Category Archives: Genovese Family

Depiro, Stephen Detention Memorandum

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Susan D. Wigenton

v. 10 Cr. 851

STEPHEN DEPIRO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 894(a),
a/k/a “Beach,” 1084(a), 1951(a),    
ALBERT CERNADAS, 1955(a), 1962(d)   and 1963
a/k/a “The Bull,”          
NUNZIO LAGRASSO,          
RICHARD DEHMER,          
a/k/a “Dickie,”          
EDWARD AULISI,          
a/k/a “Eddie,”          
VINCENT AULISI,          
a/k/a “The Vet,”          
THOMAS LEONARDIS,          
a/k/a “Tommy,”          
ROBERT RUIZ,          
a/k/a “Bobby,”          
MICHAEL TRUEBA,          
a/k/a “Mikey,”          
RAMIRO QUINTANS,          
a/k/a “Romo,”          
SALVATORE LAGRASSO,          
ANTHONY ALFANO,          
a/k/a “Brooklyn,”          
TONINO COLANTONIO,          
a/k/a “Tony,”          
JOHN HARTMANN,          
a/k/a “Lumpy,” “Fatty” and        
“Fats,” and          
GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,          
a/k/a “Pepe”          
               

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3142

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142, for an order detaining lead defendant Stephen Depiro pretrial and releasing the remaining defendants conditioned on the satisfaction of stringent conditions, enumerated below, including large secured bonds, house arrest, and prohibitions pertaining to employment and union activities.

Depiro is a soldier in the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (“the Genovese crime family”) and, since at least 2005, has managed and controlled the crime family’s waterfront rackets through corrupt International Longshoreman’s Association (“ILA”) union officials. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(e), there is no condition or combination of conditions which “will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” Accordingly, the entry of an order detaining Depiro pretrial is warranted.

As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Genovese crime family has preyed for years upon ILA members employed in various positions on the New Jersey docks through a pattern of racketeering activity. That pattern is predicated, in part, on the systematic use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, to force dockworkers to make tribute payments -amounts

ranging up to thousands of dollars each year -to the Genovese

crime family at Christmastime. The extortions typically coincided

with certain ILA members’ receipt of “Container Royalty Fund”

checks, a form of year-end compensation. The breadth and scope of

the extortion scheme at issue is stunning: It dates back nearly

three decades; implicates the last three Presidents of ILA Local

1235 (defendants Albert Cernadas, Vincent Aulisi and Thomas

Leonardis), a long-standing Vice-President of ILA Local 1235

(defendant Michael Trueba) and the long-standing Vice-President of

ILA Local 1478 (defendant Nunzio LaGrasso); and illuminates the

victimization of countless ILA members -including members of ILA

Local I, ILA Local 1235 and ILA Local 1478 -a number of whom are

identified in the Superseding Indictment as John Does #1-11, by

the Genovese crime family.l

1 An indictment was also unsealed today in the Eastern District of New York charging three ILA members -Patrick Cicalese, Robert Moreno and Manuel Salgado -with obstruction of justice and perjury. Specifically, Patrick Cicalese, a Genovese crime family associate and the Chief Planning Clerk at Maher Terminals in Newark, New Jersey, is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his appearance before a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York in January 2010, during which appearance he testified falsely regarding a meeting he had arranged between himself and Stephen Depiro so that he

(Cicalese) could “run things by” Depiro. Moreno, an ILA Local 1478 Shop Steward, is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his federal grand jury appearance in Brooklyn, New York in November 2009, during which appearance he testified falsely that Nunzio LaGrasso had not previously asked Moreno to cover up for an ILA worker who was not at work. Salgado, a Gang Boss at Port Newark Container Terminal (“PNCT”), is charged with attempting to obstruct justice and perjury in relation to his grand jury appearance in April 2010, during which

Depiro’s criminal enterprise was not limited to criminal

conduct on the port, and extended to illegal gambling operations, in which defendant Richard Dehmer threatened physical harm against individuals to collect outstanding debts. For example, in a telephone conversation intercepted pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, Dehmer discussed his plans for a victim (identified as John Doe #12 in the Superseding Indictment) who had failed to pay a gambling debt in a timely manner: “I guarantee you, he needs his hands to work. He ain’t working no more for a while.” 2

The fact that high-ranking union officials and others were willing to, and did, perpetrate such crimes, including crimes of violence, on Depiro’s behalf constitutes compelling evidence that he poses a danger to the community; Depiro should be detained on that basis alone. Moreover, Depiro previously has exhibited a complete disregard of the law by repeatedly violating prior conditions of pretrial release, supervised release and probation, demonstrating that he cannot be trusted to abide by the conditions of release and act in a lawful manner.

appearance Salgado testified falsely that he had never had a conversation with anyone about paying money around Christmastime on the ports. Cicalese, Moreno and Salgado will be arraigned on the charges in the indictment this afternoon in Brooklyn, New York.

2 The government hereby provides the defendants with notice pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(9), of the government’s intent to rely on evidence gathered pursuant to court-authorized wiretaps in the prosecution of this matter.

In addition, Depiro committed additional crimes while on

release, and went so far as to conceal the flight from justice of fellow Genovese crime family member Michael Coppola, who was then the subject of a warrant related to a murder investigation. Depiro was convicted in the District of New Jersey of that conduct in 2002, but nonetheless, obviously undeterred, continued to aid Coppola, including facilitating Coppola’s involvement in the Genovese crime family’s control of the New Jersey piers. Depiro was indicted for that conduct on April 28, 2010, in the Eastern District of New York, which case is pending.

Finally, Depiro, now 55 years old, faces severe penalties if convicted of the instant charges; the prospect that he will spend his remaining days incarcerated provides compelling incentive to flee. Hence, the Court should enter an order detaining Depiro pending trial.

Second, the Court should condition the release of defendant Nunzio LaGrasso on the posting of a $1,000,000 bond, at least 70% secured. As Depiro’s cousin and Vice-President of lLA Local 1478, LaGrasso served as one of the Genovese crime family’s conduits at the ports, using his official union position to collect tribute payments from dockworkers each holiday season for more than 20 years, and funneling that cash to Depiro and the Genovese crime family. The charges against both LaGrasso and fellow Genovese crime family associate Albert Cernadas are

similar, as both served for extended periods as union officials

and conduits for extortion payments to the Genovese crime family. In this regard, on December 13, 2010, defendant Albert Cernadas was arraigned on the charges contained in the first indictment in this case, at which time Magistrate Judge Esther Salas imposed bail in the amount of a $1,000,000 bond, secured by multiple properties with equity of approximately $700,000, i.e., 70% fully secured. In short, since LaGrasso and Cernadas share relatively the same level of culpability in the extortion scheme at issue, their bail packages should be substantially similar.

Third, the Court should release defendant Richard Dehmer only conditioned on a secured bond and home detention. Dehmer served as a Genovese crime family associate who, along with Depiro and others, managed an illegal overseas sports betting operation and collected gambling debts. Despite his age, Dehmer was able to force individuals to pay debts by virtue of his criminal association: People paid Dehmer because they feared Depiro. In addition, Dehmer resorted to threats of violence against gambling debtors, stating in recorded telephone conversations that he intended to use a “bat” and “break every bone” to collect outstanding debts. Dehmer also operated an illegal gambling establishment in Kenilworth, New Jersey, which gamblers frequented for regular poker games. Finally, Dehmer faces up to 20 years in prison on each of the racketeering counts contained in the Superseding Indictment. Because Dehmer constitutes a danger to the community and a flight risk given the severe penalties he is facing, release on a secured bond with a requirement of home detention is appropriate.

Fourth, pretrial release conditions comprising significant, secured bonds are necessary and appropriate with respect to defendants Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans and Salvatore LaGrasso. These defendants, nearly all of whom were union or port supervisors, abused their lLA positions to extort port workers entrusted to their stewardship. These defendants extracted tribute payments from their co-workers at Christmastime each year, and did so through the threat of physical violence and the infliction of psychological harm. Simply put, these defendants preyed upon their co-workers’ vulnerability and fear for their physical safety and job security. That these defendants went so far as to shake-down the same individuals they worked alongside of each day speaks volumes regarding their criminal proclivities and the danger to the community and potential witnesses posed by pretrial release. Moreover, the defendants pose flight risks because they will be removed from their jobs and face severe penalties if convicted.

OVERVIEW OF DEFENDANTS & CHARGES3

A. RICO DEFENDANTS

1. RICO Charges (Counts 1 and 2)

Defendants Stephen Depiro, Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso and Richard Dehmer (collectively, the “RICO Defendants”) are charged with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et~, as members and associates of the Genovese crime family. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Genovese crime family’s primary purpose is to generate money for its members and associates through various criminal activities, including extortion, loansharking and gambling; among the methods and means by which the Genovese crime family furthers those criminal goals are the use and threatened use of violence and threats of economic harm.

Indeed, the charges against Depiro, Cernadas and Nunzio LaGrasso arise from a multi-decade conspiracy to extort ILA union workers on the New Jersey waterfront by threat of force, violence and fear. Similarly, Depiro and Dehmer are charged with a racketeering conspiracy predicated on the extortionate collection of unlawful debt (“CUD RICO”), which conduct involved prospective force and violence. The maximum penalty on both RICO Counts 1 and 2 is a 20-year period of incarceration.

3 The charges and racketeering acts contained in the Superseding Indictment are summarized at “Appendix A” hereto.

2.          Substantive Extortion Charges (Counts 3-4; 9; 14­25; 43-44)

RICO Defendants Depiro, Cernadas and Nunzio LaGrasso are also charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and numerous substantive extortion counts. RICO Defendants Depiro and Dehmer are charged with conspiring to make extortionate collections of credit and Dehmer is charged with a substantive violation regarding same. Each substantive extortion violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration.

3.         Substantive Illegal Gambling Charges (Counts 41-42; 45-53) RICO Defendants Depiro and Dehmer are also charged with illegal gambling offenses relating to bookmaking and conspiracy to commit same, which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration. Additionally, Dehmer is charged with offenses relating to an illegal gambling club, which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration, and the transmission of

wagering information, for which the maximum penalty is 2 years’ incarceration. 4

4 Defendant John Hartmann is charged with conspiring to commit, and the commission of, bookmaking. Similarly, defendants Giuseppe Pugliese, Anthony Alfano and Tonino Colantonio are charged in relation to their participation in illegal poker games. These defendants, Hartmann, Pugliese, Alfano and Colantonio (collectively, the “Gambling Defendants”), are not charged with crimes of violence and will not be addressed separately herein.

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Defendants Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso, Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans and Salvatore LaGrasso are separately charged with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortion and numerous substantive extortion violations (collectively, the “Extortion Defendants”). Each of violation charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration. As summarized below, these defendants used their lucrative positions in the ILA to perpetuate a long-term extortion scheme of ILA dockworkers on the New Jersey piers:

Defendant Position(s) Compensation (Year)
CERNADAS ILA Local 1235 President; ILA Executive Vice-President $532,719 (2004)
N. LAGRASSO ILA Local 1478 Vice-President; ILA Representative $255,916 (2010)
E. AULISI ILA Local 1 Checker $99,090 (2007)
V. AULISI ILA Local 1235 President $181,432 (2007)
LEONARDIS ILA Local 1235 President; ILA Representative $256,063 (2010)
RUIZ ILA Local 1235 Delegate; ILA Representative $230,512 (2010)
TRUEBA ILA Local 1235 Vice-President; Maher Terminals Shop Steward $403,756 (2010)
QUINTANS ILA Local 1235 Stevedore Foreman $269,035 (2010)
S. LAGRASSO ILA Local 1235 Head General Foreman $274,790 (2010)

 

BACKGROUND

The Superseding Indictment unsealed today is the latest in a succession of cases targeting the Genovese crime family’s control over the New Jersey waterfront through corrupt ILA union officials. Stephen Depiro, a “made” member in the Genovese crime family, is the most recent successor from the violent crew that has controlled the crime family’s port-related rackets for decades.

