 |
EMBATTLED MAYOR ELECT RICHARD THOMAS AND
MOB CONNECTED ADVISOR
JOSEPH SPIEZIO |
Today at 3P.M. Mayor Elect
Richard Thomas will hold a press conference to announce Mayor's advisory
committee. The happy go lucky camera
happy Mayor Elect is having another baseless and meaningless press conference while
evading the issue of his illegal fundraiser, lacking campaign finances, and his
top advisors alleged ties to the Luchese Crime Family.
The press conference is
scheduled to be held at the Wartburg in the Soundview Room.
Media in attendance must
ask Mayor Elect Thomas about Joseph Spiezio's alleged ties to the Luchese Crime
Family. It is also alleged that Spiezio
dropped over $100K cash into the lap of Thomas and others in his immediate
circle.
 |
| SHADY BUSINESS JOSEPH SPIEZIO |
Questions still remain as
to why Richard Thomas would continue to surround himself with such a person who
has a documented history of committing fraud. There is also a trail of lawsuits
to support this claim.
Over the next few months,
Mount Vernon Exposed will provide an in depth analysis of the relationship
between Joseph Spiezio and the Thomas family.
Mount Vernon Exposed will thoroughly get into the life of Joseph Spiezio
and how he lives on a day to day basis. Mount Vernon Exposed previously reported that
Mayor Elect Richard Thomas' brother Butch Thomas has been on Spiezio's payroll
for over ten years. Butch was the one
responsible for introducing the younger, naive, and inexperienced Thomas to
Spiezio. Sources have told Mount Vernon
Exposed that Butch Thomas has started several corporations that will be used as
shell corporations for development projects throughout the City of Mount
Vernon.
Butch Thomas and his
puppet master, Joe Spiezio, according to political insiders, are planning to
construct massive amounts of low income and welfare housing all throughout the
City of Mount Vernon. Mayor Elect
Richard Thomas has already promised the duo unlimited tax breaks through the
Industrial Development Agency of which Richard Thomas will be the chairman of
once he is sworn in.
The shady businessman
Spiezio was named as a defendant in a Federal R.I.C.O. lawsuit. The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States
federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a
civil cause of
action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal
organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it
allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing,
closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else
to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not
actually commit the crime personally.
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business
or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff
must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not
the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one
and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the
defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds
of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. §
1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control
of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection
(b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the
enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection
(c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)). In
essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or
'perpetrator' of the racketeers. A civil RICO action can be filed in state or
federal court.
Both
the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in
triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set
out at 18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently
amended it includes:
• Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene
matter, obstruction
of justice, slavery,
racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission
of murder-for-hire,
and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
• Bringing in, aiding
or assisting aliens
in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of
racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this
chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period
of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.
Joe
Spiezio and his wife Louise Spiezio were sued in federal court under the
R.I.C.O. statute. The claims in the
lawsuit were outright criminal in nature and it surprising Spiezio and his wife
weren't indicted for their crimes.
Sources have told Mount Vernon Exposed that Spiezio is a government
informant and Mob rat that gets free get out of jail cards. Sources have also told Mount Vernon Exposed
that Spiezio constantly brags about being a government informant.
The
lawsuit against Spiezio and his wife arose from a development project in
Yonkers called the Trolley Barn that Spiezio was a managing member. The project was never developed and ended up
getting taken over by the City of Yonkers.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
23. This action arises out of, among other
things, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18
U.S.C. Åò1961, et seq. by Spiezio and others; breach of fiduciary duty by
Spiezio in connection with his management of limited liability corporations;
breach of contract by Spiezio in connection with his management of limited
liability corporations; conversion and unjust enrichment by Spiezio and others;
breach of fiduciary duty by the accountant for the limited liability
corporations; and breach of contract and unjust enrichment by the law firm
retained by one of the limited liability corporations.
24. Commencing about 1998, Spiezio has been
entrusted with managing the operations of single purpose limited liability
companies ("LLCs") with whom he has shared ownership with plaintiffs
Tarsia, Cook and others. Each of the LLCs was to own, manage and operate
various real estate investments.
25. Rather than manage the operations of the
LLCs in a loyal, trustworthy and professional manner, Spiezio has repeatedly
violated his position of trust and his fiduciary duty.
Through artifice and deceit, Spiezio has
intentionally diverted millions of dollars of corporate assets from the LLCs to
himself, his family members, entities under his ownership and control,
26. Additionally, Spiezio has commingled
corporate assets with his own assets and those of other individuals and/or entities that
he controls and/or owns in violation of both his fiduciary duty and the
provisions of the operating agreements governing the LLCs.
