvin, Jr., U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
James C. Schwartzman of Schwartzman & Hepps, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Eugene Boffa, Sr. Glenn A. Zeitz of Zeitz & Zeitz, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Francis Sheeran.
Thomas C. Carroll of Carroll, Creamer, Carroll & Duffy, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Louis Kalmar, Sr.
Ronald F. Kidd of Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Robert Boffa, Sr.
Thomas A. Bergstrom, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Chandler Lemon.
Alan M. Lieberman of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant David Mishler.
James F. Kipp of Trzuskowski, Kipp, Kelleher & Pearce, P. A., Wilmington, Del., for defendant Robert Rispo.
On July 14, 1980, a Grand Jury of this District returned an Eleven Count Indictment in this criminal action naming Eugene Boffa, Sr., Francis Sheeran, Louis Kalmar, Sr., Robert Boffa, Sr., Chandler Lemon, David Mishler, and Robert Rispo as defendants.1 In Count I, all defendants are charged with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") in violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 1962(d), and in Count II, all are charged with a substantive violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. ? 1962(c); defendant Sheeran is charged in Counts III and IV with violating certain criminal provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. ?? 186(b)(1) and (d); and defendants Eugene Boffa, Sr., Sheeran, and Lemon are charged in Counts V through XI of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?? 1341 and 2.
Defendants have responded to the Indictment with a volley of 28 separate motions2 and memoranda in support thereof. All defendants, except Lemon, have joined in the motions of all other defendants.3 The Government responded to those motions by complying with some requests, by certifying by affidavit Government compliance with other requests, and by filing memoranda in opposition to all other motions.4 Although they were given the opportunity to file reply briefs,5 none of the defendants did so. The Court held oral argument on defendants' motions on November 3, 19806 and upon subsequently determining that evidentiary hearings would be necessary for the resolution of the issues raised in certain motions, ordered that such hearings be held.7 Presently before the Court are all the remaining motions of the defendants relating to those unresolved issues which do not require evidentiary hearings. Because the issues raised in the motions often overlap, the Court will discuss the various issues separately, referencing all relevant motions as it discusses the issues raised by those motions.
The Court will first briefly summarize the allegations contained in the Indictment. If for the purpose of disposing of any motion or portion thereof a more particularized statement of the relevant allegations is necessary, it will be provided at that time.
From on or about January 1, 1969 up to and including the date of the filing of the Indictment, all defendants were employed by and associated with an association ("the Enterprise") which consisted of a group of individuals associated in fact for the purposes of making money and obtaining other financial benefits through the interstate business of labor leasing and motor vehicle leasing. The Enterprise carried out the business of labor leasing through the instrumentality of eight separate corporations8 named in the Indictment and the business of motor vehicle leasing was carried out by a ninth corporation9 named in the Indictment. Defendants Eugene Boffa, Sr., Kalmar, Robert Boffa, Sr., Lemon, Mishler, and Rispo were employed by and associated with the Enterprise in that each controlled and participated in the operation of one or more of the named corporations.
Because the Enterprise was in the business of leasing labor, it had dealings with a number of unions, including International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT") Locals 326 and 908. In 1970, defendant Sheeran was elected president of Local 326, assuming the post at the beginning of 1971 and remaining president up to and including the date that the Indictment was returned. Sheeran was made eligible for this union post as a result of the efforts of Eugene Boffa, Sr., who, through his own and the Enterprise's control of one of the labor leasing corporations which had in effect a collective bargaining agreement between itself and Local 326, arranged to have Sheeran hired as a truck driver by the corporation and thus made a member of Local 326 and made eligible to hold union office. In his post as union president Sheeran was associated with and employed by the Enterprise in that he would enter into collective bargaining agreements on behalf of Local 326 with corporations controlled by the Enterprise, he would operate the labor leasing business of the Enterprise in the State of Delaware, he would inform Eugene Boffa, Sr., of companies, as a result of information gained by Sheeran by virtue of his union post, which Sheeran believed might be interested in leasing labor, and he would, in concert with Eugene Boffa, Sr., and Lemon, defraud Local 326 members employed by corporations controlled by the Enterprise. In return for these activities, the Enterprise rewarded Sheeran by providing him with the free use of automobiles, the purchase of an automobile at less than market price, and a portion of the profits of the labor leasing business.
Starting on or about January 1, 1969 and continuing up to and including the date that the Indictment was returned, all defendants conspired to and did in fact knowingly conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Enterprise through a "pattern of racketeering activity." Sixty-two separate "racketeering acts" are charged.10 The bulk of these acts relate to transactions occurring among the corporations controlled by the Enterprise, Locals 326 and 908 and members of those Locals who were also employed by the Enterprise corporations involved, and three corporations, Crown Zellerbach Corp. and Inland Container Corp., both in Delaware, and Continental Can Co., Inc. in Ohio, who leased labor from corporations controlled by the Enterprise.