A. XLA Union Corruption

On February 11, 2005, a superseding indictment was filed in the Eastern District of New York against four defendants, Arthur Coffey, Harold Daggett, Albert Cernadas and Lawrence Ricci. Among other positions they held in the ILA, Coffey was the President of ILA Locals 1922, 1922-1 and 2062, Daggett was the President of ILA Local 1804-1, and Cernadas was the President of ILA Local 1235. The indictment alleged that Coffey and Daggett were associates of Genovese crime family crews based in New York, Ricci was a captain in a crew based in Northern New Jersey ­reportedly under Tino Fiumara -and that Cernadas was a Genovese crime family associate connected to Ricci’s crew.

Count Two of the indictment charged the defendants with a wire/mail fraud conspiracy between 1996 and October 2004 relating to various union benefit funds which provided health care benefits to members of the ILA in different regions of the United

States. As part of the conspiracy, it was alleged that Coffey, Daggett and Cernadas secretly agreed to award contracts relating to the provision of fund benefits to two different companies, one of which paid an associate of organized crime.and the other of which was associated with organized crime. By awarding contracts to these companies, Coffey, Daggett and Cernadas allegedly intended to earn money for organized crime and ensure the assistance of organized crime in maintaining their positions and salaries as officers of the ILA.

On September 12, 2005, Cernadas pled guilty to Count Two of the indictment and received a sentence of probation. In addition, Cernadas entered into a consent decree which, among other things, barred him from further employment with the ILA. On September 19, 2005, the remaining defendants proceeded to trial, which resulted in their acquittal. While the trial was underway, however, defendant Ricci failed to attend court and could not be located. Weeks later, on or about November 30, 2005, Ricci’s body was found in the trunk of a car behind the Huck Finn Diner in Union, New Jersey. The investigation into Ricci’s murder is ongoing, and court documents have been filed in the Eastern District of New York concerning suspected targets Tino Fiumara and Michael Coppola, among others.

B. RICO Prosecution of Michael Coppola

Michael Coppola, a Genovese captain, was a fugitive from a New Jersey state murder beginning in 1996, when he was served with a summons to provide DNA, until March 2007, when he was captured on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. On July 21, 2009, in the Eastern District of New York, Coppola was convicted after trial of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy, including a predicate act involving extortion and wire fraud in regard to lLA Local 1235.

At Coppola’s trial, witnesses testified regarding the existence of a long-standing agreement between the Gambino and Genovese crime families to divide control over the New York/New Jersey waterfront, pursuant to which the ports in Brooklyn and Staten Island are controlled by the Gambino crime family, and the Manhattan and New Jersey ports are controlled by the Genovese crime family. Witness testimony and other evidence further established that the Genovese crime family crew that has controlled the New Jersey waterfront consisted of, among others, Tino Fiumara, Michael Coppola, Albert Cernadas, Vincent Aulisi and Edward Aulisi.

For example, on March 6, 2007, Coppola had a telephone conversation with defendant Edward Aulisi, a Genovese crime family associate, that directly pertained to the crime family’s three­decade conspiracy to control the leadership of lLA Local 1235. At

the time, Edward Aulisi’s father, Vincent Aulisi, also a Genovese

crime family associate, was the President of Local 1235, after

Cernadas had pled guilty and agreed to a life-time bar from

participating in the lLA. During the conversation, Coppola and

Aulisi discussed several topics, including payments from Local

1235 to the mafia, as well as Coppola’s crew’s historical control

over the union. A pertinent excerpt of the conversation follows:

Aulisi:                            On that note. Ohh, and the VET told me to pass it on. Umm. What the hell did he say to me? Ohh, that, ah, he was glad that, ah, the other, the Cuban, that RICKY RICARDO, was there when this guy made mention hey, once I’m outta, once I’m gone from here this thing stops. So, MIKE, the VET said, this thing stops? The beat goes on, whether you’re here or not. But, RICKY RICARDO was there when he said, he said it.

Coppola:                        Who, who.

Aulisi:                            He said I, want you to relay that.

Coppola:                        Which guy? Who said that?

Aulisi:                            The BULL. You know when this is gone, when I’m gone, he says this thing is gonna end. Meaning, meaning ahh, the month, you know, the the christmases, and everything else, he says what you talking about?

Coppola:                        Yeah, yeah.

Aulisi:                            This gonna, thing’s gonna go on. He wanted me to mention this thing almost, almost doubled.

Coppola:                        (ur)

Aulisi:                            (Ur)

Coppola: Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi:

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola: Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola: Aulisi:

Yeah we we ­

(UI)

We don’t want him, we don’t want him to be aware of that. We don’t want him to be aware of anything.

No, no, he doesn’t go into them lines with him, but he just want, he wanted me to make mention, you know. I’m glad that the RICKY was there to hear, cause after the guy left he said RICKY came up to me, and says you mention that that this guy wants this thing, this ain’t gonna go no more, he’s got that idea so.

Well, you heard the thing, you heard the thing, what he asked for with his kid didn’t you?

Yeah, yeah, I was laughing (UI)

(UI) fucking (UI)

He’s nuts.

Are they freaking insane? First of all ­

(UI) He was the first one, he was the first

one, when, when the CONG (ph.) you know who that is? Ahh, urn I think so. Just the, with the same name as ahh as

ahhh POP, the guy that was there before. Right. In the beginning. Yeah, yeah.

14

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

Aulisi:

Coppola:

Aulisi: Coppola:

OK, ok, alright when he left he wanted to leave his wife there. We said under no circumstances, he, he -­

Right.

You know, and, and, we were right next to him all the time during this whole thing, and he said under no circumstances. I said, we, you know, I said, the other guy said, we had to learn from the past.

Right right.

You see the guys that where over with, the ahh, with the truck drivers, when he put his ­

Yes, yes.

Daughter there. When he put his daughter there that time. It created nothing but problems with the men, because the men resent it. Because, in other words, what about the guys that work all their lives through the rank and file, and, and they’re coming up the hard way. Don’t they get a shot? So, you think somebody

It should be a natural common sense thing, that’s right.

And, and, you get, you know, you get a kid out of left field. Where’s the respect gonna come from and where’s everything else gonna come from? So,

sent -­

It ain’t.

word back, under no circumstance, under no, what you call and what does he have, ahh, a short memory? He was the first one to bitch about when the CONG wanted to do it, and then I said, well, we know, and, tell him to remember what happened to these guys when he wanted to put his

lS

daughter there. You know, you have everybody else there. They’re all making a living, Everybody —
Aulisi: Right.
Coppola: It’s time, it’s time for everybody to move on and turn the page.
Aulisi: Right.
Coppola: We don’t want no part of that kid.
Aulisi: I hear ya. Well, you know, its funny and ironic when when he had said you know, this guy made mention to me -­[operator: thirty seconds] -that the kid wasn’t gonna, the kid wasn’t gonna listen to anybody, anyway, now all of sudden he can talk to him, you know, so —
Coppola: Yeah, well he can’t talk to him.
Aulisi: Yeah.    
Coppola: He can’t talk. It’s, it’s, not gonna happen to, you relay that to, to, POP that’s all.
Aulisi: Ok.
             

 

In this conversation, Aulisi told Coppola that Cernadas, a/k/a “The Bull,” had discussed with the then-current President of Local 1235, Vincent Aulisi, whether “the month” and “the christmases” (payments) were going to end when Cernadas left the union. In the recording, Edward Aulisi told Coppola that Vincent Aulisi had instructed Edward (the speaker) to tell Coppola that the “month” and “christmases” were going to continue and in fact had “almost doubled.” Coppola responded by telling Edward that they do not want Cernadas “to be aware of anything.”

16

Coppola and Edward Aulisi also discussed the fact that Cernadas had asked for something for his “kid,” but that Coppola had “sent word back” denying Cernadas’s request. During this portion of the conversation, Coppola related to Aulisi the story of what happened when the former president of Local 1235 wanted to leave his wife in place at the union after leaving himself. Coppola refers to the former president as “Cong” and “[the guy] with the same name as ahh as ahhh POP, the guy that was there before.” The former president of lLA Local 1235 was Vincent Colucci, who shares a first name with Vincent Aulisi (Edward Aulisi’s “Pop”), and was nicknamed “Cong.”s

With Coppola’s co-conspirator statements evidencing that his relationship with the union dates to the time that Vincent Colucci was president, including the time period in which Cernadas was president, and acknowledging the continued flow of payments made by the union membership to the Genovese crime family at Christmastime, Coppola clearly admitted his crew’s -and Cernadas’s -involvement in a long-term conspiracy to extort the members of Local 1235 of money. With the statement, “we were

S Former New Jersey state detective Robert Delaney served in an undercover capacity in an investigation into Fiumara and Coppola in the 1970s. He testified during the Coppola trial in 2009 that “Cong” or “Viet Cong” was a nickname for Vincent Colucci and that Fiumara and Coppola often used nicknames that reflected the real initials of the person being described. He also testified, in substance, that Lawrence Ricci was closely associated with Fiumara and Coppola and that he participated in the Genovese crime family’s control of the New Jersey waterfront.

right next to him all the time during this whole thing,” Coppola explained to co-conspirator Edward Aulisi that Coppola and his crew were involved in directing Cernadas for the duration of Cernadas’s control of the union, including directing Cernadas to extort union members at Christmastime. Notably, Cernadas became President of Local 1235 in the early 1980s, after Colucci was convicted of racketeering. In the conversation, Coppola also described “Cong” as the individual who was “there” (at the union) “in the beginning.” Official records from the Department of Labor show that Colucci was President of Local 1235 during the 1970s, from at least 1974.

In short, at trial in 2009, the evidence showed, among other things, that Coppola had participated in a wire fraud and extortion scheme involving the Genovese crime family’s control of a succession of Presidents of ILA Local 1235 -including RICO Defendant Albert Cernadas and Extortion Defendant Vincent Aulisi. 6

6 In convicting Coppola of racketeering conspiracy and racketeering, the jury concluded that Coppola’s involvement in the 1977 murder of fellow Genovese crime family member, Giovanni Larducci, also known as “John Lardiere,” “Coca Cola” and “Johnny Cokes,” was not proved. At trial, however, the government offered testimony to establish that Coppola had admitted to a cooperating witness that he had been the individual who shot Lardiere. Specifically, Coppola told others, “some you do with tears in your eyes,” and went on to describe how he shot Lardiere but that his gun jammed. Lardiere then stated, “What’re you gonna do now, tough guy?” Coppola described how he then drew a second pistol from his ankle holster. Coppola then shot Lardiere in the stomach, and “finished him off” by standing over Lardiere and shooting him again. Coppola further related that “[Lardiere] was a tough guy, he died like a man.” Crime scene

Following his conviction, Coppola was sentenced on December 18, 2009, to a term of incarceration of 16 years.

c. The Instant Prosecution

Prosecution witnesses are expected to testify that Depiro, first as a member of the Genovese crime family crew that controlled the New Jersey ports and then, after Ricci’s death, as the Genovese crime family member responsible for overseeing the crime family’s rackets at the ports on behalf of Fiumara and Coppola (who was a fugitive at the time), exercised influence over lLA officials. The evidence is expected to show that Depiro rose to such prominence, in part, due to Michael Coppola’s absence. As part of his control over union officials, Depiro conspired to extort members of the ILA and received proceeds from that extortion racket. Indeed, as discussed further below, in September 1998 Depiro was captured pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap discussing with Fiumara the extortion scheme at issue, with Depiro claiming that he was going to double the amount of the tribute payments due from extortion victims.

evidence and the testimony of a medical examiner strongly corroborated Coppola’s admissions as to how the murder was committed.