27. Finally, as an integral part of his scheme
to cover up his illegal conduct, Spiezio has, notwithstanding repeated requests,
stubbornly and arrogantly failed and refused to provide to other members of the
LLC’s corporate records, information and documentation to which they are
absolutely entitled.
28. As a result, plaintiffs seek both legal and
equitable relief against Spiezio and those who have assisted him.
SPIEZIO'S
MANAGEMENT OF TROLLEY BARN
a. Failure to produce records to members
36. The operating
agreement for Trolley Barn expressly states that the managing member shall provide its members with a quarterly report of
Trolley Barn's operations. The operating agreement also states that each member and his
respective attorneys, accountants and other advisors shall have the right at all times to examine,
review, audit and make copies of Trolley Barn’s books and records.
37. Tarsia and Cook repeatedly demanded
an accounting and backup documentation, including copies
of invoices from and checks to Joni Management & Realty Services,
LLC ("Joni Management") representing the payments made to certain vendors on
behalf of Trolley Barn. Spiezio and defendant
Kalkstein adamantly failed and refused to provide same.
38. On repeated occasions
since at least 2003, both Cook and Tarsia have requested Spiezio to provide
documentation
regarding the expenses associated with Trolley Barn and the Trolley Barn Project.
On virtually
all occasions, Spiezio failed and
refused to provide the documentation requested
or provided insufficient or intentionally misleading documentation.
39. Reports and documentation that Spiezio refused to provide
include: petty cash expenditures, monthly income/expense reports for Trolley Barn, an accounting of
the
receipt disposition of
the constructionn funds for the Trolley
Barn Project, an accounting of Spiezio
controlled or owned entities that received funds from Trolley Barn and alleged
payments to Trolley Barn vendors.
FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY VENDORS LEADING
TO MECHANIC’S LIENS
40. As managing member, Spiezio was responsible for payment of all invoices
and obligations relating to Trolley Barn and the Trolley Barn Project.
41. Throughout 2003, 2004 and 2005, Spiezio
failed to make timely payments to contractors,
suppliers, material men and vendors who had supplied
products or services
for the Trolley Barn Project.
42. Spiezio's failure to make timely payments
was the result
of his having diverted
Trolley Barn funds to non-Trolley Barn related expenses
and/or to his own personal
gain.
43. As a consequence of Spiezio not making timely payments
to various vendors, certain vendors obtained
judgments against Trolley Barn and mechanic's liens were recorded against 92 Main Street.
44. Spiezio concealed
from the other
members of Trolley
Barn that he had failed
to make timely payments to vendors and
that mechanic's liens had been recorded against
92 Main Street as
part of his scheme to divert Trolley Barn funds.
45. As a result of Spiezio's conduct in this regard, Tarsia and Cook were required to
satisfy these unpaid debts and incur expenses
to seek relief from the mechanic's liens and were otherwise damaged.
46. In addition, Spiezio, acting in concert with defendants Chess Abstract, Konecni, and Stewart
Title, deliberately concealed the mechanic's liens from the construction lender in order
to obtain construction financing "drawdowns" for the Trolley Barn Project.
SIPHONING FROM LABORERS ON THE TROLLEY BARN PROJECT
47. Spiezio functioned as the construction manager for the Trolley Barn Project.
His
duties included
weekly payment of certain on-site workers.
48. Beginning as early as 2004, Spiezio elected to pay or arrange to have the various
on-site workers paid in cash.
49. Spiezio would receive
a weekly list of the on-site workers
to be paid and the amount to be paid to each from defendant Fredericks. Spiezio and/or Fredericks would routinely pay the workers
approximately 20 percent
less than the amount listed.
On information and
belief, Spiezio diverted
the difference to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or retained the diverted money for his personal benefit.
50. Spiezio knew that documentation kept as part of Trolley
Barn records in support
of
the payments to on-site workers
was false and fraudulent.
SPIEZIO'S MISMANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
51. As stated above, Spiezio had full responsibility for overseeing and managing the Trolley Barn Project.
52. Spiezio failed to perform his oversight and construction management responsibilities.
53. Spiezio's failures include:
- failure to obtain
engineering plans for the first floor commercial space of
the Trolley Barn Project;
- failure to cause required
electrical conduits to be installed;
- failure
to
cause
proper
plumbing and
heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning conduits and systems to be installed;
- causing an improper sub-floor to be installed on the third
floor of the Trolley Barn Project;
- generally
failed to properly oversee and manage the construction process;
- delayed
the
construction
process
and
completion of the Trolley Barn Project, incurring additional interest expense
and other carrying
costs, (i.e., taxes, insurance
and utilities);
- failed to test and winterize
the fire sprinkler system;
- failed to properly
seal and caulk the windows; and
- failed to point bricks on the side of the building facing the railroad.
