четверг, 13 сентября 2012 г.

Writing a Research Paper Tips


For students that are in the process of writing a research paper discovering what tips and tricks will assist them in producing a high quality paper prepared for submission, there are a number of resources available which can provide some very valuable and significant information that will detail what is often expected by instructors that assign these types of tasks to the students they have in class.  
The MLA handbook is one of the most resourceful tools a student can get their hands one for discovering tips on writing a research paper that is worthy of receiving a top notch grade.  This handbook is produced by the Modern Language Association which is responsible for establishing guidelines for writing all types of papers and essays of this, or a similar, nature.  It also has detailed formats that students can use as reference samples for any of the various writing projects they are assigned.  It describes specific information for outlining the paper to be prepared as well as allowing students the advantage of comparing the instructions they received from the instructor to see if the guidelines need to be deviated from in order to submit the paper in the proper format per the instructions given.
Tips and tricks for writing a custom paper can also be found in online forums or blogs that discuss the techniques used by previous students of the class being taken.  College students with better than average scores on their own paperwork often reveal the secrets they used in order to achieve the grade they received for the paper they submitted.  These tips and tricks can be incorporated into your current assignment if they are pertinent or relevant to the topic or format that is being discussed or followed.  Although there is some very valuable and helpful information found on these sites it is also possible to get duped into believing something found in one of these posts without taking the time to determine if it is accurate.
College classmates and / or dorm room denizens might also be able to provide some very useful tips about writing a research paper.  Research and writing is not part of every student’s forte, some are better than the others, some are capable of producing an average paper that stabs at making an intermediate grade with which they are satisfied and yet even others are completely incapable of producing anything even remotely logical, comprehensible or legible even with the use of a computer and a program that has a spell checker.  Asking for assistance with a particular assignment from a classmate or the person you share a dorm room with might provide some of the best tips that can be found.
A library either affiliated with the school or in a local setting is another resource for locating tips and tricks regarding writing a research paper.  There are several books available that can be signed out by the student for conducting research on how to properly research a given topic.  Often times a local librarian will be able to offer helpful hints that will assist in preparing the research paper in the format that is desired by the instructor, especially if they are employed by the school from which the assignment has come, since they have probably seen many similar students stop by to produce a paper of the same nature from the same instructor.
If you need assistance with writing a research paper you may also want to contact a professional writing service to help with the finalization of the project.  Students can submit a rough draft or outline of the paper they require and hire a qualified writer to edit and make corrections to the format, language, grammar and punctuation which can then be implemented by the student in order to provide a higher quality paper and receive a significantly better grade.

вторник, 4 сентября 2012 г.

Based upon Amy Walsh’s vague and inconclusive allegations the appropriate question seems to be whether the government actually "looked" to find evidence of such an agreement?

 Peggy Cutolo

from Hollywoodmafia by Jack Whalen


FUCK THE PERSICO FAMILY!


They are weak outside of their two Block's in the shithole Brooklyn that they call home.


I am here LMFAO about what I did to Piggy "Frank" Persico, Teddy Jr, Carmine, Danny and Andre.


R.I.P Bill Cutolo.


The Persico Family are a bunch of petty backstabbing low life's. I hope the Little Gimpy Gnome Carmine has a long stay in the Federal Medical center.


I am sure he has ass problems like some of the other LCN guys locked up.


That is one reason they call him the snake.


I guess this blows the Allie Boi/ Jokey Deross defence of Bill Cutolo is in hiding enjoying his cash. The Petty Persico's did not get enough when they took the hotel and got cash after the war. They had to kill Bill. These guys are scum.


All of them a bunch of cowards.


I hope they find the kid Carmine. That was another cowardly act they committed. The guy gets in a beef so they kill him.


People have to see the area these guys come from. They fight over petty shit. The quickest way to die is to do business with a Persico and have him owe you money.


Take a drive through Brooklyn. Hit Dyker Heights and gaze at the home The Gimp left behind, a Shylock victim paid for that.


Maybe the Government will finally take their "Neverland Ranch" in upstate NY.


There was another funny story in the NY post about some Gambino guys in the Bronx. They were shaking down a hotdog vendor. The LCN is about Honor.


LMFAO Kenji Out! live from Balboa Island in the heart of the OC.


Dear Judge Seybert:


On June 16, 2008, the Court directed the government to provide "information from [ ] witnesses"1 knowledgeable about Marguerite Cutolo’s ("Peggy Cutolo") disclosure of the $1.65 million and the government’s agreement to permit her to retain the money. (See, T. 36) The Court further ordered the government to conduct a search for any documentation pertaining to the alleged disclosure and agreement: "I want you to do a search to see when, if there has been any notation and approval of this


1 The government incorrectly assumed in their submission that the Court directed a single affidavit from Amy Walsh as sufficient to satisfy their obligation "to ascertain whether there is a factual basis for the defendants’ claim" of perjury. (See, government June 30, 2008 letter at page 4) As noted infra, the Court directed information from "witnesses" aware of the disclosure and involved in the agreement to permit Peggy Cutolo to retain the $165 million. (See, transcript pages 35-36 of the June 16, 2008 court appearance, hereafter referred to with the letter "T").