19

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (“the Act”), a defendant’s pretrial detention is warranted “upon proof of a likelihood of flight, a threatened obstruction of justice or a danger of recidivism in one or more of the crimes” specified in the statute. United States v. Himler, 797 F.2d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e}. The Third Circuit has held that the Act was designed to address “the growing problem of crimes committed by persons on release and the recognition that ‘there is a small but identifiable group of particularly dangerous defendants as to whom neither the imposition of stringent release conditions nor the prospect of revocation of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or other persons.'” United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382, 383-84 (3d Cir. 1986).

The Act enumerates four factors for consideration:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the crime charged, including whether the offense is a “crime of violence;” (2) the nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release;

(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the weight of the evidence against the defendant. See ide § 3142(g). Given the generalized nature of these factors, however, it is necessary to consult case law for the particularized, context­specific analysis applicable here.

A. The Crimes Charged Are Crimes of Violence

“The Act operates only on individuals who have been arrested for a specific category of extremely serious offenses. Congress specifically found that these individuals are far more likely to be responsible for dangerous acts in the community after arrest.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750 (1987). As the U.s. Supreme Court held in Salerno, “crimes of violence” fall within that narrow category of extremely serious offenses for which detention is warranted.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3156(a) (4) defines the term “crime of violence” as “(A) an offense that has [as] an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another;

(B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

It is well established that extortion is a crime of violence. Indeed, the Superseding Indictment specifically alleges that the extortion of ILA dockworkers was carried out through “actual and threatened force, violence and fear.” See also United States v. Ciccone, 312 F.3d 535, 542 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Certainly, it cannot be gainsaid that extortion is a ‘crime of violence’ as that term is defined by the [Bail Reform Act] .”); United States v.

Santora, No. 07-1103, 2007 WL 1533839, at *2 (2d Cir. May 25,

2007) (finding that defendant “had committed a crime of violence, specifically conspiracy to commit extortion”) i United States v. Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d 390, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“The offense, extortion, is a crime of violence both because it is so defined by statute and because its completion often involves the threat of physical harm.”) .

Similarly, conspiring to use and the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894(a) (1) are “crimes of violence.” The Superseding Indictment alleges that defendants Depiro and Dehmer engaged in this conduct with respect to an identified victim, who was threatened with serious bodily harm. See also united States

v. Quintina, 845 F. Supp. 38, 39 (D. Mass. 1994) (holding conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect extension of credit and the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit “meet the statutory definitions of ‘crimes of violence'”).

B. Considerations Specific to Organized Crime Defendants

An additional factor that militates against release in cases involving crimes of violence is whether the defendant is associated with a criminal organization, the activities of which routinely include violence and threats of violence. Specifically, with respect to an individual’s association with organized crime, in United States v. Leonetti, Cr. No. 88-00003, 1988 WL 61738

(E.D. Pa. June 9, 1988), Judge Antwerpen held:

The individual criminal acts allegedly committed by each defendant will be examined, but these individual acts must always be viewed in the context of each defendant’s alleged membership in La Cosa Nostra and what that membership and organization represents.

A willingness to kill people who testify against them and to enforce Omerta, the code of silence, through murder, are rules that each defendant adopts and agrees to adhere to through his membership in La Cosa Nostra. By these rules, each of the six defendants seeking bail presents a very real danger to potential witnesses in this case.

Id. at *3 (emphasis in original); accord United States v.

Martorano, Cr. No. 92-26-J, 1992 WL 73558, at *7 (D. Mass. Mar.

23, 1992) (holding that “it is appropriate to consider the nature

of the La Cosa Nostra organizations in making the detention

calculation. In particular, courts have noted the oath taken by

members of these organizations . . . of vowing to kill any

individual posing a threat to the organization. The testimony

before the Court indicates that membership in these organizations

is highly probative of both danger and flight. Past cases also

demonstrate a danger of obstruction of justice.”) .

Consequently, where, as here, there has been a probable cause finding that a member or associate of organized crime committed crimes of violence, courts routinely find that the risk of continued criminal conduct is substantial and detention is appropriate. The rationale for detention in such cases is clear:

The activities of a criminal organization such as the Genovese Family do not cease with the arrest of its principals and their release on even the most stringent of bail conditions. The illegal businesses, in place for many years, require constant attention and protection, or they will fail. Under these circumstances, this court recognizes a strong incentive on the part of its leadership to continue business as usual. When business as usual involves threats, beatings, and murder, the present danger such people pose in the community is self evident.

united States v. Salerno, 631 F. Supp. 1364, 1375 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), order vacated, 794 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.), order reinstated, 829 F.2d 345 (2d Cir. 1987).

For example, in Ciccone, 312 F.3d at 537-38, the Second Circuit affirmed the pre-trial detention of Gambino family boss Peter Gotti, where he was alleged to have “directed the activities of his codefendants,” who committed various exortions, including extortions of the lLA. The Second Circuit ordered Gotti detained irrespective of the fact that he “was not charged with having committed the extortions alleged in the indictment.”

Id.; accord Defede, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 391, 395 (ordering detention of defendant charged with extortion and extortion conspiracy, and holding that ” [g]iven Defede’s position of leadership in a notorious and violent criminal organization, his ability to plan, order and supervise criminal activity is of paramount importance. Defede is a danger at least as much for what he might direct or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself”) .

Similarly, in United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96

(2d Cir. 1985), the captain of an organized crime family crew was ordered detained because the operation of that organization posed a “risk to the public” and a “danger to the community” by its “consistent pattern of orchestrating a series of violent criminal operations.” The Second Circuit affirmed the result despite a finding by the lower court that there was “virtually no evidence of Colombo’s direct participation in the crimes charged.” Id. at

99. Finally, the Third Circuit in United States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85, 89 (3d eire 1979), affirmed the district court’s order of detention pending appeal where defendant had convictions for extortion and labor racketeering, raising the potential that defendant “would continue to exercise his influence within the union corruptly and in violation of criminal law.”

c. Obstruction of Justice

Pretrial detention also is warranted in cases in which there exists “a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) (2) (B). Although the underlying rationale for the rule is based to some degree on the need to protect potential witnesses from harm, detention is nonetheless authorized by statute absent the prospect of violence. See, e.g., United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming lower court’s revocation of defendant’s bail based on evidence that LaFontaine had sought to influence witnesses while released on bond, and reiterating “that a record of violence or dangerousness [in the sense of violence or threats aimed against witnesses] is not necessary to support pre-trial detention”) .

Moreover, the statute is not limited to witness tampering, and instead sweeps broadly to protect any perversion of the justice process. As the Second Circuit observed in LaFontaine, “pre-trial detention was even more justified in cases of violations related to the trial process (such as witness tampering) than in cases where the defendant’s past criminality was said to support a finding of general dangerousness.” Id. at

134. Thus, conduct involving the harboring of a fugitive, for example, constitutes obstruction of justice within the reach of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Beckstead, Cr. No. 04­

5103, 2006 WL 1112853 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2006) (holding that conviction for harboring fugitive warranted upward sentencing adjustment for obstruction of justice) .

D. Elaborate Bail Packages

It is well established that even the most elaborate conditions of home detention cannot substitute for incarceration where the defendant is violent or cannot be trusted to comply with the conditions of release. For example, in United States v. Bergrin, Cr. No. 09-369, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9 (D.N.J. May 29, 2009), Magistrate Judge Madeline Cox Arleo ordered the defendant detained where he had advanced his criminal enterprise “through conversations and meetings” in which he directed others to commit crimes because “even the most stringent house arrest does not address this harm and does not minimize the very real possibility that further similar criminal conduct could be carried out from home.”

Courts have consistently held, particularly with respect to prohibiting criminal association, that elaborate bail conditions

have an Achilles’ heel: if there is a unifying theme in this intricate set of restrictions, it is that virtually all of them hinge on the defendant’s good faith compliance. To illustrate, electronic monitoring, while valuable in pretrial release cases

. . . cannot be expected to prevent a defendant from committing crimes or deter him from participating in felonious activity within the monitoring radius. Second, by allowing outside visits to doctors and lawyers, the conditions open up a sizeable loophole; there is no feasible way of assuring that [the

defendant], while en route to and from such

appointments, will not make stops and take detours with

a view toward continuing his criminal life. House

arrest poses much the same problem; limiting visitors

can only work, for example, if the appellee submits the

names of potential guests for clearance… which,

itself, is honor-dependent.

United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 886-87 (1st Cir. 1990);

see also United States v. Bellomo, 944 F. Supp. 1160, 1167

(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“As in Colombo and Orena, the nature and extent of the danger that Bellomo presents arises not only from the threat of violent acts on his part, but from his position of leadership in a criminal organization and his ability to plan, order, and supervise criminal activity arising from that position as well. He is a danger at least as much for what he might direct or assist others in doing as for what he might do himself. Keeping him under house arrest would not defuse this danger.”); United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (“horne detention and electronic monitoring at best ‘elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills'”).

A. R:J:CO DEFENDANTS

ARGUMENT

1. Genovese Crime Family Soldier Stephen Depiro

a. Depiro’s Lengthy Criminal Record

As a threshold matter, Depiro is a repeat felon with several convictions dating back 20 years. Specifically, on or about May 11, 1990, Depiro pled guilty to possession of gambling Records in the Second Degree (Bookmaking) in Richmond County, New York criminal court, and received a conditional discharge. On June 9, 1993, Depiro was again charged with promoting gambling, conspiracy and possession of gambling records, in New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, and received pretrial intervention, pursuant to which the charges subsequently were dismissed.

On or about April 14, 1998, Depiro was charged with violations of the federal RICO laws, pursuant to which then­Magistrate Judge Stanley R. Chesler set bail for Depiro in the amount of a $250,000 bond with standard bail conditions. During the relevant time period, Depiro worked as a longshoreman at Maher Terminal in Port Newark, where he allegedly oversaw loansharking and gambling rackets under Joseph Queli, another member of the Genovese crime family. On or about April 16, 1999, Depiro pled guilty to racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962@, for which he was sentenced to 30 months of incarceration

and three years’ supervised release, which terminated on July 17, 2004.

On April 26, 2002, Depiro was charged with conspiring with Tino Fiumara regarding then-fugitive Michael Coppola. On March 21, 2003, Depiro pled guilty to misprision of a felony for concealing Coppola’s unlawful flight to avoid prosecution between August 1996 and April 1999. The Superseding Information to which Depiro pled guilty charged that he “was an associate of . . . the Genovese Crime Family.” Depiro subsequently was sentenced to probation and a four-year term of supervised release, which ended on November 24, 2007.

