LAW OFFICES

BERKE & BERKE

90 PARK AVENUE
18
yh
FLOOR
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016-1301
(212) 888-8787
JASON R. BERKE (1935-1979) FAX (888) 316-1631
JEFFREY R. BERKE e-mail: rberke@aol.com



April 14, 2014


VIA ECF
Honorable J. Brian M. Cogan
United States District Court Judge
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Rivka Stein v. World Wide Plumbing Supply, Inc., et al
Civil Action Case No. 13-CV-6795 (BMC) (JO)

Dear Judge Cogan:

The undersigned represents defendant, Yoel Weiss (AWeiss@). Pursuant to Individual
Practice Rule III.B, this letter serves as an application by defendant, Weiss, for a pre-motion
conference to seek permission to move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure '12(b).

The amended complaint is against thirteen named defendants, and alleges nine of the
defendants, including Weiss, committed and conspired to commit crimes against the plaintiff of
peonage, enticement into slavery, and forced labor, and with the other defendants violated 18
U.S.C. '1962(c) or (d), of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (ARICO@).
There are additional state and other claims against Weiss of assault, rape, unfair labor practices,
etc.

The amended complaint adds acts within the past 4 years that were not originally alleged.
For the same reasons set forth in a letter dated March 31, 2014 to the Court by Franklyn Snitow,
Esq., counsel for certain co-defendants, (the ASnitow letter@) the amended complaint fails to state
a valid RICO claim. As noted therein, the alleged Aenterprise@ is not separate from the defendant
Apersons.@ See Fitzgerald v. Chrysler Corp., 116 F.3d 225 (7
th
Cir., 1997) and Riverwoods
Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (2d Cir., 1994).





BERKE & BERKE - 2 - April 14, 2014


A careful analysis of the amended complaint shows that it fails to satisfy the requirements
set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) that the
Aenterprise@ (1) be an ongoing organization, formal or informal, (2) various associates functioning
as a continuing unit, and (3) an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it
engages. Under Turkette, supra, an enterprise is not a Apattern of racketeering activity@ and must
be Aan entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages.@

Also noted in the Snitow letter the co-defendants did not engage in RICO predicate acts.
There is no Apattern of racketeering activity@ since the plaintiff is the only alleged victim and is
only one alleged scheme. Furthermore, under H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S.
229 (1989) there must be a continuity or Athreat of continued racketeering activity,@ which cannot
occur in this case as the pattern of racketeering consisted of certain alleged predicate acts against
Plaintiff, who cannot be a future victim. This is so because the predicate acts are not part of an
ongoing entity=s regular way of doing business. Congress was concerned with long-term criminal
conduct in enacting the RICO statutes.

The present complaint seeks to convert an active matrimonial action now pending in New
York State Supreme Court, Kings County into a RICO claim. A psychological forensic evaluation
in connection with a child custody dispute between the plaintiff and Weiss is due to be completed
by the middle of May, 2014. Thereafter, the matrimonial action will be trial ready.

As noted in the Snitow letter despite the claim to the contrary Plaintiff had numerous
opportunities to contact law enforcement, but chose not to do so. There is documentary evidence
that the plaintiff=s false claims of peonage, kidnaping and rape and fears of her future murder to
collect life insurance proceeds are frivolous and without merit. It will be seen that the Plaintiff
actually did contact law enforcement authorities as well as others, after her alleged confinement
ended, but failed to say anything specific about it, or say anything about the other claimed predicate
acts in her amended RICO complaint.

When plaintiff=s efforts to deprive defendant, Weiss, of all access to their two young
children failed in the Kings County Family Court and a psychological forensic expert was about
to be appointed to assist in a custody evaluation, the plaintiff commenced an action for divorce in
Kings County Supreme Court. Plaintiff then moved to remove and consolidate the custody
proceeding with the divorce action to the Kings County Supreme Court. In denying that portion of
plaintiff=s motion to remove the custody proceeding, the Supreme Court Justice assigned to the
matter criticized the plaintiff for forum shopping. The custody proceeding was later moved to the
Integrated Domestic Violence Part of the Supreme Court, where the Family Court, Criminal Court
and Supreme Court actions between the parties were all combined before one judge. After
plaintiffs continuing efforts to deprive Weiss of contact with the children failed and Weiss was
given unsupervised mid-weekly overnight visits and unsupervised alternate weekends from Friday
after school until Monday to school, the plaintiff escalated her frivolous claims first raised in
Family Court, then in Criminal Court, then in Kings County Supreme Court and finally in the
Integrated Domestic Violence Part and concocted the RICO claims now before this Court.