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 5 2


process." (See, T. 36) In response to the Court’s direction, the government has submitted a vague, inconclusive and misleading affidavit from former Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Walsh erroneously claiming that her factual assertions "defeats the defendants’ speculative claim that [Peggy Cutolo and Agent Gary Pontecorvo] committed perjury" in regard to the disclosure of the $1.65 million. To the contrary, we respectfully submit that an evidentiary hearing will clearly show that Peggy Cutolo and Agent Pontecorvo lied regarding the disclosure of the $1.65 million.


Background


During cross-examination, Barbara Jean Cardinale ("Cardinale") first disclosed the existence of the $1 plus million and the fact that her mother was permitted to retain the funds. (Pages 410 and 516-17 of trial transcript hereafter referred to with the letters "TT"). After the surprised disclosure of the existence of the money, the government elicited on direct from Cardinale’s mother Peggy Cutolo that she disclosed the existence of the $1.65 million to Agent Pontecorvo and Ms. Walsh "when she first spoke with the government." (TT.


623-24; 697-98) Peggy Cutolo testified that she was permitted to keep the money by the government. (TT. 698) Later during cross-examination, Peggy Cutolo confirmed that she disclosed the existence of the $1.65 million to the government "during [her] meeting [in] February." (TT. 963)


The meeting with Pontecorvo and Ms. Walsh occurred on February 9, 2001. (TT. 665-66 and 695-698) A review of the rough notes of this meeting, provided to the defense as Exhibit 3500-MEC-5, failed to reflect any mention of the $1.65 million.


Agent Stephanie Dobuc testified that she, along with Agent Pontecorvo, assisted in relocating the Cutolo family from Staten Island to "some other location," and though she met and spoke often with Peggy Cutolo, Agent Dobac was never told that Peggy Cutolo had $1.65 million. Additionally, Agent Dobac testified that she attended a number of meetings with Peggy Cutolo, including the February 9, 2001 meeting with Agent Pontecorvo and Amy Walsh, and that she was never informed "about $1.65 million that [Peggy Cutolo] had in cash." (TT. 4929-30)


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 5 3


In an apparent effort to corroborate Peggy’ Cutolo’s assertion that she disclosed the existence of the $1.65 million to the government, Agent Pontecorvo testified that "while we were getting [the Cutolos] out of the area, or when we arrived in the new area," either Barbara Jean Cardinale or Peggy Cutolo "advised that they had some cash." (TT. 5201) "As soon as [he] realized – before [he] learned of the amount, as soon as [he] knew Mrs. Cutolo had some large amount of cash, [he] advised the US Attorney’s Office." (TT.


5294-95). Later when the Cutolo’s were still at the safe house sometime between January 2001 and May 2001, Agent Pontecorvo learned that Peggy Cutolo had "like $1.65 million" from her husband’s illegal activities. (TT. 5292-94).


Agent Pontecorvo believed that he did not "document, in a 302 or elsewhere, that [he was] aware of $1.6 plus million in cash in the possession of the Cutolo family." (TT. 5295)


Amy Walsh Affidavit


As directed by the Court during the June 16, 2008 appearance, the government submitted an affidavit from then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Walsh ("Walsh Affidavit") in an effort to overcome the allegations that Peggy Cutolo and Agent Pontecorvo lied regarding the disclosure of the $1.65 million. Instead of clarifying the factual misrepresentations, the Walsh Affidavit raises more disturbing questions about the issue and the government’s treatment of the defense allegations.


In vague and equivocal terms, Ms. Walsh recalled, "[a]t some point at or around the time Marguerite Cutolo was relocated," becoming aware from an unidentified source "that [she] had told the FBI that she was in possession of a large amount of cash." (See, Walsh Affidavit at paragraph 2) In her only meeting with Peggy Cutolo on February 9, 2001, Ms. Walsh did not recall whether the "cash" was a topic of discussion. (Walsh Affidavit at Paragraph 3) A review of the February 9, 2001 notes of the meeting clearly demonstrate that Ms.


Walsh’s recollection is questionable because money belonging to Peggy Cutolo’s husband was discussed, but not the $1.65 million. On the eighth page of the notes, Peggy Cutolo recounted showing $70,000 to $80,000 to John J. DeRoss:


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 3 of 5 4


[t]here’s got to be money in the house . . .


She showed him box w/ $70-80,000 and documents


. . . she said I found this he said there’s


gotta be more.


However, as previously noted, there clearly was no discussion about $1.65 million, a fact deliberately withheld from the government by Peggy Cutolo.


Without any recollection of the amount of money involved and again without identifying the persons involved, Ms. Walsh stated that "[a]t some point later in 2001, the government decided to not seek forfeiture of, or taxes on, the funds." (Walsh Affidavit at paragraph 4).