On April 28, 2010, Depiro was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York on charges related to Depiro’s harboring and otherwise assisting fugitive Michael Coppola between May 2004 and March 2007. See United States v. Stephen Depiro, 10 Cr. 341 (ILG) (E.D.N.Y.). These charges against Depiro are still pending.

Depiro’s past criminal record and persistent recidivism is indicative of an inability or unwillingness to comply with the rule of law. In either event, Depiro’s release poses a danger to the community and his detention is warranted on this ground alone. See, e.g., Provenzano, 605 F.2d at 95 (“The trial judge’s study of decisions interpreting the Act’s ‘danger to the community’ provision, however, convinces him that courts are not confined in such cases to considering only harms involving an aura of violence. We agree and hold that a defendant’s propensity to commit crime generally, even if the resulting harm would be not solely physical, may constitute a sufficient risk of danger to come within the contemplation of the Act.”).

b.       Depiro’s Repeated Violations of Pretrial Release, Supervised Release and Probation

An analysis of Depiro’s criminal history illustrates that Depiro has been undeterred from the commission of additional crimes by previously imposed conditions of release. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that Depiro will comply with even the most stringent conditions of release imposed by this Court. In summary, as a result of his 1998 racketeering arrest and conviction, Depiro was on pretrial release from April 1998 through April 1999, and, following his 30-month incarceration, on supervised release through July 2004. Nonetheless, Depiro admittedly violated the conditions of pretrial release set by Magistrate Judge Chesler, and in 2003 pled guilty to a felony involving conduct between August 1996 and April 1999, relating to Coppola’s flight. Depiro’s 2003 conviction resulted in probation and a four-year term of supervised release through November 2007. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted Depiro for again assisting Coppola’s flight between May 2004 and March 2007, in violation of the foregoing conditions. Moreover, in January 2006, Depiro again admittedly violated parole and supervised release by

associating with a known, violent felon. Finally, as set forth

further below, a grand jury has found probable cause that Depiro yet again violated the foregoing conditions of release by engaging in the conduct at issue here.

Specifically, beginning in April 1998, Depiro was on pretrial release on conditions set by Magistrate Judge Chesler relating to his arrest for racketeering. It cannot be gainsaid that those pretrial release conditions clearly were inadequate to protect the community, as Depiro admitted that he continued to violate criminal law with respect to concealing the flight from justice of Coppola from August 1996 through April 1999. Indeed, the final Pre-Sentence Report prepared in that case documented numerous intercepted telephone conversations between Depiro and Fiumara relating to the offense conduct in September 1998. 7 Depiro’s admitted violations of pretrial release in this regard end the inquiry as to whether he should be released here -he should not.

Similarly, Depiro was on probation and supervised release from his March 2003 felony conviction relating to the foregoing conduct when he once again violated the conditions imposed by Judge John W. Bissell. Specifically, on or about

7 The Government has not filed the October 2003 Pre­Sentence Report electronically, but will make the Report available for inspection by the Court and Depiro at the detention hearing.

January 3, 2006, Depiro admitted to a violation for associating

with Daniel Dellisanti, another “made” member of the Genovese crime family.

Depiro’s violations of Judge Bissell’s judgment, however, did not end there: an Eastern District of New York grand jury recently indicted Depiro, finding probable cause to believe that he violated federal law by harboring and otherwise aiding Coppola between May 2004 and March 2007. Indeed, the evidence in that case includes, among other things, an intercepted telephone call between Depiro and Coppola in March 2007, well before the supervision imposed by Judge Bissell terminated in November 2007.

Finally, with respect to the instant charges, a federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey has found probable cause to believe that Depiro conspired to violate the federal RICO laws from at least December 1982 through January 2011. Moreover, the evidence at trial will include the September 14, 1998 recorded telephone call between Depiro and Fiumara discussed below, in which Depiro stated that he intended to double the amount extorted from ILA members. Of course, Depiro’s conversation with Fiumara in this regard occurred while he was on pretrial release pursuant to conditions imposed by Magistrate Judge Chesler only five months earlier, in April 1998.

In short, there can be no real question that any

conditions of pretrial release set by this Court would be flouted by Depiro, just as he previously did with respect to Magistrate Judge Chesler’s and Judge Bissell’s conditions through persistent violations of pretrial release, supervised release and probation. See, e.g., Bergrin, 2009 WL 1560039, at *9, *11 (“Plainly, he did not abide by his conditions of release. The court has no assurance that he will refrain from criminal conduct if released.

The serious nature of the charges, allegedly committed while defendant was on bail, militates strongly in favor of detention.”) i United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 852 (3d Cir. 2006) i United States v. Terpening, 902 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“Violation of conditional release following a parole violation is similar to violation of a pretrial conditional release: in both instances the defendant was given his liberty on the understanding that he act lawfully, and in both cases the defendant violated this trust. Such a violation is indicative of recidivist tendencies. Moreover, like violation of pretrial conditional release, violation of conditional release following a parole violation is not otherwise reflected in a defendant’s criminal history. Thus, Terpening’s violation of conditional release . . . is an indication that his criminal history significantly under-represents the likelihood that he will commit further crimes ….”).

c. Nature of the Instant Charges

The present charges against Depiro involve crimes of violence and evince increasing criminality. Notably, the instant charges demonstrate Depiro’s continued criminal involvement with the New Jersey waterfront and victimization of port workers. Depiro is also charged with conspiracy to make extortionate collections of credit, pursuant to which Richard Dehmer threatened violence against individuals to compel them to pay debts owed to Depiro.

Depiro is charged with conspiracy to extort money from ILA union members which, as discussed above, is a crime of violence because it involves the actual and threatened use of force, violence and fear. Moreover, Depiro’s extortion scheme was successful over an extended period of time due to the reputation of the Genovese crime family crew of which he is a member. Indeed, as part of the investigation, the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey conducted numerous interviews of ILA union members, regarding, among other topics, the Christmastime tribute payments. Many of the witnesses stated that, based on what they heard on the docks and otherwise, they feared the consequences of refusing to make the extortionate payments at issue given the reputation of the individuals involved.

Just as significantly, the instant charges establish

that Depiro has been undeterred from continued criminal involvement on the New Jersey waterfront. Indeed, Depiro previously pled guilty in 1999 to RICO charges relating to the waterfront, for which he received a substantial term of incarceration and supervised release. Notwithstanding that sentence -and while on supervised release -Depiro continued to victimize dockworkers through crimes of violence and increasingly sophisticated schemes to control and influence corrupt lLA union officials. Hence, the instant charges are even more serious when considered in conjunction with Depiro’s similar past conduct. See, e.g., Provenzano, 605 F.2d at 89 (“Concluding that he would continue to exercise his influence within the union corruptly and in violation of the criminal law, the trial judge found that Provenzano’s freedom pending appeal would constitute a danger to the community.”) .

Finally, Depiro and those acting on his behalf have demonstrated a willingness to resort to threats of violence in furtherance of their criminal enterprise. For instance, in a July 17, 2009 intercepted telephone call between Depiro and a sports bettor, Depiro threatened: “Don’t be fuckin’ doin’ that, what you’re doin’. I’m telling you that right now. I mean you got something in tonight and that’s not right.” In context, and based on witness testimony, in this statement, Depiro was referring to the fact that the bettor had placed additional bets despite not having paid his outstanding sports betting losses. Due to Depiro’s formidable reputation and the bettor’s fear of Depiro, he called Dehmer less than an hour later, stating, “I got 1300 of my own money on me, I’ll just drop that off.”

Similarly, Dehmer repeatedly threatened violence and harm on Depiro’s behalf against individuals who failed to timely pay sports-betting losses. For example, in intercepted telephone calls, Dehmer sent word to another bettor “that some people are really mad at him,” and “somebody is furious at him.” Likewise, Dehmer told a bettor “you better be here before 2:00 because somebody is going to be fucking furious” and, when the bettor suggested that he would not be able to pay, Dehmer further stated, “this guy is going to be so fucking mad.” Finally, in another intercepted telephone call, Dehmer told an individual, “this guy is fucking mad. You know you get paid on a certain fucking day, he wants to get paid.” In context and based on additional intercepted calls, it is apparent that Dehmer is referring to Depiro in these calls.

In sum, the current charges involve not only crimes of violence, but also actual threats of force, violence and fear directed at numerous, identified victims. Furthermore, the charges are indicative of Depiro’s long-term victimization of New Jersey port workers, undaunted by a prior period of incarceration, and represent a heightened degree of danger and sophistication in comparison to his prior crimes. Finally, the instant charges illustrate Depiro’s far-ranging control and influence over criminal associates, from corrupt lLA union officials to bookmakers. Consequently, the nature of the charges at issue here weighs heavily in favor of Depiro’s detention.

d. Weight of the Evidence

The weight of the evidence against Depiro is overwhelming, and includes countless recordings, cooperating witnesses, physical surveillance and Depiro’s own admissions. A partial summary of the evidence against Depiro follows.

Government witnesses, themselves members and associates of the Genovese crime family and other crime families, are expected to testify that Depiro is a “made” member of the Genovese crime family who controls the crime family’s port­related rackets, a capacity in which he supervises and exercises influence over others, including corrupt lLA union officials.

Additionally, wiretap intercepts further evidence Depiro’s role in the Genovese crime family’s rackets on the New Jersey piers. For example, Depiro was captured, pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, in a telephone calIon September 14, 1998 speaking to Fiumara regarding the lLA extortion scheme. The recorded call was described as follows in Depiro’s October

2003 Pre-Sentence Report, Paragraph 21(e), to which he and his counsel raised no objection: DePiro told Fiumara that at Christmas time he is going to demand double the amount of money from people. Fiumara responded: “Yeah. Definitely.” DePiro told Fiumara about someone at the Port who he tried to collect from last Christmas who claimed “you took all my money” and that he was broke. DePiro explained to Fiumara that this person made $220,000 -$250,000 a year. DePiro told Fiumara that he does not want “Brief [Lawrence Ricci] to say he wants two percent” and Fiumara said that Brief [Ricci] should “mind his own business.” DePiro told Fiumara that Brief [Ricci] has “all the guys that he works there, bring us double and that’s that and we’ll go from there.” Fiumara responded: “Without a doubt.”

Cooperating witness testimony and wiretap intercepts regarding the waterfront extortion conspiracy are corroborated by observations made by law enforcement agents during the course of this investigation. From approximately September 2009 to January 2010, Depiro was observed meeting with Fiumara on multiple occasions in Manhattan and on Long Island (where Fiumara resided before his death in September 2010) .

For example, on January II, 2010, law enforcement agents conducted surveillance of Depiro and Fiumara at Bryant & Cooper steakhouse, located at 2 Middleneck Road, Roslyn, New York. Inside the restaurant, law enforcement agents observed Fiumara, Depiro and an attorney meeting at a small tabletop in the bar area. Law enforcement agents overheard portions of the attorney, Depiro and Fiumara’s conversation, including, among other things, the following statement: “Christmas is long gone.”

In context, this overheard comment evidences Depiro’s and Fiumara’s concerns about the future of the extortion scheme discussed above, by which members of the ILA are required to provide tribute payments to ILA union officials around Christmas, which payments are in turn transmitted to the Genovese crime family.