BERKE & BERKE - 3 - April 14, 2014


Plaintiff is following in her mother=s footsteps. Plaintiff=s mother unsuccessfully made
similar frivolous and outrageous claims against the New York City Police Department and other
officials, that Athe defendants, acting in concert with defendant, Leon R. Stein, [her husband] by
force and against her will, handcuffed her and committed her to a psychiatric hospital, compelling
plaintiff and her seven children to move to another residence.@ * * * AOn appeal, Stein argues that
her constitutional rights were violated on August 4, 1993, when the 70th Precinct of the New York
Police Department forced open the door to her home, beat her head and body into the pavement,
raped her at the precinct, and robbed and ransacked her apartment. She further contends that on
August 9, 1993, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. the police returned to her residence and ripped her seven
children from her arms and that the NYPD, the DA, the IA, the FBI and the CIA refused to do
anything.@ See Shela Mae Stein v. New York Police Department, 76 F.3d 393, (10th Cir Ct., 1996).

Plaintiff=s amended RICO complaint recites Aforced confinement of plaintiff in Amid-March
2011.@ (Para. 31) which continued for Aeight months.@ (Para. 33) during which Weiss allegedly
Acarried out his threats viciously and ruthlessly@ of Aphysical and emotional abuse.@ (Para. 33).
ADuring this time Plaintiff was routinely beaten and repeatedly raped by defendant Yoel Weiss.@
(Para. 34). Plaintiff claimed Weiss initiated a campaign of child abuse, among other things, (first
RICO complaint para 31). In her amended RICO complaint plaintiff states there were Athreats
against plaintiff=s children@ (para. 25) and that APlaintiff and her children were intentionally
underfed and were denied proper medical treatment by defendant Yoel Weiss.@

Despite those and other similar allegations in plaintiff=s RICO complaint and amended
RICO complaint:

1. After the plaintiff became pregnant with each of her two young children, she regularly
saw her obstetrician for prenatal care for each child during each of the two nine month pregnancies.
Nonetheless, she never said a word about any of the claims in her federal complaint to her
physician.
2. When the plaintiff went to the hospital and gave birth to each of her two children, she
never told any doctor, nurse, attendant or administrator of any of the claims in her federal
complaint.
3. When the plaintiff took each of the two children to their pediatricians for frequent
checkups or for illnesses, she made no reference to any of the allegations in the federal complaint.
4. None of the plaintiff=s medical records show any history of rape, physical trauma or
deprivation of medical attention or food as alleged in the federal complaint.
5. In June, 2011 when the plaintiff absconded with her two young children, she went to her
sister=s residence in Monsey, New York where she remained for three or four days. She made no
statements then about the claims now raised in the RICO complaint.
6. The plaintiff went to see a therapist, Zvi Schatel, on June 26, 2011 and told him that she
was afraid that she was going to kill her daughter, Yael Weiss. The plaintiff said nothing about
any of the claims raised in her RICO complaint.
BERKE & BERKE - 4 - April 14, 2014

7. While in Canada the plaintiff made new friends. The building had 24 hour security. She
came and went by herself. She had internet access, a land line telephone and cellular telephone. It
is not believable that the plaintiff was imprisoned and not free.
8. While in Canada the plaintiff sent written communications by e-mail stating that she
loves it there and that Borough Park in Brooklyn is depressing.
9. There are hundreds of family pictures and videos of Plaintiff and defendant telling a
completely different story.
10. There are many witnesses, who saw Plaintiff on a daily bases during those 4 years,
smiling, walking the streets, parks, shopping, restaurants, attending parties, weddings, etc. with no
signs of abuse whatsoever.
11. There is not a single e-mail or text message sent during those four years setting forth
the claims made in the RICO complaint. On the other hand, there are written e-mails and text
messages from Plaintiff to family and friends telling a completely opposite version of the events,
and how happy Plaintiff was in Toronto.
12. On June 18, 2012, the Plaintiff went on vacation with her friend to Miami, and left her
nursing baby at home. She made no mention of any of the allegations in the RICO complaint to
anyone at that time, nor did she go to the police, child abuse authorities or any Court.
13. When plaintiff started a custody case against Weiss in Family Court, Kings County on
July 2, 2012 there was not a single sentence relating to the allegations in the Federal Complaint.
Instead, plaintiff claimed Weiss did not use car seats for the children, tickled one child until he
could not breathe and had a short temper. Yet, again the Plaintiff said nothing about her being
routinely beaten and raped for eight months, kidnaping the children, forcibly confining them with
her at any time or refer to any of his alleged conduct set forth in her 53 page amended RICO
complaint as evidence of unfitness for custody. In plaintiff=s original RICO complaint filed
December 13, 2013 she does not even claim she was raped on June 28 and 29, 2012.
14. In Plaintiff=s Petition for an ex parte Order of Protection Kings County Family Court
on July 2, 2012 the plaintiff stated that she was raped on June 28, 2012 and on June 29, 2012 by
Weiss - the second time allegedly in the presence of her then 12 year old daughter. While plaintiff
states in conclusory form that Weiss Ahas been abusing her since the beginning of the marriage@
she said nothing at all about being routinely beaten and raped for eight months, or about peonage,
kidnaping, forced confinement, the involvement of any other persons assisting Weiss in such
activities. That petition for an order of protection was either dismissed or withdrawn.
15. The plaintiff was interviewed on August 6, 2012 by Diane Hesseman, a mental health
evaluator appointed by the Kings County Family Court to observe and evaluate Weiss with his
two young children. Plaintiff was opposed to any unsupervised visitation and was seeking custody.
Although what that report did state is confidential and the specifics cannot be quoted without an
Order of the Family Court, a reading of the report shows that the plaintiff did not state anything
about being kidnaped, imprisoned, any actual or threatened violence against the children or any of
the allegations that are in the RICO complaint.
16. When the plaintiff was repeatedly interviewed by the attorneys and social workers from
the Children=s Law Center, appointed to represent the two young children in the custody
proceedings in Family Court and the later divorce action in Supreme Court, plaintiff made no
statement about any of the allegations in the federal complaint before it was filed.