Hearing Requested


Instead of clarifying the factual dispute, the government submission has sought to resolve the issue with a vague and inconclusive affidavit from Amy Walsh. Though Ms. Walsh could not recall "whether the cash . . . was a topic of discussion during the [February 9, 2001] meeting," the notes reflected that Peggy Cutolo had, in fact, disclosed the existence of $70,000 to $80,000 of illicit proceeds. Is this the "large amount of cash" referred to in Ms.


Walsh’s affidavit?


According to Ms. Walsh, she recalled being informed from an unknown source that "Marguerite Cutolo had told the FBI that she was in possession of a large amount of cash found in the Cutolo home." Is this money different from the $70,000 to $80,000, and, if so, how much was actually involved? Are there any notes or documentation to clarify this critical point? Certainly, if the government was going to forego forfeiture and taxes on the racketeering proceeds, the government must have some record of the amount, and certainly must have documentation to demonstrate the approval process as noted by the Court in its request for documentary support of the agreement between the government and Peggy Cutolo permitting her and her family to retain the illicit moneys. (See, T. 36)


The only conclusion from the government’s submission and their failure to provide records of the agreement is that Peggy Cutolo withheld the existence of the $1.65 million from the government and that Agent Pontecorvo lied to bolster a key


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 4 of 5 5


prosecution witness whose credibility had been severely shaken during trial.


In her affidavit Ms. Walsh stated that "[a]t some point later in 2001, the government decided to not seek forfeiture of, or taxes on, the funds." (Walsh Affidavit at Paragraph 4) What funds? Is it the $70,000 to $80,000 disclosed during the February 9, 2001 meeting with Amy Walsh and other law enforcement officials? Is it some other amount? If so, how much?


Who in "the government" authorized the Cutolo’s to retain the money? Where is the documentation of the approval process and agreement? Based upon Amy Walsh’s vague and inconclusive allegations, the appropriate question seems to be whether the government actually "looked" to find evidence of such an agreement?


If the government did not search for such records, then the question becomes why not? And If they did, and failed to uncover such documentation, the logical conclusion is that "no" such agreement existed regarding the alleged disclosure of the $1.65 million. Why is the government "stonewalling" a factual resolution of the allegations of perjury?


A hearing is necessary to resolve these questions and to determine whether a factual basis exists for the defendants’ allegations of perjury.


Conclusion


Based upon the above arguments, an evidentiary hearing to determine the true acts behind the government’s agreement with Peggy Cutolo is necessary. If the Court agrees with our position, we respectfully request that two critical witnesses Amy Walsh and Agent Pontecorvo be initially called in an effort to resolve the disputed issues.2


Respectfully submitted,


Oct 13, 2008 6:13 PM


See United States

United States

from Hollywoodmafia by Jack Whalen


http://en.wordpress.com/tag/anthony-fiato/


This is for those that want to know.


I know some people would like me to write about California. The truth is there is not much going on. There are a few guys running around, but beyond an isolated crime what can they do? They are 2700 miles from NY, with no pool of guys to pull from.


The guys in NY cannot help them. The same goes with Chicago. So the few guys who run around the OC and do some stock deals, some bookmaking are out here alone.


They operate on a false reputation, if someone calls their bluff nothing happens.


People ask about Rusty Shakes Milano's son in law. The guy was part of the LA Family. Shakes made him.


He left years ago, to get back where he had support. that way he could make cash.


So today I have some new stuff on Allie Boi and Jokey Deross, two guys who will be taking it for a long time to come. I hope they stay fit.


There is some stuff on the quest for the death penalty.


No new news on Ori " Noodle" Spado.


Kenji


I am the attorney for defendant Thomas Gioei in connection with the above


matter. I am writing in conjunction with Carl J. Herman, Esq., whom the Court


appointed to serve as learned counsel for Mr. Gioeli. This letter addresses Mr. Gioeli’s


position regarding outstanding motions of co-defendants Dino Calabro and Dino Saracino


for a bill of particulars and raising issues with respect to the government’s Brady


obligations during the death penalty review process. For the reasons stated below, Mr.


Gioeli joins in those motions and asks that the Court grant the defendants relief.


By their motions, defendants do not seek “far flung” discovery regarding the


charges in the indictment, see United States v. Boyd, 931 F.Supp.2d 968, 973 (D.R.I.


1996). Rather, defendants seek only two limited pieces of information. Specifically, the


defendants seek with respect to each murder count: (1) whether an individual defendant is


alleged to have acted as a principal or accomplice; and (2) whether the alleged victim was


engaged in criminal activity at the time of his death. With respect to Mr. Gioeli, the


defendant seeks this information with respect to the following counts: Count One –


Racketeering Act Two (Murder of Frank Marasa) ¶¶ 25-27; Count One – Racketeering


Act Six (Murder/Murder Conspiracy of John Minerva) ¶¶ 33-35; Count One –


Racketeering Act Seven (Murder of Michael Imbregamo) ¶ 36; Count One –


Racketeering Act Thirteen (Murder/Murder Conspiracy of Richard Greaves) ¶¶ 50-52;