With respect to Depiro’s involvement in illegal gambling, in addition to the intercepted telephone calls described above, law enforcement has captured additional conversations that evidence Depiro’s control over and management of an illegal gambling operation. Those recorded conversations are also corroborated by documentary evidence recovered upon the execution of a search warrant at Dehmer’s illegal gambling club in Kenilworth, New Jersey, on or about January 20, 2010. Finally, Depiro’s own admissions establish his guilt. Specifically, in December 2006, Depiro was interviewed by law enforcement agents. During the interview, Depiro admitted that he was a gambler and a bookmaker and was arrested in the mid­1990s in an illegal gambling ring. In addition, Depiro acknowledged that he was arrested in the late 1990s along with Tino Fiumara.

In short, the evidence in this case establishes that Depiro committed the crimes at issue, and that he did so by virtue of his membership in the Genovese crime family. As set

forth above, courts routinely consider the heightened danger posed by a defendant’s membership in an organized, criminal enterprise when evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. Here, no condition of release could ensure that Depiro would renounce his status in the Genovese crime family, control over and involvement in the crime family’s port-related rackets, which have thrived for decades. Depiro’s leadership position within the Genovese crime family and the likelihood that he will continue to direct the activities of criminal associates is, therefore, a danger to the community that cannot be mitigated barring Depiro’s detention. See, e.g., Salerno, 631 F. Supp. at 1375.

e. Severity of Penalties Faced

Depiro, age 55, faces severe penalties, including a maximum prison sentence of 90 years, if convicted of the instant charges. Thus, there is a possibility that Depiro will spend the remainder of his days incarcerated. Accordingly, despite his ties to New Jersey and the apparent willingness of others to post property on his behalf, Depiro poses a serious risk of flight. See, e.g., Bergrin, 2009 WL 1560039, at *8 (balancing defendant’s “significant and long-standing ties to the community” against defendant’s criminal history and ordering detention); United

States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Consideration of the nature of the offenses charged involves

consideration of the penalties. The defendants are charged with

multiple counts, and it is reasonable, from their perspective, to look at the potential maximum sentences they face if they were found guilty on each count and sentenced consecutively on each count. Whyte faces a potential sentence of 35 years, Mohan and Townsend a potential sentence of 70 years. … Facing the much graver penalties possible under the present indictment, the defendants have an even greater incentive to consider flight.”) .

* * *

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should enter a permanent order of detention as to RICO Defendant Stephen Depiro based on danger to the community and risk of flight.

2. Genovese Crime Family Associate Nunzio LaGrasso As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, RICO

Defendant Nunzio LaGrasso, like Cernadas, utilized his high­ranking and influential union position to force dockworkers to make tribute payments of money at Christmastime for more than 20

years. Although he served as the Vice-President of ILA Local 1478, LaGrasso exercised such influence and control over the New Jersey waterfront that he was able to compel dockworkers from other ILA Locals to relinquish money to the mob. As a Genovese crime family associate, LaGrasso acted on behalf of the crime family and, more specifically, his cousin, Stephen Depiro, to

commit the foregoing crimes of violence and victimize those ILA

members whose interests he was supposed to serve. Thus, given the nature of the crimes at issue and his criminal associations, LaGrasso poses a danger to the community.

In addition, LaGrasso, age 60, faces a substantial prison sentence. Furthermore, following his arrest on New Jersey state charges in April 2010, LaGrasso was suspended from employment on the New Jersey waterfront and stands to lose his position permanently. Hence, LaGrasso constitutes a flight risk because he is facing a severe jail term and the loss of long­term, meaningful employment.

For these reasons, LaGrasso is similarly situated to fellow RICO Defendant and former ILA union official Albert Cernadas, for whom bail was set on December 13, 2010, by Magistrate Judge Salas. Indeed, given the nature of the charges and potential flight risk, Magistrate Judge Salas determined that a significant bail package was appropriate and, among other conditions, required that Cernadas post a $1,000,000 bond secured by multiple properties with equity of approximately $700,000, i.e., at least 70% secured. Since LaGrasso and Cernadas face similar penalties and share similar levels of culpability in the RICO extortion scheme, their bail packages should be substantially similar.

3. Genovese Crime Family Associate Richard Dehmer

RICO Defendant Dehmer, as a Genovese crime family associate, operated and managed with Depiro and others an illegal gambling operation involving bookmaking, and managed an illegal poker club. In this regard, Dehmer exercised direction and oversight over numerous other individuals associated with the sports betting and gambling club operations, including but not limited to the Gambling Defendants charged in the Superseding Indictment. For example, Dehmer conducted regular poker tournaments at the gambling club in Kenilworth, New Jersey, which required him to arrange card dealers, such as Anthony Alfano and Giuseppe Pugliese, another Genovese crime family associate, and to organize players.

Another of Dehmer’s responsibilities was to ensure that bettors timely paid gambling losses. In so doing, Dehmer resorted to threats of violence against others. For examale, pursuant to court-authorized wiretapping, Dehmer was captured in a recorded telephone call discussing a bettor’s outstanding debt with defendant Giuseppe Pugliese, stating that, “I am going over there tonight. I am going over there with a fucking bat, I really am.” Referencing the same bettor in a subsequent telephone call, Dehmer said, “It is costing me money. I got to borrow money to pay but I guarantee you, I guarantee you, he needs his hands to work. He ain’t working no more for a while.”

Finally, referencing the same bettor, Dehmer said that he had told another individual to “tell him [the bettor] that I am coming over there, and I will break every bone in his fucking hands so he can’t work.”

Given the nature of the charges, Dehmer’s demonstrated willingness to use violence to further his and Depiro’s interests, and Dehmer’s criminal association with the Genovese crime family, Dehmer should not be released in the absence of a secured bond with a condition of house arrest, enforced by electronic monitoring. In addition, house arrest is appropriate to mitigate the risk of flight that exists given that Dehmer, age 75, faces a maximum penalty of 20 years’ incarceration on certain charges.

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Defendants Edward Aulisi, Vincent Aulisi, Thomas Leonardis, Robert Ruiz, Michael Trueba, Ramiro Quintans, and Salvatore LaGrasso are ILA union members who -not unlike the foregoing Genovese crime family members and associates -extorted ILA dockworkers at Christmastime. These defendants, most of whom were entrusted to act in the interests of those they supervised or represented, utilized their positions to victimize those in their ward. It cannot be gainsaid that, if these defendants were so brazen as to perpetrate crimes of violence against individuals in their very workplace, there can be no assurance that they

would act lawfully were they to be released into the community

without substantial bail conditions.

In this regard, given the nature of the charges and the need to protect witnesses, both with respect to those who have already come forward and are identified in the Superseding Indictment as well as prospective victims in the scheme, it is necessary to bar the Extortion Defendants (and RICO Defendants Stephen Depiro, Albert Cernadas, Nunzio LaGrasso) from further association in any manner, means or capacity, with the ILA and/or New Jersey waterfront.s See, e.g., United States v. Traitz, 807 F.2d 322, 325-26 (3d Cir. 1986) (affirming district court’s pretrial release order based on house arrest and “removal of the defendants from union activities,” because “the district court did not err in determining that house arrest combined with the other conditions of release, including in particular the requirement that defendants cease all connection with the Roofer’s Union through which and on whose behalf many of the crimes of violence were allegedly committed, would provide the reasonable assurance required by the statute of the safety of the community”) .

S

It is the government’s understanding that, based on the defendants’ indictment, their passes to enter the New Jersey and New York waterfront will be suspended, effective immediately, by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The defendants, however, apparently will retain their ILA memberships pending further review.

Furthermore, each Extortion Defendant faces severe

maximum penalties upon conviction: (1) Edward Aulisi, age 51, 20 years’ incarceration; (2) Vincent Aulisi, age 78, 100 years’ incarceration; (3) Thomas Leonardis, age 53, 60 years’ incarceration; (4) Robert Ruiz, age 52, 100 years’ incarceration;

(5) Michael Trueba, age 75, 160 years’ incarceration; (6) Ramiro Quintans, age 52, 140 years’ incarceration; and (7) Salvatore LaGrasso, age 54, 40 years’ incarceration. In addition, upon arrest, each defendant likely will be suspended from further employment on the New Jersey waterfront, further severing their ties to this District. Accordingly, each of the Extortion Defendants poses a risk of flight.

Thus, bail packages consisting of significant secured bonds are appropriate. For years, these defendants held lucrative positions with the ILA and received substantial remuneration, some for decades. Given the defendants’ means, there will little deterrent to flight absent bail conditions comprising large secured bonds. For example, a criminal complaint against Robert Ruiz charging him with conspiring to commit Hobbs Act extortions in 2008 and 2009 was filed in the Eastern District of New York on December 6, 2010. The Ruiz complaint, which was dismissed on January 6, 2011 in anticipation of the instant prosecution, alleged, among other things, that the government had recovered $51,900 in cash buried in a longshoreman’s backyard, and that the longshoreman, who was himself a victim of the extortion scheme, had been asked by Ruiz to hold the money. There, Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack released Ruiz on a $500,000 bond secured by property with equity of approximately $350,000, i.e., at least 70% fully secured. That charge has now been converted from a complaint in the Eastern District of New York to an indictment based on a probable cause finding by a grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey, that Ruiz committed the offenses in question, including additional extortions, pursuant to which he now faces a 100-year sentence.

In other words, the full nature and scope of the extensive criminal conspiracy involving numerous other ILA members indicted here was not before Magistrate Judge Azrack at the time of her decision. Moreover, this case involves New Jersey victims and a need to protect the New Jersey community from further crimes of these defendants, all of whom are New Jersey residents. Accordingly, while Magistrate Judge Azrack’s decision regarding Ruiz’s pretrial release establishes a “floor” pursuant to which this Court should evaluate bail, it fails to redress adequately the serious danger to the community and flight risk posed by each of the Extortion Defendants, a number of whom

have heightened relative levels of culpability and criminal

responsibility in the scheme. 9

9 For many of these same reasons, Depiro’s current conditions of pretrial release are insufficient. On March 30, 2010, Depiro was charged via criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York with racketeering and racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts involving conspiring to extort ILA members and officials, conspiring to use extortionate means to collect extensions of credit and illegal gambling. Depiro also was charged with conspiring to harbor fugitive Michael Coppola. There, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy released Depiro conditioned on a significant, secured bond and home detention, with exceptions for daily religious services and as approved by Pretrial Services. On or about April 28, 2010, Depiro was indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of New York for various offenses relating to his harboring of Coppola, which charges are currently pending, and the foregoing complaint was dismissed.

In contrast to the prior complaint, Depiro has now been indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in Newark, New Jersey. Significantly, the Superseding Indictment represents a finding by the grand jury, based on the evidence presented, that probable cause exists that Depiro committed the crimes in question. The instant prosecution, moreover, is based on a far more extensive and wide-ranging conspiracy, involving many more victims and participants, than that alleged in the prior complaint. Indeed, there are 15 defendants named in the Superseding Indictment, and many victims of Depiro’s crimes are specifically identified. In comparison, in the complaint, Depiro was the sole defendant and no victims were identified. Thus, there are additional, unaddressed concerns here relating to potential obstruction of justice, which Depiro has committed previously, and witness/victim interference. Finally, given the status of the ongoing investigation, the evidence presented to Magistrate Judge Levy was far more limited than that documented herein; the evidence now before the Court paints a compelling portrait of an individual who has continued to commit crimes on behalf of the Genovese crime family against New Jersey victims despite a substantial period of incarceration and repeated violations of release conditions, none of which has deterred Depiro from the commission of further crimes endangering this community. Depiro’s danger to the community and risk of flight, therefore, can only be adequately and appropriately addressed through detention.

