cristallocosmico
четверг, 13 сентября 2012 г.
Writing a Research Paper Tips
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?
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
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
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
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
I hope that the Dino's and Tommy "Bitch Tits" Geoli will all face death
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
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