Count One – Racketeering Act Sixteen (Murder/Murder Conspiracy of William “Wild


Bill” Cutolo) ¶¶ 58-60; Count Two – Murder In-Aid-Of Racketeering (Murder of Richard


Greaves) ¶¶ 101-104; and Count Four – Murder In-Aid-Of Racketeering (Murder of


William “Wild Bill” Cutolo) ¶¶ 107-108;


The death penalty review process under the United States Department of Justice


Death Penalty Review Protocols (“DOJ Death Penalty Protocols”) offer defense counsel


a “reasonable opportunity” to provide information to be considered by the local United


States Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General’s Capital Case Unit. See United States


Attorney’s Manual § 9-10.000 at D (defense counsel is entitled “to present to the


committee…the reasons why the death penalty should not be sought.”) Courts have


recognized that review process is not a “critical stage” in the defense because it is not a


segment of the process “where the results might well settle the accused’s fate or reduce


the trial itself to a mere formality.” See United States v. Torres Gomez, 62 F.Supp.2d


402, 404 (D.P.R. 1999) quoting Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170 (1985).


Notwithstanding, in order to have meaningful input into the death penalty review process,


defendant counsel must know whether the government contends if a defendant acted as


principal or accomplice, and whether the alleged victim was engaged in criminal conduct


at the time of his death. This information is so basic to adequately representing a


defendant in a death penalty-eligible case that its absence raises issues of fundamental


fairness and adequate representation under the Sixth Amendment. U.S. Const. 6th


Amend.


To the extent that co-defendants Calabro and Saracino have previously addressed


whether the government should provide this information pursuant to Brady v. Maryand,


Mr. Gioeli joins in those arguments.


On a more basic level, however, defendants are entitled, at the very least, to


knows whether they acted as principal or accomplice with respect to the individual


murders. Defendants are entitled to this information by way of a bill of particulars


separate and apart from any Brady issues, which defendant does not waive. As the Court


is well aware, defendants have the right to move pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) for a


bill of particulars requiring the government to set forth “the specific allegations of the


offense charged.” United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105, 110 (2nd Cir. 1997). The


purpose of a bill of particulars is to permit a defendant “to identify with sufficient


particularity the nature of the charge against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare


for trial [and] to prevent surprise….” United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2nd


Cir. 1987). The decision to grant a motion for a bill of particulars lies with the sound


discretion of the district court. See United States v. Panza, 750 F.2d 1141, 1148 (2nd Cir.


1984). While a bill of particulars “is not intended, as such, as a means of learning the


government's evidence and theories,” if necessary to give the defendant enough


information about the charge to prepare his defense, “it will be required even if the effect


is disclosure of evidence or of theories.” 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure §


129 (1982); see also United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 665 (“defendant was entitled


to be otherwise apprised of the conduct that he was engaged to have undertaken”).


The Court should require the government to disclose in this case whether


defendants acted as principal or accomplice in the charged murders. This information is


critical during the death penalty review process to make an adequate presentation on the


client’s behalf. Whether a defendant was an actual “shooter” or participated in a minor


capacity are important mitigation issues that must be addressed to have any meaningful


role under the DOJ Death Penalty Protocols. Without this information, the government


places defense counsel in the awkward position of not knowing whether the government


Cutolo’s murder

contends that his client was the primary actor in an alleged murder. This situation makes


any presentation to the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, and more importantly, to the


Attorney General’s Capital Case Unit, fraught with peril. Indeed, defense counsel runs


the risk of completely undermining his credibility before the Committee if he does not


know how the panel views his client’s role in a particular homicide. An error on this


point could result in the Committee discounting any other representations on mitigation.


Thus, any “reasonable opportunity” to participate in the process by defense counsel could


be rendered meaningless.


Since the indictment in the present case does not provide any information on


whether a defendant acted as principal or accomplice, the Court should require the


government to disclose this information. Accordingly, the Court should grant defendants


this requested relief.


We want to thank the Court for its continued consideration of this matter.


ALLIE BOI and JOKEYS big lie..


As this Court found in its November 24 Order, the


government established the defendants’ guilt of Cutolo’s murder


beyond a reasonable doubt by, among other things, presenting


substantial evidence that the defendants ordered Cutolo’s murder.


Further, the government established that the defendants had a


strong motive to kill Cutolo, had the opportunity to do so using


individuals aligned with Persico and DeRoss in the Colombo crime


family, and took numerous actions after Cutolo’s murder


establishing their guilt, including admitting their


participation, intimidating witnesses, and immediately trying to


take control of money and other assets controlled by Cutolo. The


defendants principally claimed at trial that Cutolo was alive.


Well after the verdict, the government has gained


further knowledge of the details of how the defendants


orchestrated Cutolo’s murder. The information currently in the


government’s possession can be summarized generally as follows:


• The defendants ordered Cutolo’s murder.


• On those orders, various individuals aligned with


Persico and DeRoss, including, among others, Colombo


crime family members Vincent “Chickie” DiMartino,


Thomas Gioeli, Dino Calabro and Dino Saracino, then


plotted to murder Cutolo.


