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?

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