Although the Enterprise-controlled corporations, the individual defendants, the affected employees and the unions differed, a common pattern was followed in the Enterprise's dealings with Crown Zellerbach Corp., Inland Container Corp. and Continental Can Co., Inc. (the "lessee corporations"). In each case, initially a lessee corporation leased labor from Universal Coordinators, Inc. ("UCI"), a corporation controlled by the Enterprise. In each case a collective bargaining agreement was in effect between UCI and an IBT Local, and UCI's employees who were leased to the corporation were members of that Local. In each case, several defendants devised and carried out a scheme to deprive the employees, who were truck drivers, of economic benefits they enjoyed through rights guaranteed them under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 157, economic benefits they enjoyed through rights they had under the relevant collective bargaining agreement then in effect between UCI and the relevant IBT Local, and in the case of the two lessee corporations located in Delaware, the loyal, faithful and honest services of defendant Sheeran in the performance of his duties as the elected and salaried president of Local 326. The object of this scheme was, in each case, to enable the Enterprise to continue to do business with each lessee corporation through one of the corporate entities the Enterprise controlled and thus to continue receiving revenues from each lessee corporation in the form of labor leasing fees. In each case, for various reasons, UCI would terminate its contract with the relevant lessee corporation and recommend that the lessee corporation employ a second corporation controlled by the Enterprise, without revealing the common control to either the lessee corporation or the affected employees. UCI would consequently terminate the employment of the drivers it had leased to the lessee corporation and the new Enterprise controlled corporation then either would employ different drivers altogether or would employ the same drivers but at a rate of pay lower than that required by the previous collective bargaining agreement, thus assuring the Enterprise continuous business and continuous revenue.11 Defendant Sheeran participated in this scheme, using his post as president of Local 326 to assure its success, and, in return, other defendants arranged that Sheeran receive and share in the profits and other rewards mentioned earlier.
The specific racketeering acts which are charged by the Indictment consist of (1) violations of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. ?? 1341 and 2, which occurred when letters, employment termination notices and a false affidavit were placed in the mails for the purpose of carrying out the fraudulent scheme described above, (2) violations of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. ?? 186(a)(4) and 186(b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. ? 2, which occurred both when certain defendants delivered, and Sheeran accepted benefits, with the intent that Sheeran be influenced in respect to his actions, decisions, and duties as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. LOC. 560, INTERN. BRO. OF TEAMSTERS
...that required for the commission of the predicate offenses must be demonstrated for each alleged conspirator. But see United States v. Boffa, 513 F.Supp. 444 (D.Del.1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 688 F.2d 919 (3d Finally, as to aiding and abetting, the conduct requirement under 18 U.S......
-
Chaney v. Brown, 83-1862
...the probative force of the plaintiff's evidence or which arguably could lead to such records of [sic] information." United States v. Boffa, 513 F.Supp. 444, 501 (D.Del.1980). See also United States v. Mangieri, 694 F.2d 1270, 1288 (D.C.Cir.1982) (When only evidence of Brady request was pros......
-
State v. Ball
...Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom., Russello v. United States, 456 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 2006, 72 L.Ed.2d 465 (1982); United States v. Boffa, 513 F.Supp. 444, 460-61 (D.C.Del.1980) (collecting federal decisions addressing this Since New Jersey RICO gives greater definition to the "pattern" requ......
-
State v. Maldonado
...within Congressional power to create a strict liability offense which dispenses with any element of 'intent.' " United States v. Boffa, 513 F.Supp. 444, 464 (D.Del.1980). The Federal and State cases stand for the ultimate proposition that the State has the power to define a crime without pr......
-
Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
...predicate act "bear a strong relationship to racketeering activity that affects interstate commerce"); see also United States v. Boffa, 513 F. Supp. 444, 471 (D. Del. 1980) (holding the activity of the enterprise, and not each predicate act of racketeering, must have an effect on interstate......
-
Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
...predicate act "bear a strong relationship to racketeering activity that affects interstate commerce"); see also United States v. Boffa, 513 F. Supp. 444, 471 (D. Del. 1980) (holding the activity of the enterprise, and not each predicate act of racketeering, must have an effect on interstate......
-
Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
...predicate act "bear a strong relationship to racketeering activity that affects interstate commerce"); see also United States v. Boffa, 513 F. Supp. 444, 471 (D. Del. 1980) (holding the activity of the enterprise, and not each predicate act of racketeering, must have an effect on interstate......