• Cutolo was in fact murdered on the defendants’ order,


by various individuals aligned with Persico and DeRoss.


• After the murder was carried out, Cutolo was buried in


Farmingdale, New York.


This information is completely consistent with the government’s


theory of liability at trial, which this Court has previously


described. See 11/24/08 Memorandum and Order at 25 (“The


Government established the Defendants’ guilt at trial based on,


inter alia, evidence that (1) the Defendants ordered Cutolo’s


murder; and (2) the individual who carried out Cutolo’s murder


was aligned with the faction of the crime family controlled by


Persico and DeRoss.”).


The government possesses no information that the


defendants did not order Cutolo’s murder.


Analysis


I. Persico’s Motion for Reconsideration is Without Merit


A. Standard of Decision


First, as a factual matter, that claim is incorrect.


The information now in the government’s possession directly


implicates DiMartino in plotting to kill Cutolo.


The defendant claims that the fact that the government


has not newly charged DiMartino with the Cutolo murder must be an


indication that he was not a participant (Ltr. at 2) is illogical


and incorrect. DiMartino is already serving 25 years’


imprisonment for attempting to murder Joseph Campanella. In any


case, the fact is that the government currently possesses


information that DiMartino conspired to kill Cutolo on orders


from Persico and DeRoss.1


Second, as a legal matter, whether or not DiMartino was


involved in plotting to kill Cutolo (he was), or whether or not


DiMartino was the shooter, is immaterial. As the Court has


already found, what mattered to the defendants’ conviction was


that they ordered Cutolo’s murder, and the government


“present[ed] extensive evidence” establishing this. 11/24/08


Memorandum and Order at 24; see also id. at 25 (“The Government


presented more than sufficient evidence to establish that the


Defendants ordered Cutolo, Sr.’s death.”). The details of how


that order was carried out were not material to the defendants’


Goodbye you fools.


These guys are nothing but cowards that get others to do crimes that they cannot commit. They gain and everyone else gets nothing. Look at the lawyers they have. then look at the lawyers everyone else has.


Sonny, Tommy Bitch Tits, all the gang have public defenders. yeah these guys are ballers. That is why they have such great lawyers working to get them off.


Feb 17, 2009 5:08 PM


A hearing is necessary to resolve these questions and to determine whether a factual basis exists for the defendants’ allegations of perjury

 Peggy Cutolo

from Hollywoodmafia by Jack Whalen


FUCK THE PERSICO FAMILY!


They are weak outside of their two Block's in the shithole Brooklyn that they call home.


I am here LMFAO about what I did to Piggy "Frank" Persico, Teddy Jr, Carmine, Danny and Andre.


R.I.P Bill Cutolo.


The Persico Family are a bunch of petty backstabbing low life's. I hope the Little Gimpy Gnome Carmine has a long stay in the Federal Medical center.


I am sure he has ass problems like some of the other LCN guys locked up.


That is one reason they call him the snake.


I guess this blows the Allie Boi/ Jokey Deross defence of Bill Cutolo is in hiding enjoying his cash. The Petty Persico's did not get enough when they took the hotel and got cash after the war. They had to kill Bill. These guys are scum.


All of them a bunch of cowards.


I hope they find the kid Carmine. That was another cowardly act they committed. The guy gets in a beef so they kill him.


People have to see the area these guys come from. They fight over petty shit. The quickest way to die is to do business with a Persico and have him owe you money.


Take a drive through Brooklyn. Hit Dyker Heights and gaze at the home The Gimp left behind, a Shylock victim paid for that.


Maybe the Government will finally take their "Neverland Ranch" in upstate NY.


There was another funny story in the NY post about some Gambino guys in the Bronx. They were shaking down a hotdog vendor. The LCN is about Honor.


LMFAO Kenji Out! live from Balboa Island in the heart of the OC.


Dear Judge Seybert:


On June 16, 2008, the Court directed the government to provide "information from [ ] witnesses"1 knowledgeable about Marguerite Cutolo’s ("Peggy Cutolo") disclosure of the $1.65 million and the government’s agreement to permit her to retain the money. (See, T. 36) The Court further ordered the government to conduct a search for any documentation pertaining to the alleged disclosure and agreement: "I want you to do a search to see when, if there has been any notation and approval of this


1 The government incorrectly assumed in their submission that the Court directed a single affidavit from Amy Walsh as sufficient to satisfy their obligation "to ascertain whether there is a factual basis for the defendants’ claim" of perjury. (See, government June 30, 2008 letter at page 4) As noted infra, the Court directed information from "witnesses" aware of the disclosure and involved in the agreement to permit Peggy Cutolo to retain the $165 million. (See, transcript pages 35-36 of the June 16, 2008 court appearance, hereafter referred to with the letter "T").


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 5 2


process." (See, T. 36) In response to the Court’s direction, the government has submitted a vague, inconclusive and misleading affidavit from former Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Walsh erroneously claiming that her factual assertions "defeats the defendants’ speculative claim that [Peggy Cutolo and Agent Gary Pontecorvo] committed perjury" in regard to the disclosure of the $1.65 million. To the contrary, we respectfully submit that an evidentiary hearing will clearly show that Peggy Cutolo and Agent Pontecorvo lied regarding the disclosure of the $1.65 million.


