Judge hears motions to dismiss ILA case

Judge hears motions to dismiss ILA case A judge in federal district court in Brooklyn Tuesday heard arguments from attorneys for the International Longshoremen’s Association, its officers, and several benefit plans seeking to dismiss a wide-ranging civil complaint that was filed against the dock union in 2005.
   The government is seeking to have court-appointed officers run the ILA until “free and fair” elections for the union are held and for court supervision of the plans until they are free from the alleged corruption and mob control.
   The court hearing came less than a week after the ILA’s quadrennial election, in which long-time president John Bowers retired to become president emeritus and executive vice president Richard Hughes was elevated to president. Harold Daggett was elected to take Hughes’ spot in the union’s hierarchy.
   In the government’s complaint, Bowers, Daggett and Robert Gleason, the union’s secretary-treasurer, are alleged to be an associates of the Genovese crime family.
   However, both Daggett and Arthur Coffey, an ILA vice president from Florida, were acquitted in 2005 on all counts in a fraud and conspiracy case, just months after the civil complaint was filed.
   That, however, didn’t prevent Richard Hayes, the chief prosecutor in the case, from dramatically asserting that Daggett was an alleged mob associate now a “heartbeat away” from holding the top position in the dockworker’s union.
   Tuesday’s hearing ended without a ruling by Judge Leo Glaser on the motions to dismiss.
   Glaser spent much of the time devoted to the case Tuesday sharply questioning Richard Hayes, the chief prosecutor in the case, about the allegations in the complaint and its reliance on older prosecutions of ILA officials and mob figures. He complained about a lack of specifics in the complaint, for example, about alleged extortion, money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud.
   The judge also appeared to be exasperated about the complaint, asking Hayes, “is this a proper pleading?” and whether he was “obliged” to sift through past cases to match them up with charges obliquely referred to in the current complaint.
   He also questioned how the union could simultaneously be both a victim of crimes alleged in the complaint and a member of the vast “waterfront enterprise” that is outlined in the conspiracy case.