CONCLUSION

For each of the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that the Court should enter an order detaining lead defendant Stephen Depiro pretrial and releasing the remaining defendants on the above-described conditions. The government reserves its right to supplement its position with respect to each defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney

By: Anthony J. Mahajan Jacquelyn M. Rasulo Taryn A. Merkl Assistant U.S. Attorneys

APPENDIX A

A. RICO DEFENDANTS

RICO Charges (Counts 1 and 2)

Substantive Extortion Charges (Counts 3-4; 9; 14­25; 43-44)

COUNT/RA Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 1 DEPIRO CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO DEHMER RICO Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d} December 1982 -January 2011
RA1 DEPIRO CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a} December 1982 -January 2011
RA2 – CERNADAS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 December
RA33   U.S.C. § 1951(a} i N.J. Statute 2C:20-5(g} 1982 -January 2006
RA34 – N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 December
RA70   U.S.C. § 1951(a) i N.J. Statute 2C:20-5(g) 1989 -January 2010
RA71 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Sports Betting, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 /N.J. Statute 2C:37-2i Use of Interstate Facility to Transmit Wagering Information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 July 2009 -January 2010
RA72 DEPIRO DEHMER Conspiracy to Use Extortionate Means to Collect Extensions of Credit/Use of Extortionate Means to Collect Extensions of Credit, 18 U.S.C. § 894(a} July 2009 -January 2010
RA73 DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 1955 July 2009 -January 2010

 

COONT/RA Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 2 DEPIRO DEHMER CUD RICO Conspiracy, U.S.C. § 1962 (d) 18 July 2009 -January 2010
           

 

Count

Defendant

Offense/Statut$

Date

Count 3

DEPIRO

Hobbs Act Extortion

December CERNADAS Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.

1982 ­

N. LAGRASSO § 1951(a)

January 2011

Counts 4 CERNADAS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18

December & 9

U.S.C. § 1951(a)

2005 ­January 2006

Counts

N. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18

December 14 -25

U.S.C. § 1951(a)

2006 ­January 2010

Count 43 DEPIRO Extortionate Collection of January DEHMER Credit Conspiracy, 18

2009 ­

U.S.C. § 894(a) (1)

January 2010

Count 44 DEHMER Extortionate Collection of October Credit, 18 U.S.C. 2009 ­§ 894(a) (1) January 2010

3. Substantive Illegal Gambling Charges (Counts 41­42; 45-53)

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Count 41 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Bookmaking, 18 U.S.C. § 371 July 2009 -January 2010
Count 42 DEPIRO DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Bookmaking, 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a) July 2009 -January 2010

 

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date
Counts 45 -51 DEHMER Transmission of Wagering Information, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 Various dates in 2009 & 2010
Count 52 DEHMER Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 371 July 2009 -January 2010
Count 53 DEHMER Illegal Gambling -Poker, 18 U.S.C. § 1955(a) July 2009 -January 2010

 

B. EXTORTION DEFENDANTS

Count Defendant Offense/Statute Date  
Count 3 S. DEPIRO A. CERNADAS N. LAGRASSO E. AULISI V. AULISI S. LAGRASSO LEONARDIS QUINTANS RUIZ TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 1982 January 2011
Counts 5-6 V. AULISI Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2006 January 2008
Counts 7-8 RUIZ Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2010
Counts 10­11 V. AULISI Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2006 January 2008
Counts 12­13 RUIZ Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2010
Count 26 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2009

 

Count Defendant .. Offense/Statute Date  
Count 27 S. LAGRASSO Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2009 January 2010
Counts 28­29 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2008 January 2010
Count 30 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2008
Count 31 LEONARDIS TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2008 January 2009
Count 32 LEONARDIS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) December 2009 March 2010
Counts 33­36 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2006 January 2010
Count 37 TRUEBA Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2008
Counts 38­40 QUINTANS Hobbs Act Extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951{a) December 2007 January 2010

Depiro, Stephen et al. Indictment

/.

2010R01087/JMR/AJM

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Hon. Susan D. Wigenton

v.

10 Cr. 851

STEPHEN DEPIRO,

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 894(a},a/k/a “Beach,” 1084 (a), 1951 (a) ,

ALBERT CERNADAS,

1955(a), 1962(d) and 1963

a/k/a “The Bull,” NUNZIO LAGRASSO, RICHARD DEHMER,

a/k/a “Dickie,” EDWARD AULISI, a/k/a “Eddie,” VINCENT AULISI, a/k/a “The Vet,” THOMAS LEONARDIS, a/k/a “Tommy,” ROBERT RUIZ, a/k/a “Bobby,” MICHAEL TRUEBA, a/k/a “Mikey,” RAMIRO QUINTANS,

a/k/a “Romo,” SALVATORE LAGRASSO, ANTHONY ALFANO,

a/k/a “Brooklyn,” TONINO COLANTONIO, a/k/a “Tony,”

JOHN HARTMANN, a/k/a “Lumpy,” “Fatty” and “Fats,” and

GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE, a/k/a “Pepe”

SUP E R SED I N G I N D I C T MEN T

The Grand Jury charges:

INTRODUCTION

At all times relevant to this Superseding

Indictment, unless otherwise indicated:

The Enterprise

The members and associates of the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra constituted an “enterprise,” as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact (hereinafter, the “Genovese crime family” and “the enterprise”). The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The Genovese crime family engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The Genovese crime family was an organized criminal group that operated in the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere.

La Cosa Nostra operated through organized crime families. Five of these crime families -the Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Luchese crime families -were headquartered in New York City, and supervised criminal activity in New York, in other areas of the United States and in some instances in other countries. Another crime family, the Decavalcante crime family, also existed, operating principally in New Jersey but from time to time also in New York City.

The ruling body of La Cosa Nostra, known as the “Commission,” consisted of leaders from each of the crime families. The Commission convened from time to time to decide

certain issues affecting all of the crime families, such as rules governing crime family membership.

4. The Genovese crime family had a hierarchy and structure. The head of the Genovese crime family was known as the “boss.” The Genovese crime family boss was assisted by an “underboss” and a counselor known as a “consigliere.” Together, the boss, underboss and consigliere were the crime family’s “administration.” With the assistance of the underboss and consigliere, the boss was responsible for, among other things, setting policy and resolving disputes within and among La Cosa Nostra crime families and other criminal groups. The administration further supervised, supported, protected and disciplined the lower ranking participants in the crime family. In return for their supervision and protection, the administration received part of the illegal earnings generated by the crime family. Members of the Genovese crime family served in an “acting” rather than “official” capacity in the administration on occasion due to another administration member’s incarceration or ill health, or for the purpose of seeking to insulate another administration member from law enforcement scrutiny. Further, on occasion, the Genovese crime family was overseen by a “panel” of crime family members that did not include the boss, underboss and/or consigliere.

5. Below the administration of the Genovese crime family

were numerous “crews,” also known as “regimes” and “decinas.” Each crew was headed by a “captain,” also known as a “skipper,”

“caporegime” and “capodecina.” Each captain’s crew consisted of

“soldiers” and “associates.” The captain was responsible for supervising the criminal activities of his crew and providing the crew with support and protection. In return, the captain often received a share of the crew’s earnings.

Only members of the Genovese crime family could serve as a boss, underboss, consigliere, captain or soldier. Members of the Genovese crime family were referred to on occasion as “goodfellas” or “wiseguys,” or as persons who had been “straightened out” or who had their “button.” Associates were individuals who were not members of the Genovese crime family but who, nonetheless, engaged in criminal activity for, and under the protection of, the Genovese crime family.

Many requirements existed before an associate could become a member of the Genovese crime family. The Commission of La Cosa Nostra from time to time limited the number of new members that could be added to a crime family. An associate was also required to be proposed for membership by an existing crime family member. When the crime family’s administration considered the associate worthy of membership, the administration then circulated the proposed associate’s name on a list given to other La Cosa

Nostra crime families, which the other crime families reviewed and either approved or disapproved. Unless there was an objection to the associate’s membership, the crime family then “inducted,” or “straightened out,” the associate as a member of the crime family in a secret ceremony. During the ceremony, the associate, among other things: swore allegiance for life to the crime family above

all else, even the associate’s own family; swore, on penalty of

death, never to reveal the crime family’s existence, criminal

activities and other secrets; and swore to follow all orders

issued by the crime family boss, including swearing to commit

murder if the boss directed it.

Methods and Means of the Enterprise

The principal purpose of the Genovese crime family was to generate money for its members and associates. This purpose was implemented by members and associates of the Genovese crime family through various criminal activities, including fraud, extortion, illegal gambling and loansharking. The members and associates of the Genovese crime family also furthered the enterprise’s criminal activities by threatening economic injury and using and threatening to use physical violence, including murder.

Although the primary purpose of the Genovese crime family was to generate money for its members and associates, the members and associates at times used the resources of the Genovese

crime family to settle personal grievances and vendettas, sometimes with the approval of higher ranking members of the family. For those purposes, members and associates of the enterprise were asked and expected to carry out, among other crimes, acts of violence, including murder and assault.

The members and associates of the Genovese crime family engaged in conduct designed to prevent government detection of their identities, their illegal activities and the location of proceeds of those activities. That conduct included a commitment to murdering persons, particularly members or associates of organized crime families, who were perceived as potential witnesses against members and associates of the enterprise.

Members and associates of the Genovese crime family often coordinated criminal activity with members and associates of other organized crime families.

At various times relevant to this Superseding Indictment, the defendant ALBERT CERNADAS was an associate of the Genovese crime family and the President of International Longshoremen’s Association (“ILA”) Local 1235. The defendant RICHARD DEHMER was an associate of the Genovese crime family. The defendant STEPHEN DEPIRO was a soldier and an associate within the Genovese crime family. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO was an associate of the Genovese crime family and the Vice-President of ILA Local 1478.

COUNT ONE (Racketeering Conspiracy)

The allegations of paragraphs one through 12 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

From at least in or about December 1982 through in or about January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, defendants

ALBERT CERNADAS, RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, being a person employed by and associated with the Genovese crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961(1) and 1961(5).

15. The pattern of racketeering activity through which the

defendants

ALBERT CERNADAS, RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and NUNZIO LAGRASSO,

together with others, agreed to conduct the affairs of the enterprise consisted of the racketeering acts set forth below in paragraphs 16 through 46 as Racketeering Acts One through Seventy­Three. The defendants agreed that a conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering in the conduct of the affairs of

the enterprise. RACKETEERING ACT ONE (Extortion Conspiracy)

It was a method and means of the extortion conspiracy that defendants STEPHEN DEPIRO, ALBERT CERNADAS and NUNZIO LAGRASSO extorted tribute payments of money from ILA port workers at or around Christmastime, the holiday period in which certain of those ILA union members received “container royalty fund” checks, a form of year-end compensation.