Background


During cross-examination, Barbara Jean Cardinale ("Cardinale") first disclosed the existence of the $1 plus million and the fact that her mother was permitted to retain the funds. (Pages 410 and 516-17 of trial transcript hereafter referred to with the letters "TT"). After the surprised disclosure of the existence of the money, the government elicited on direct from Cardinale’s mother Peggy Cutolo that she disclosed the existence of the $1.65 million to Agent Pontecorvo and Ms. Walsh "when she first spoke with the government." (TT. 623-24; 697-98) Peggy Cutolo testified that she was permitted to keep the money by the government. (TT.


698) Later during cross-examination, Peggy Cutolo confirmed that she disclosed the existence of the $1.65 million to the government "during [her] meeting [in] February." (TT. 963)


The meeting with Pontecorvo and Ms. Walsh occurred on February 9, 2001. (TT. 665-66 and 695-698) A review of the rough notes of this meeting, provided to the defense as Exhibit 3500-MEC-5, failed to reflect any mention of the $1.65 million.


Agent Stephanie Dobuc testified that she, along with Agent Pontecorvo, assisted in relocating the Cutolo family from Staten Island to "some other location," and though she met and spoke often with Peggy Cutolo, Agent Dobac was never told that Peggy Cutolo had $1.65 million. Additionally, Agent Dobac testified that she attended a number of meetings with Peggy Cutolo, including the February 9, 2001 meeting with Agent Pontecorvo and Amy Walsh, and that she was never informed "about $1.65 million that [Peggy Cutolo] had in cash." (TT. 4929-30)


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 5 3


In an apparent effort to corroborate Peggy’ Cutolo’s assertion that she disclosed the existence of the $1.65 million to the government, Agent Pontecorvo testified that "while we were getting [the Cutolos] out of the area, or when we arrived in the new area," either Barbara Jean Cardinale or Peggy Cutolo "advised that they had some cash." (TT. 5201) "As soon as [he] realized – before [he] learned of the amount, as soon as [he] knew Mrs. Cutolo had some large amount of cash, [he] advised the US Attorney’s Office." (TT.


5294-95). Later when the Cutolo’s were still at the safe house sometime between January 2001 and May 2001, Agent Pontecorvo learned that Peggy Cutolo had "like $1.65 million" from her husband’s illegal activities. (TT. 5292-94).


A hearing is necessary to resolve these questions and to determine whether a factual basis exists for the defendants’ allegations of perjury

Agent Pontecorvo believed that he did not "document, in a 302 or elsewhere, that [he was] aware of $1.6 plus million in cash in the possession of the Cutolo family." (TT. 5295)


Amy Walsh Affidavit


As directed by the Court during the June 16, 2008 appearance, the government submitted an affidavit from then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Walsh ("Walsh Affidavit") in an effort to overcome the allegations that Peggy Cutolo and Agent Pontecorvo lied regarding the disclosure of the $1.65 million. Instead of clarifying the factual misrepresentations, the Walsh Affidavit raises more disturbing questions about the issue and the government’s treatment of the defense allegations.


In vague and equivocal terms, Ms. Walsh recalled, "[a]t some point at or around the time Marguerite Cutolo was relocated," becoming aware from an unidentified source "that [she] had told the FBI that she was in possession of a large amount of cash." (See, Walsh Affidavit at paragraph 2) In her only meeting with Peggy Cutolo on February 9, 2001, Ms. Walsh did not recall whether the "cash" was a topic of discussion. (Walsh Affidavit at Paragraph 3) A review of the February 9, 2001 notes of the meeting clearly demonstrate that Ms.


Walsh’s recollection is questionable because money belonging to Peggy Cutolo’s husband was discussed, but not the $1.65 million. On the eighth page of the notes, Peggy Cutolo recounted showing $70,000 to $80,000 to John J. DeRoss:


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 3 of 5 4


[t]here’s got to be money in the house . . .


She showed him box w/ $70-80,000 and documents


. . . she said I found this he said there’s


gotta be more.


However, as previously noted, there clearly was no discussion about $1.65 million, a fact deliberately withheld from the government by Peggy Cutolo.


Without any recollection of the amount of money involved and again without identifying the persons involved, Ms. Walsh stated that "[a]t some point later in 2001, the government decided to not seek forfeiture of, or taxes on, the funds." (Walsh Affidavit at paragraph 4).


Hearing Requested


Instead of clarifying the factual dispute, the government submission has sought to resolve the issue with a vague and inconclusive affidavit from Amy Walsh. Though Ms. Walsh could not recall "whether the cash . . . was a topic of discussion during the [February 9, 2001] meeting," the notes reflected that Peggy Cutolo had, in fact, disclosed the existence of $70,000 to $80,000 of illicit proceeds.