54. As a result of Spiezio's mismanagement of the Trolley
Barn Project, Tarsia and Cook have been substantially damaged.
SUBSEQUENT FUNDING FOR THE TROLLEY BARN PROJECT
FALSE AND MISLEADING
STATEMENTS BY SPIEZIO
55. Spiezio repeatedly provided
false and misleading information with respect to the cost
to complete the Trolley
Barn Project. On repeated
occasions, Spiezio grossly
understated the construction costs,
without supporting documentation. Spiezio's understatement of the cost to complete
the Trolley Barn Project were made to induce Tarsia and Cook to continue in the
Trolley Barn Project and to conceal Spiezio's diversion of massive amounts of construction fund dedicated to complete the Trolley Barn Project. The understatements also resulted in the need to obtain multiple refinancings for the Trolley
Barn Project.
56. In connection with the refinancings, the members of Trolley Barn were required to submit to lending institutions certain financial information and to make certain representations.
57. The members of Trolley Barn understood
that submitting false information might result in a default by Trolley Barn under existing or refinanced loans.
58. Spiezio, as one of the members of the Trolley
Barn, submitted documentation to lending
institutions that he knew to be false and misleading.
By way of example,
he failed to disclose that
he had transferred
his interest in
Trolley Barn to
defendant Spiezio Family Holdings.
59. Spiezio's failure to disclose the transfer of his membership interest in Trolley Barn
to Spiezio Family
Holdings placed
Tarsia and Cook at risk in that it caused
Tarsia and Cook to bear a disproportionate share
of the liability under the construction loan. Tarsia and Cook
personally guaranteed the loan,
but
Spiezio
Family
Holdings entered into no such
guarantee.
OTHER SPIEZIO SCHEMES
PAYMENTS TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
60. During the period of at least 2002 through 2004, Spiezio, on multiple occasions, authorized and caused contributions to be made various political campaign funds from accounts of Trolley Barn that were earmarked
for the payment of expenses for the Trolley Barn Project.
61. The
payments to
political
campaigns
were
made
without
the
approval
or
knowledge of the other members of
Trolley Barn.
62. The payments to political campaigns were part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from the Trolley Barn Project for non-Trolley Barn Project related expenses and/or for his
personal interest and gain.
TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST AND FUNDS TO
SPIEZIO FAMILY
HOLDINGS
63. Section 9.1 of the Trolley Barn operating
agreement
expressly
states
that
a
member may not transfer his interest in the Trolley
Barn without written
consent of all the other members.
64. On information and
belief, some time before April 13,
2003, Spiezio secretly transferred his interest in Trolley Barn to Spiezio Family Holdings.
65. After secretly transferring his interest in Trolley Barn to Spiezio Family Holdings, Spiezio falsely represented to parties dealing with Trolley Barn that he personally continued to be a member of Trolley Barn.
66. During the period of at least 2002 through 2003, Spiezio, on multiple occasions, authorized and caused to be made from accounts
of Trolley Barn payments to Spiezio Family Holdings.
67. The payments to Spiezio Family Holdings were made without the knowledge or
approval of the other members of Trolley Barn.
68. The transfer of funds to Spiezio Family Holdings was part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from
Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or for his personal
interest and gain.
OTHER IMPROPER PAYMENTS MADE OR AUTHORIZED BY SPIEZIO
69. During the period of at least 2002 through 2004, Spiezio, on multiple occasions, illegally authorized and caused payments
to be made from the accounts of Trolley Barn to
himself and/or to others totaling hundred of thousands of dollars.
By way of example:
Spiezio
authorized
payments
to
an
insurance
company
for
automobile
insurance. However, no automobile
insurance was necessary for Trolley
Barn.
Spiezio authorized payments
to John Hancock Financial Services. However, there was no need for Trolley Barn to use John Hancock Financial
Services.
Spiezio authorized checks
made payable to "cash" that were subsequently cashed or deposited by Spiezio into his
personal accounts. These checks total in excess of $200,000 through December 2004.
Spiezio authorized Trolley
Barn to pay several credit card accounts. The amount paid for these accounts
for the period of July 2002 through December
2004 was in excess of $450,000.
Defendant Louise Spiezio,
the spouse of Spiezio, charged
items on credit cards that were paid for from
Trolley Barn accounts. Payments for these
expenses were approved and authorized by Spiezio.