BERKE & BERKE - 5 - April 14, 2014

17. When Plaintiff filed numerous complaints with the New York City Police Department,
resulting in five separate arrests of the defendant, Weiss, there was not a single sentence relating
to the allegations in the federal RICO complaint. Weiss was charged multiple times with criminal
contempt in violating the ex parte temporary Order of Protection, but never convicted, except for
one adjournment in contemplation of dismissal without any continuing Order of Protection. All
other criminal cases were withdrawn or dismissed over Plaintiff=s objection.
18. On December 6, 2013 the plaintiff concocted a false story about witnessing an
automobile accident. She went to the New York City Police Department in an effort to create an
excuse for her refusal to permit court ordered visitation with Weiss and the children, but said
nothing to the police about any of the acts alleged in her RICO complaint. Plaintiff=s prior attorney
later admitted that there was no accident and the Plaintiff=s story was a fabrication. Plaintiff=s
counsel later sought leave to withdraw, and was discharged in open Court by plaintiff when the
order to show cause for leave to withdraw was submitted to the State Court for signature.
19. The Plaintiff went to the Administration for Children=s Services in New York City
filing two separate reports of child abuse or neglect, both of which were determined after separate
investigations to be unfounded. Written notifications of those two determinations were sent to
Weiss and the files legally sealed. The Plaintiff never said anything about the allegations in the
RICO complaint to the individuals investigating those false claims of child abuse or child neglect.
20. The claim that Weiss intends to murder the plaintiff to collect life insurance proceeds
on her life is frivolous since the policy is owned by the Plaintiff, who can change the beneficiary
at will. Information to verify that fact was sent to plaintiff=s counsel. The request to order Weiss
to cancel and not maintain any life insurance currently in existence violates an automatic stay
created when the plaintiff filed her summons for divorce in the State Supreme Court divorce under
the heading ANotice re Automatic Orders@ contains five numbered paragraphs, the last of which
states: A5. Neither party shall change the beneficiaries of any existing life insurance policies, and
each party shall maintain the existing life insurance, automobile insurance, homeowners and
renters insurance policies in full force and effect.@
24. In Plaintiff=s original RICO complaint she sought money damages totaling $500 million
in 15 causes of action. Her amended RICO complaint does not specify the amount. In contrast, the
plaintiff, while represented by counsel, agreed in the divorce action to child support of $100 per
week and no maintenance. A So Ordered Stipulation for those sums has been in existence for
almost two years.
25. In her RICO complaint Plaintiff claimed to have worked more than 40 hours per week
in a family business, while she claimed in State Court matrimonial proceedings that she was a stay
at home mom.

This Court is undoubtedly aware of the abuse of the RICO statute when it is used to buttress
weak or frivolous state court claims by a federal RICO claim involving treble damages and counsel
fees. The RICO statutes were intended to combat on-going organized crime syndicates - not
buttress an action for divorce and child custody where three separate judicial officers (Family
Court Referee Yellen, Supreme Court Justice Rachel Adams and Justice Ester Morgenstern in the
Integrated Domestic Violence Part) refused to prevent Weiss from seeing his two young children.


BERKE & BERKE - 6 - April 14, 2014

For all of the foregoing reasons, based upon the failure to allege the necessary RICO
elements as set forth in the letter by Franklyn Snitow, Esq. and based upon the indisputable factual
history of the litigation between these parties, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant the
within request for a pre-motion conference. The undersigned will be outside New York State from
May 22, 2014 - May 26, 2014, and respectfully requests that any conference not be held on those
dates.

No copy of this letter is being sent to the pro se defendant, Moshe Weiss, because he was
in a coma when the action was commenced, and died on March 6, 2014.


Respectfully submitted,

BERKE & BERKE


Jeffrey R. Berke

cc: Vincent Filardo, Jr. (Counsel to plaintiff, Rivka Stein)
Franklyn Snitow, Esq. (Counsel to Defendants, World Wide Plumbing, Chaim Lefkowitz
and Suri Lefkowitz)
Sirka Ehrman, pro se
Gedalia Daniel Katz, pro se
Baruch Weiss, pro se
Pearl Weiss, pro se
Ruchie Weiss, pro se
Abraham Berger, pro se
Burtolucci=s Catering Corp., pro se
Burtolucci=s Ristorante, LLC, pro se