Is this the "large amount of cash" referred to in Ms. Walsh’s affidavit?


According to Ms. Walsh, she recalled being informed from an unknown source that "Marguerite Cutolo had told the FBI that she was in possession of a large amount of cash found in the Cutolo home." Is this money different from the $70,000 to $80,000, and, if so, how much was actually involved? Are there any notes or documentation to clarify this critical point? Certainly, if the government was going to forego forfeiture and taxes on the racketeering proceeds, the government must have some record of the amount, and certainly must have documentation to demonstrate the approval process as noted by the Court in its request for documentary support of the agreement between the government and Peggy Cutolo permitting her and her family to retain the illicit moneys. (See, T. 36)


The only conclusion from the government’s submission and their failure to provide records of the agreement is that Peggy Cutolo withheld the existence of the $1.65 million from the government and that Agent Pontecorvo lied to bolster a key


Case 1:04-cr-00911-JS Document 687 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 4 of 5 5


prosecution witness whose credibility had been severely shaken during trial.


In her affidavit Ms. Walsh stated that "[a]t some point later in 2001, the government decided to not seek forfeiture of, or taxes on, the funds." (Walsh Affidavit at Paragraph 4) What funds? Is it the $70,000 to $80,000 disclosed during the February 9, 2001 meeting with Amy Walsh and other law enforcement officials? Is it some other amount?


If so, how much? Who in "the government" authorized the Cutolo’s to retain the money? Where is the documentation of the approval process and agreement? Based upon Amy Walsh’s vague and inconclusive allegations, the appropriate question seems to be whether the government actually "looked" to find evidence of such an agreement?


If the government did not search for such records, then the question becomes why not? And If they did, and failed to uncover such documentation, the logical conclusion is that "no" such agreement existed regarding the alleged disclosure of the $1.65 million. Why is the government "stonewalling" a factual resolution of the allegations of perjury?


A hearing is necessary to resolve these questions and to determine whether a factual basis exists for the defendants’ allegations of perjury.


Conclusion


Based upon the above arguments, an evidentiary hearing to determine the true acts behind the government’s agreement with Peggy Cutolo is necessary. If the Court agrees with our position, we respectfully request that two critical witnesses Amy Walsh and Agent Pontecorvo be initially called in an effort to resolve the disputed issues.2


Respectfully submitted,


Oct 13, 2008 6:13 PM


I hope that the Dino's and Tommy "Bitch Tits" Geoli will all face death

intercepted communication

from Hollywoodmafia by Jack Whalen


Happy New Year to what is left of the LCN!


I am sure 2009 will be another year of many member's and hanger ons getting incarcerated!


This is a good thing. A few major blunders will be made by these men again and again.


They will still frequent the same restaurant's. They will still use phones. They will still hang out.


They will do nothing and this will be the reason that more people will testify against them.


Maybe this year the LCN will learn how to search the net. That way they could stop guys like Ori Spado from hanging around. Ori is still walking around MDC Brooklyn without a care. He tells people that all he did was talk on the phone with Sonny Franzese.


I guess he forgot about the cocaine deals and the home invasion he set up. The fact that he picked up the guys at the airport, supplied the gun and drop the guys back off again. How about the women they terrorized?


These are real men! I wonder what the women would think if she knew that Ori Spado was an FBI informant. That he continued for many years to threaten people and extort them. Yet he was able to walk around free to hurt people. (If he could LMFAO)


Pete "Shakes" Milano saw Ori for what he was.. A Pussy, big mouth and FBI Informant.


He would have nothing to do with him. The other guys who Ori refers too on tape as "the Little Guys" That would be Louie and Tommy cut him off. They would never speak to him. Even Louie Gelfuso chased him.


Ori cried.


Despite all that, the Colombo Family Underboss still let Ori come around. Ori gave him money.


Maybe Sonny should have unsealed his own pockets!


I find it so funny that the Colombo Family could not use GOOGLE!


I hope that the Dino's and Tommy "Bitch Tits" Geoli will all face death. Then I hope their appeals last say 16 years. This will give these brave men plenty of time to enjoy their new homes!


I wonder if they can still threaten women, rob stores while away?


Time to enjoy the last few days of the year here in Beautiful Southern California!


Big Shout Out to......


Chris Paciello


Campy he punked these bitches!


Joey Caves, He did a real good deed!


Bill Cutolo Jr, Operation Payback just keeps on paying back!


To the rest of the retard crew known as the Colombo's, keep kicking up your cash to the Persico's.