70. Notwithstanding requests by Tarsia and Cook to
Spiezio to produce supporting documentation as to how the above expenses and
others relate to Trolley Barn, Spiezio has failed and refused to provide Tarsia or Cook the documentation supporting
the underlying expenses.
71. The payments referred
to above were part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn related expenses and/or for his personal interest and gain.
COMMINGLING OF FUNDS BY SPIEZIO
72. The operating agreement of Trolley Barn has separateness covenants and provides that the managing member shall not commingle the assets of Trolley Barn with any other entity.
73. Trolley
Barn funds were transferred to and/or received
from the bank accounts of Joni
Property, Mercantile Lofts, LLC, Gazette
Realty Holdings, LLC, Long Beach Road
Holdings, LLC and South Broadway. None of these entities was part of Trolley Barn.
74. The transfers to and/or receipts
from these entities
were made
without the
knowledge or approval
of the other members
of Trolley Barn.
75. When these transfers and receipts
were
discovered,
Tarsia
and
Cook
made
repeated requests to Spiezio, Fredericks (the bookkeeper) and Kalkstein (the accountant) for documentation explaining the transfer and receipt of funds to/from these
entities. However, in furtherance
of and consistent with his scheme, Spiezio, (along with Fredericks and Kalkstein, at Spiezio’s direction)
failed and refused to provide any explanation or documentation.
76. The commingling of funds was part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from
Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn expenses and/or
for his personal
and his family’s
personal gain.
DIVERSION OF CORPORATE ASSETS
77. On
information
and belief,
Spiezio directed
and authorized
that
construction materials be delivered
to his residence in New Rochelle, New York and other locations. These materials were improperly charged to and paid for by Trolley Barn although they were not part
of
the Trolley Barn Project.
78. On information and
belief, Spiezio directed and authorized workers who were ostensibly hired to perform work on the
Trolley Barn Project to instead perform work at his residence in New Rochelle. The work performed at Spiezio's residence was improperly charged
to
and paid for by Trolley Barn although the work was not for the Trolley
Barn Project.
79. Neither Tarsia nor Cook was aware of this diversion
of labor and materials and neither of them approved
this activity.
80. Use of labor and materials designated for and paid for by Trolley Barn was part of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley
Barn to non-Trolley Barn expenses and/or for his personal and his family’s
personal gain.
KALKSTEIN, MBA TAX ASSOCIATES AND KALKSTEIN & CO.
81. Kalkstein,
a
convicted felon, was
retained
by
Spiezio
to
prepare
financial
documents and income
tax
returns for Trolley
Barn as well as other entities in which Spiezio,
Tarsia and Cook had an interest. Kalkstein performed such work under the names Kalkstein
& Co. or MBA Tax Associates.
82. As part of that work, Kalkstein had access to the financial records of Trolley
Barn.
83. Kalkstein
knew that Tarsia and Cook were members of Trolley Barn.
84. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Kalkstein failed to disclose to Tarsia and Cook the commingling, diversion and/or conversion of funds by Spiezio.
85. Upon learning that Kalkstein was a convicted
felon and required
to surrender his license as a certified public accountant, Tarsia
and Cook repeatedly demanded that Spiezio replace Kalkstein with a licensed
certified public accountant in good standing.
Spiezio failed and refused to do same.
86. Tarsia and Cook also repeatedly requested Kalkstein to provide Tarsia and Cook with all Trolley Barn financial information and records.
87. Notwithstanding
that Kalkstein knew that Tarsia and Cook were members
of Trolley Barn, Kalkstein refused
to produce financial
information
and records concerning Trolley Barn to Tarsia and Cook.
88. Kalkstein’s actions were controlled
by and done at the direction of Spiezio in
furtherance of Spiezio’s scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn to non-Trolley Barn expenses and/or for his personal
gain.
CHESS ABSTRACT, KONECNI AND STEWART
TITLE
89. At various times, Chess Abstract, a title agency company
owned and or controlled by Spiezio, was
retained to perform
title rundowns searches relating
to construction loan
"drawdowns" on the Trolley Barn Project.
Chess Abstract
was an agent of defendant Stewart Title.
Konecni was the co-owner and director
of operations of Chess Abstract.
90. On multiple occasions, Chess Abstract
and Konecni, with the knowledge and at the direction of Spiezio, deliberately failed to disclose mechanic's liens recorded against 92 Main Street.
91. On information and belief, Chess Abstract, as agent
for Stewart Title,
failed to make disclosure
of the
mechanic's liens in furtherance of Spiezio's scheme
to divert
funds from Trolley Barn.