From at least in or about December 1982 to in and about January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

ALBERT CERNADAS, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and NUNZIO LAGRASSO together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to obtain property of ILA union members, that is: money belonging to lLA union members, with their consent, which consent was to be induced by wrongful use of actual

and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951{a). RACKETEERING ACTS TWO THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE (Extortion)

18. The defendant ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

19. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951{a) and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

20. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant ALBERT CERNADAS and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #1, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:.20-5 (g) :

Date: Vidtim ,Racketeering,· Act~ .
December 1982 -January 1983 John Doe #1 2
December 1983 -January 1984 John Doe #1 3
December 1984 -January 1985 John Doe #1 4
December 1985 -January 1986 John Doe #1 5
December 1986 -January 1987 John Doe #1 6
December 1987 -January 1988 John Doe #1 7
December 1988 -January 1989 John Doe #1 8
December 1989 -January 1990 John Doe #1 9
December 1990 -January 1991 John Doe #1 10
December 1991 -January 1992 John Doe #1 11
December 1992 -January 1993 John Doe #1 12

 

Date

Victim

Racketeering Act

December 1993 -January 1994

John Doe #1

13 December 1994 -January 1995

John Doe #1

14 December 1995 -January 1996

John Doe #1

15 December 1996 -January 1997

John Doe #1

16 December 1997 -January 1998

John Doe #1

17 December 1998 -January 1999

John Doe #1

18 December 1999 -January 2000

John Doe #1

19

December 2000 -January 2001

John Doe #1

20

December 2001 -January 2002

John Doe #1

21

John Doe #1December 2002 -January 2003

22

John Doe #1

23December 2003 -January 2004 24

John Doe #1

December 2004 -January 2005

25

John Doe #1

December 2005 -January 2006

RACKETEERING ACTS TWENTY-SIX THROUGH THIRTY-THREE (Extortion)

21. The defendant ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

22. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, an

individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

23. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant ALBERT CERNADAS and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #2, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-S (g) :

Date Victim Racketeering
    Act
December 1997 -January 1998 John Doe #2 26
December 1998 -January 1999 John Doe #2 27
December 2000 -January 2001 John Doe #2 28
December 2001 -January 2002 John Doe #2 29
December 2002 -January 2003 John Doe #2 30
December 2003 -January 2004 John Doe #2 31
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #2 32
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #2 33

 

RACKETEERING ACTS THIRTY-FOUR THROUGH FORTY-THREE (Extortion)

24. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

25. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, an individual whose identity is known to the grand jury, that is:

money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent

was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

26. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of Ne~_Jer~ey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #3, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-5(g) :

Date Victim Racketeering Act
December 2000 -January 2001 John Doe #3 34
December 2001 -January 2002 John Doe #3 35
December 2002 -January 2003 John Doe #3 36
December 2003 -January 2004 John Doe #3 37
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #3 38
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #3 39

 

Date Victim Racketeering
    Act
December 2006 -January 2007 John Doe #3 40
December 2007 -January 2008 John Doe #3 41
December 2008 -January 2009 John Doe #3 42
December 2009 -January 2010 John Doe #3 43

 

RACKETEERING ACTS FORTY-FOUR THROUGH SIXTY-FIVE (Extortion)

27. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

28. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force,

violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 1951(a} and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

29. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #4, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-5(g) :

Date Victim Racketeering . Act·
December 1989 -January 1990 John Doe #4 44
December 1990 -January 1991 John Doe #4 45
December 1991 -January 1992 John Doe #4 46
December 1992 -January 1993 John Doe #4 47
December 1993 -January 1994 John Doe #4 48
December 1994 -January 1995 John Doe #4 49
December 1995 -January 1996 John Doe #4 50
December 1996 -January 1997 John Doe #4 51
December 1997 -January 1998 John Doe #4 52

 

Date , , ViatiDl’ Raaketeering, Act
December 1998 -January 1999 John Doe #4 53
December 1999 -January 2000 John Doe #4 54
December 2000 -January 2001 John Doe #4 55
December 2001 -January 2002 John Doe #4 56
December 2002 -January 2003 John Doe #4 57
December 2003 -January 2004 John Doe #4 58
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #4 59
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #4 60
December 2006 -January 2007 John Doe #4 61
December 2007 -January 2008 John Doe #4 62
December 2008 -January 2009 John Doe #4 63
December 2009 -January 2010 John Doe #4 64

 

RACKETEERING ACTS SIXTY-FIVE THROUGH SEVENTY (Extortion)

30. The defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts of extortion, either one of which alone, whether in violation of federal or state law, constitutes the Racketeering Act alleged:

A. Extortion

31. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #S, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #S, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a} and 2:

B. Theft by Extortion

32. From at least in or about and through the dates alleged below, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did purposely and unlawfully obtain property of another by extortion, in that the defendant and his co­conspirators obtained property of John Doe #S, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, by purposely threatening to inflict harm which would not substantially benefit the defendant NUNZIO LAGRASSO and his co-conspirators but which was calculated to materially harm John Doe #5, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:20-5 (g) :

Date Victim , Racketeering Act 65
December 2004 -January 2005 John Doe #5
December 2005 -January 2006 John Doe #5 66
December 2006 -January 2007 John Doe #5 67
December 2007 -January 2008 John Doe #5 68
December 2008 -January 2009 John Doe #5 69
December 2009 -January 2010 John Doe #5 70

 

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTY-ONE (Illegal Gambling -Sports Betting)

33. The defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, agreed to the commission of the following acts, anyone of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seventy-One:

A. Illegal Gambling Business

34. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and

owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

B. Promoting Gambling

35. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally engage in conduct which materially aided a form of gambling activity, that is: bookmaking, involving the receipt and acceptance of three or more bets in any two week period, in violation of New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2.

C. Transmission of Wagering Information

36. On or about August 11, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the

placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

D. Transmission of Wagering Information

37. On or about November 10, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

E. Transmission of Wagering Information

38. On or about November 16, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

F. Transmission of Wagering Information

39. On or about November 25, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

G. Transmission of Wagering Information

40. On or about December 14, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

H. Transmission of Wagering Information

41. On or about December 21, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER,

together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

I. Transmission of Wagering Information

42. On or about January 18, 2010, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a).

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTY-TWO (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy/ Extortionate Collection of Credit)

43. The defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, agreed to the commission of one or more of the following acts, either one of which alone constitutes Racketeering Act Seventy-Two:

A. Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy

44. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about

,

January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and

STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from bettors engaged in DEHMER and DEPIRO’s bookmaking operation, in violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 894(a) (1).

B. Extortionate Collection of Credit

45. From at least in or about October 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from John Doe #12, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 894(a) (1) and 2.

RACKETEERING ACT SEVENTY-THREE (Illegal Gambling -Poker)

46. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving poker, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1962(d) and 1963.

COUNT TWO (Collection of Unlawful Debt Racketeering Conspiracy)

The allegations of paragraphs one through 15 and 33 through 46 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph.

From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, being persons employed by and associated with the Genovese crime family, an enterprise that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to violate Title 18, United States Code, section 1962(c), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through the collection of unlawful debt, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(6), that is: debts that were incurred in gambling activity which was in violation of federal law, that is: Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955, and New Jersey State law, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, and were incurred in connection with the business of gambling, in violation of federal law and New Jersey State law.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962 (d) .

COUNT THREE (Extortion Conspiracy)

49. From at least in or about December 1982 to in and about

January 2011, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the

District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

EDWARD AULISI, VINCENT AULISI, ALBERT CERNADAS, STEPHEN DEPIRO, NUNZIO LAGRASSO, SALVATORE LAGRASSO,

.. THOMAS LEONARDIS,

I

RAMIRO QUINTANS, ROBERT RUIZ, and MICHAEL TRUEBA,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defenda~t and his co-conspirators agreed to obtain property of ILA union members, that is: money belonging to ILA union members, with their consent, which consent was to be induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FOUR

(Extortion)

50. From at least in or about December 2005 to in and about January 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FIVE (Extortion)

51. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT SIX (Extortion)

52. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT SEVEN (Extortion)

53. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections· 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT EIGHT (Extortion)

54. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #1, that is: money belonging to John Doe #1, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT NINE (Extortion)

55. From at least in or about December 2005 to in and about January 2006, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ALBERT CERNADAS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TEN (Extortion)

56. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT ELEVEN (Extortion)

57. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

VINCENT AULISI, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWELVE (Extortion)

5S. From at least in or about December 200S to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title lS, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTEEN (Extortion)

59. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

ROBERT RUIZ, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #2, that is: money belonging to John Doe #2, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FOURTEEN (Extortion)

60. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FIFTEEN (Extortion)

61. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT SIXTEEN (Extortion)

62. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951{a) and 2.

COUNT SEVENTEEN (Extortion)

63. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #3, that is: money belonging to John Doe #3, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT EIGHTEEN (Extortion)

64. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT NINETEEN (Extortion)

65. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States ‘Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY (Extortion)

66. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation ot Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-ONE (Extortion)

67. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #4, that is: money belonging to John Doe #4, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-TWO (Extortion)

68. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-THREE (Extortion)

69. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-FOUR (Extortion)

70. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-FIVE (Extortion)

71. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

NUNZIO LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #5, that is: money belonging to John Doe #5, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-SIX (Extortion)

72. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the· movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #6, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #6, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN (Extortion)

73. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

SALVATORE LAGRASSO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #6, that is: money belonging to John Doe #6, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT (Extortion)

74. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #7, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #7, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT TWENTY-NINE (Extortion)

75. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #7, that is: money belonging to John Doe #7, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY (Extortion)

76. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #8, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #8, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-ONE (Extortion)

77. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendants

THOMAS LEONARDIS and MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #8, that is: money belonging to John Doe #8, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear. In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-TWO (Extortion)

78. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about March 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

THOMAS LEONARDIS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #8, that is: money belonging to John Doe #8, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-THREE (Extortion)

79. From at least in or about December 2006 to in and about January 2007, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-FOUR (Extortion)

80. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code,’ Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-FIVE (Extortion)

81. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-SIX (Extortion)

82. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #9, that is: money belonging to John Doe #9, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-SEVEN (Extortion)

83. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

MICHAEL TRUEBA, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #10, and individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #10, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-EIGHT (Extortion)

84. From at least in or about December 2007 to in and about January 2008, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #11, and individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that is: money belonging to John Doe #11, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT THIRTY-NINE (Extortion)

85. From at least in or about December 2008 to in and about January 2009, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators obtained property of John Doe #11, that is: money belonging to John Doe #11, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of” Title 18, United States Code, Sections 19s1(a) and 2.

COUNT FORTY (Attempted Extortion)

86. From at least in or about December 2009 to in and about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey, the defendant

RAMIRO QUINTANS, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally attempt to obstruct, delay and affect commerce, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by extortion, in that the defendant and his co-conspirators attempted to obtain property of John Doe #11, that is: money belonging to John Doe #11, with his consent, which consent was induced by wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT FORTY-ONE (Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Bookmaking)

87. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER,

STEPHEN DEPIRO, and

JOHN HARTMANN,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955 (a) .

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objectives, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO and JOHN HARTMANN,

together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among others, the following:

OVERT ACTS

a. On or about July 14, 2009, at approximately 7:39 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

b. On or about July 17, 2009, at approximately 9:09 p.m., the defendant STEPHEN DEPIRO had a telephone conversation over the defendant RICHARD DEHMER’s cellular telephone.

c. On or about August 3, 2009, at approximately 10:04 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO had a telephone conversation.

d. On or about August 11, 2009, at approximately 1:42 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

e. On or about August 23, 2009, at approximately 10:50 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

f. On or about September 21, 2009, at approximately 7:18 p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

g. On or about October 10, 2009, at approximately 2:33 p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO had a telephone conversation.

h. On or about October 10, 2009, at approximately 2:34

p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

i. On or about November 10, 2009, at approximately

12:50 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

j. On or about November 16, 2009, at approximately

12:37 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

k. On or about November 22, 2009, at approximately

9:56 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

1. On or about November 25, 2009, at approximately

12:20 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

m. On or about November 25, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendant STEPHEN DEPIRO called a sports betting operator.