Ex. Description


455 May 2006 airline records


456 Photographs taken from a video


surveillance at Los Angeles International


Airport on May 19, 2006


457 Cellular telephone records of cellular


telephone number 917-335-2000, between May


2, 2006 and May 28, 2006


458 Cellular telephone records of cellular


telephone numbers 310-739-4667 and 310-


418-0862, between May 18, 2006 and May 20,


2006


459 Cellular telephone records of cellular


telephone numbers 310-739-4667 and 310-


418-0862, between May 15, 2006 and May 31,


2006


460 Telephone records of telephone number 310-


273-2811, between May 15, 2006 and June


14, 2006


461 DEA Laboratory Report on marijuana


provided to FBI by a cooperating witness


Sept. 20, 2005


Draft transcripts of audio recordings of intercepted


oral and wire communications containing statements of certain


defendants in this case will also be available at First Choice.1


The following are draft transcripts of intercepted oral


communications within the vicinity of and within the baseball


fields at Glen Cove High School. The audio recordings of these


Case 1:08-cr-00240-BMC Document 172 Filed 12/11/2008 Page 2 of 6


All Counsel


December 11, 2008


Page 3


intercepted communications were previously produced as Discovery


Exhibit Numbers 382 to 385.


Ex. Description


462 Transcript of intercepted communication on


July 12, 2000


463 Transcript of intercepted communication on


July 30, 2000


464 Transcript of intercepted communication on


September 20, 2000


465 Transcript of intercepted communication on


October 24, 2000


The following draft transcripts of wire communications


over cellular telephone (516) 835-0095 will also be available at


First Choice. The audio recordings of these intercepted


communications were previously produced as Discovery Exhibit


Numbers 386 to 395.


Ex. Description


466 Transcript of intercepted communication on


February 22, 2001


467 Transcripts of intercepted communications


on February 23, 2001


468 Transcript of intercepted communication on


March 7, 2001


469 Transcript of intercepted communication on


March 23, 2001


470 Transcripts of intercepted communications


on March 26, 2001


471 Transcript of intercepted communication on


March 27, 2001


472 Transcript of intercepted communication on


April 4, 2001


The following copies of orders, applications and


affidavits related to the previously-produced interceptions of


Case 1:08-cr-00240-BMC Document 172 Filed 12/11/2008 Page 3 of 6


All Counsel


December 11, 2008


 Transcript intercepted

Page 4


wire and oral communications will also be available at First


Choice.


Ex. Description


473 Orders, applications and affidavits


related to intercepted oral communications


within the vicinity of and within the


baseball fields at Glen Cove High School


474 Orders, applications and affidavits


related to intercepted wire communications


over cellular telephone (516) 835-0095


475 Orders, applications and affidavits


related to intercepted wire communications


over cellular telephone (516) 456-4201


The following CDs will be available at Dupe Coop


shortly after the date of this letter. You may obtain all


materials available at DupeCoop by contacting John Palermo at


(973) 895-1359.


Ex. Description


476 CD containing a recording of a 911 call


received by the Burbank Police Department


on May 19, 2006


477 CD containing cellular telephone and


sector records of cellular telephone


number 917-335-2000, between March 1, 2006


and November 7, 2006


478 CD containing cellular telephone and


sector records of cellular telephone


number 917-335-2000, between January 3,


2007 and March 1, 2007


The following consensually recorded conversations made


by the cooperating witness identified in the government’s


previous discovery letters as CW-1 will be available at Dupe Coop


shortly after the date of this letter.


Case 1:08-cr-00240-BMC Document 172 Filed 12/11/2008 Page 4 of 6


All Counsel


December 11, 2008


Page 5


2 The individual defendants listed under the column


“Defendants” on the charts in this letter reflect the


government’s current understanding of which defendants are


captured speaking during each of the consensually recorded


conversations.


Ex. Description Defendants2


479 Consensual recording made on


April 4, 2006


Franzese


480 Consensual recording made on


April 26, 2006


Franzese


481 Consensual recording made on


September 1, 2006


Catapano, Franzese


482 Consensual recording made on


October 2, 2006


Curanovic, Franzese


483 Consensual recording made on


October 12, 2006


Catapano, Curanovic,


Franzese


The following consensually recorded conversation made


by the cooperating witness identified in the government’s


previous discovery letters as CW-3 will be available at Dupe Coop


shortly after the date of this letter.


Ex. Description Defendants


484 Consensual recording made on


February 27, 2008


Saracino


In addition, one CD containing electronic version of


the line sheets related to the intercepted wire communications


over cellular telephone (516) 456-4201 is available at Dupe Coop


and marked Discovery Exhibit Number 485.


Case 1:08-cr-00240-BMC Document 172 Filed 12/11/2008 Page 5 of 6


All Counsel


December 11, 2008


Page 6


If you have further questions or requests, p


Re: Thomas Gioeli, et al.


Dear Judge Cogan:


We are in receipt of the Government’s response, dated October 24, 2008, to


Defendants’ request for immediate disclosure of certain material relevant to the


determination of whether or not a death penalty prosecution should be authorized against


Defendants Dino Calabro and/or Dino Saracino in the above-referenced matter. The


Government’s letter appears to completely misunderstand the different standard of


admissibility between evidence related to the guilt/innocence phase of criminal trials,


from evidence relevant to the penalty phase of a capital trial or the disclosure of evidence


relevant to the initial determination of whether a capital prosecution will even be


authorized. For the reasons that follow, we respectfully submit that immediate disclosure


of the material requested in Defendants’ letter, dated, October 14, 2008


Dec 23, 2008 4:45 PM