92. Furthermore, on at least one occasion, Chess Abstract
and Konecni, during loan
closings for Trolley Barn, caused Trolley
Barn monies to be used to pay the personal
expenses of Spiezio in furtherance of Spiezio's scheme to divert funds from Trolley Barn.
FREDERICKS
93. Fredericks was hired by Spiezio as a bookkeeper/controller for Trolley Barn and
other entities that Spiezio managed, controlled or had a direct or indirect
ownership interest in.
94. Fredericks acted in furtherance of Spiezio’s scheme to divert funds from Trolley
Barn
to non-Trolley Barn related
expenses and/or for Spiezio’s personal gain.
In
that regard, Fredericks’ acts include:
preparing
false payroll records for the Trolley Barn Project;
assisting in the unauthorized payments from the accounts
of Trolley Barn to
other entities which had not provided goods or services to Trolley Barn;
assisting and/or failing to report Spiezio’s diversion
of funds from Trolley
Barn; and
failing to provide financial records to other
members of Trolley
Barn and assisting in Spiezio’s commingling of Trolley Barn funds.
REPRESENTATION
BY SMITH BUSS
95. In October 2004, at the insistence of Spiezio, Smith Buss was retained
by Trolley Barn to prepare an offering plan
for
the
conversion of
the Trolley Barn Project
to
a
condominium.
96. Smith Buss and Trolley Barn entered into a written fee agreement concerning the legal services to be provided by Smith Buss.
97. As part of the fee agreement, Trolley Barn was required to and did pay Smith
Buss an initial payment of $10,000.
98. None
of the work required under
the fee agreement for the conversion plan was performed by Smith Buss or was ever provided to Tarsia or
Cook, notwithstanding their repeated requests
for same.
99. Although no conversion plan had been submitted,
Smith Buss requested
that Tarsia and Cook execute a certification that they had reviewed
the conversion plan, when in fact no
conversion plan had ever been prepared or provided. What is more, Smith Buss knew that making
such a request was improper
under the circumstances.
100. Shortly
thereafter, by letter dated October
5, 2005, Smith Buss advised
Tarsia and Cook that it would no longer provide
the legal services
set forth in the fee agreement.
Smith Buss apparently decided that its relationship with Spiezio presented
a conflict of interest.
101. As a result of the foregoing, Tarsia and Cook requested
Smith Buss to refund the
$10,000 fee.
To date, none of the money has been returned.
102. Furthermore, the failure
of Smith Buss to complete the offering plan has caused Trolley Barn to unnecessarily
incur
substantial
carrying
costs,
including
interest,
taxes,
insurance, utilities, etc.
103. As a result of the conduct
of Smith Buss, the condominium conversion plan has not been accomplished and Tarsia and Cook have been substantially damaged.
JONI PROPERTY
104. The members of Joni Property
are Tarsia and Spiezio who each have a 50 percent interest.
105. The
sole asset of Joni Property is the Centuck
Shopping Center ("Centuck"), a property located at 1557-1591 Central Park Avenue, Yonkers,
New York. Centuck consists
of approximately 47,000 square
feet of rentable commercial retail
space with approximately 25 tenants.
106. Spiezio is the managing member
of Joni Property. As the managing
member, Spiezio is responsible for ensuring that the monthly
rent payments are collected from the tenants of Centuck.
107. On information and belief, beginning at least as early as 2005, Spiezio
(or an entity owned or controlled by Spiezio) received monthly rent payments from commercial tenants in the form of cash.
Also on information and belief, all of
the
cash payments received have not been deposited with Centuck.
108. Tarsia, on repeated occasions, requested that Spiezio (or an entity
owned or controlled by Spiezio) provide documentation regarding rents
collected from tenants and cash deposited on behalf of Centuck. Spiezio has failed and refused to provide that information. In addition,
Tarsia’s personal
accountant,
Paul
Star,
has
requested
that
Spiezio
and
Kalkstein
provide copies of complete income returns and all schedules.
Spiezio and Kalkstein
failed and refused to provide same.
109. Tarsia, as an equal member of Joni
Property, is entitled to review all documentation regarding
the operations of
Centuck, including records
of rents received. Tarsia has requested
all such information but Spiezio has refused to provide same.
110. As a result of Spiezio's failure
and refusal to provide the requested documentation to Tarsia, Tarsia is
unable to independently
determine if the finances of
Centuck are in proper order.
111. Spiezio's failure and refusal to account for the cash rental payments
and his failure and refusal to provide documentation and information
regarding operations of Centuck is
part of his scheme to divert funds from Joni Property for his personal
gain