On or about December 6, 2009, at approximately 8:34 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and JOHN HARTMANN had a telephone conversation.

o. On or about December 14, 2009, at approximately

7:33 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

p. On or about December 21, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

On or about January 18, 2010, at approximately 1:07 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER called a sports betting operator.

On or about January 26, 2010, the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO met at a restaurant in New Jersey.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT FORTY-TWO (Illegal Gambling -Bookmaking)

88. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER, STEPHEN DEPIRO, and JOHN HARTMANN,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving bookmaking, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days and had a gross revenue of at least $2,000 in any single day. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

COUNT FORTY-THREE (Extortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy)

89. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

RICHARD DEHMER and STEPHEN DEPIRO, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from bettors engaged in DEHMER and DEPIRO’s bookmaking operation. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894 (a) (1) .

COUNT FORTY-FOUR (Extortionate Collection of Credit)

90. From at least in or about October 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally participate in the use of extortionate means to collect and attempt to collect extensions of credit from John Doe #12.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 894(a) (1) and 2.

COUNT FORTY-FIVE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

91. On or about August 11, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, united States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FORTY-SIX (Transmission of Wagering Information)

92. On or about November 10, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FORTY-SEVEN (Transmission of Wagering Information)

93. On or about November 16, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084(a) .

COUNT FORTY-EIGHT (Transmission of Wagering Information)

94. On or about November 25, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FORTY-NINE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

95. On or about December 14, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FIFTY (Transmission of Wagering Information)

96. On or about December 21, 2009, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FIFTY-ONE (Transmission of Wagering Information)

97. On or about January 18, 2010, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendant

RICHARD DEHMER, together with others, being engaged in the business of betting and wagering, did knowingly and intentionally use a wire communication facility, that is: a cellular telephone, for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets and wagers on a sporting event and contest.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084 (a) .

COUNT FIFTY-TWO (Illegal Gambling Conspiracy -Poker)

98. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

ANTHONY ALFANO, TONINO COLANTONIO, RICHARD DEHMER, and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving poker, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 19S5(a).

99. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objectives, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants ANTHONY ALFANO, TONINO COLANTONIO, RICHARD DEHMER, and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE, together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among others, the following:

OVERT ACTS

a. On or about August 12, 2009, at approximately 7:45 a.m., the defendants TONINO COLANTONIO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

b. On or about September 11, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendants TONINO COLANTONIO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

On or about October 7, 2009, at approximately 9:15 p.m., the defendant RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation with a coconspirator.

On or about November 8, 2009, at approximately 3:19 p.m., the defendants ANTHONY ALFANO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

e. On or about December 17, 2009, at approximately

p.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE had a telephone conversation.

On or about January 6, 2010, at approximately 11:58 a.m., the defendants RICHARD DEHMER and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE had a telephone conversation.

On or about January 18, 2010, at approximately 7:14 p.m., the defendants ANTHONY ALFANO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.

h. On or about January 19, 2010, at approximately 4:28 p.m., the defendants TONINO COLANTONIO and RICHARD DEHMER had a telephone conversation.   In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 371.

81

COUNT FIFTY-THREE (Illegal Gambling -Poker)

100. From at least in or about July 2009 to in or about January 2010, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere, the defendants

ANTHONY ALFANO, TONINO COLANTONIO, RICHARD DEHMER, and GIUSEPPE PUGLIESE,

together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct and own all or part of an illegal gambling business, that is: a gambling business involving poker, which operated in violation of the laws of New Jersey, that is: New Jersey Statute 2C:37-2, which involved five or more persons who conducted, financed, managed, supervised, directed and owned all or part of such business and which remained in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955(a) and 2.

A TRUE BILL

. REDACTED

FOREPERSON

PAUL J. FISHMAN

United States Attorney

GENOVESE ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILY SOLDIER AND ASSOCIATES INDICTED ON RACKETEERING CHARGES, INCLUDING EXTORTION OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION MEMBERS

01-20-11 — NEWARK, N.J. – Fifteen New Jersey residents, including an alleged member and associates of the Genovese organized crime family, are charged with racketeering and related offenses in a superseding indictment unsealed this morning in conjunction with arrests in the case, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman and Eastern District of New York U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch announced. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacquelyn M. Rasulo and Taryn A. Merkl of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Mahajan, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey.

GENOVESE ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILY SOLDIER AND ASSOCIATES INDICTED ON RACKETEERING CHARGES, INCLUDING EXTORTION OF INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION MEMBERS

Union Officials Charged with Participation in Three-Decade Conspiracy to Extort Dock Workers

NEWARK, N.J. – Fifteen New Jersey residents, including an alleged member and associates of the Genovese organized crime family, are charged with racketeering and related offenses in a superseding indictment unsealed this morning in conjunction with arrests in the case, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman and Eastern District of New York U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch announced.

The 53-count superseding indictment filed in Newark federal court charges Stephen Depiro, a soldier in the Genovese organized crime family of La Cosa Nostra (the “Genovese family”), and three Genovese family associates – Albert Cernadas, former President of International Longshoremen’s Association (“ILA”) Local 1235 and former ILA Executive Vice President; Nunzio LaGrasso, the Vice President of ILA Local 1478 and ILA Representative; and Richard Dehmer – with racketeering conspiracy, including predicate acts of conspiring to extort ILA members on the New Jersey piers, bookmaking, extortionate collection of credit, and illegal gambling. Depiro and Dehmer are also charged with racketeering conspiracy involving the collection of unlawful debt and charges relating to bookmaking and gambling. 

Seven other defendants, including Thomas Leonardis, the President of ILA Local 1235 and ILA Representative; Robert Ruiz, the Delegate of ILA Local 1235 and ILA Representative; and Vincent Aulisi, former President of ILA Local 1235, are charged with extorting ILA members.  The indictment also includes bookmaking and gambling charges against four additional defendants. 

A separate indictment was also unsealed today in Brooklyn federal court, charging that Patrick Cicalese, Robert Moreno, and Manuel Salgado – ILA members on the New Jersey piers – impeded a proceeding before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York by committing perjury.

Fourteen of the defendants charged in the Newark indictment were arrested this morning in a coordinated law enforcement effort.  Cernadas was previously charged and arrested.  All three defendants charged in the Brooklyn indictment were also arrested this morning.

The defendants arrested on charges in the Newark superseding indictment will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Judge Claire C. Cecchi in Newark federal court.  Cernadas will be arraigned on the superseding indictment at a later date. The defendants arrested on charges in the Brooklyn indictment will be arraigned this afternoon before United States Magistrate Andrew L. Carter Jr., in Brooklyn federal court.

According to the superseding indictment and detention memo filed in Newark federal court:

Depiro is associated with a Genovese family crew, formerly headed by powerful Genovese family member Tino Fiumara, and, since at least 2005, has managed the Genovese family’s control over the New Jersey waterfront – including the nearly three-decades-long extortion of port workers in ILA Local 1, ILA Local 1235, and ILA Local 1478.  Members of the Genovese family, including Depiro, are charged with conspiring to collect tribute payments from New Jersey port workers at Christmastime each year through their corrupt influence over union officials, including the last three presidents of ILA Local 1235.  The timing of the extortions typically coincided with the receipt by certain ILA members of “Container Royalty Fund” checks, a form of year-end compensation.

Depiro also controlled a sports betting package that was managed by several others, including Dehmer, through the use of an overseas sports betting operation.  In connection with the illegal gambling operations involving bookmaking, Dehmer threatened physical violence against individuals to collect outstanding debts for Depiro. Dehmer also allegedly operated an illegal poker club in Kenilworth, N.J.

The government’s cases are being prosecuted jointly by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of New Jersey, in Newark, and the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn.  The charges arise from a long-term investigation initiated in the Eastern District of New York which was later joined by the District of New Jersey.  These related cases are part of a larger operation announced this morning by Attorney General Eric Holder in Brooklyn.  In all, 91 members and associates of seven organized crime families of La Cosa Nostra (LCN), including the New England LCN family, all five New York-based families and the New Jersey-based Decavalcante family have been charged with federal crimes in 16 indictments returned in four judicial districts. Another 36 defendants also have been charged for their roles in alleged associated criminal activity.

U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman stated: “According to the charges unsealed today, organized crime still has a grip on the New Jersey waterfront.  Workers should be free to pursue an honest living without being worried that their own union representatives will shake them down. Our ports and those who work there play vital roles in our region’s economy and security.  Paying tribute to the mob is not an acceptable cost of doing business in New Jersey.”

“Today’s arrests are an example of this Office’s commitment to eradicating La Cosa Nostra’s corrupting influence in our communities,” stated Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  “The charges announced today are but an example of some of the myriad crimes allegedly engaged in by members and associates of LCN, including entrenched labor racketeering, extortion, and gambling.”

Michael B. Ward, Special Agent In Charge of the Newark Division of the FBI stated: “It’s become almost cliché to link organized crime to New Jersey, with oft-repeated comments about the ‘Soprano State’ and bodies allegedly being buried in the Meadowlands.  Today’s arrests will serve as a stark reminder that organized crime continues to operate in New Jersey through corruption, extortion, racketeering, and violence.  Organized crime is not to be romanticized, but rather is now being targeted anew by the FBI in New Jersey by agents whose attention is focused on these groups 24/7.”            

“Today’s RICO indictments are part of our long-term fight to rid the ports of New Jersey and New York of the stranglehold of organized crime. Several union officials from two locals of the International Longshoremen’s Association were arrested this morning on corruption charges. The alleged conspiracy involved a scheme to extort tribute payments from union members for members of the Genovese crime family.  We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to prevent the influence of organized crime over unions,” stated Marjorie Franzman, Special Agent in Charge for the New York Region of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud Investigations.

U.S. Attorneys Fishman and Lynch credited the FBI in New York and New Jersey and the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General with the investigation leading to the charges.  They also thanked the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor for their cooperation and assistance.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictments are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacquelyn M. Rasulo and Taryn A. Merkl of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Mahajan, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey.

The defendants and charges in the Newark indictment are outlined in the following chart, along with the maximum potential penalty per count if convicted.  Each count also carries a maximum $250,000 fine.

Defendant Count/Charges Maximum Potential Penalty
Stephen Depiro, 55, of Kenilworth, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 2: “CUD” RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 41: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Count 42: Illegal Gambling – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Count 43: Exortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Albert Cernadas, 75, of Union, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 4: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Count 9: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Nunzio LaGrasso, 60, of Florham Park, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 14-25: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Richard Dehmer, 75, of Springfield, N.J. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 2: “CUD” RICO Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 41: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Bookmaking Five years in prison

 

Defendant Count/Charges Maximum Potential Penalty
  Count 42: Illegal Gambling – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Count 43: Exortionate Collection of Credit Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Count 44: Extortionate Collection of Credit 20 years in prison
Counts 45-51: Transmission of Wagering Information Two years in prison
Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison
Edward Aulisi, 51, of Flemington, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Vincent Aulisi, 78, of West Orange, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 5, 6, 10 & 11: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Thomas Leonardis 53, of Glen Gardner, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 31 & 32: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Robert Ruiz, 52, of Watchung, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 7, 8, 12 & 13: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Michael Trueba, 75, of Kearny, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
Counts 30, 31, 33-37: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Defendant Count/Charges Maximum Potential Penalty
Ramiro Quintans, 52, of Basking Ridge, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
  Counts 26, 28, 29, 38-40: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Salvatore LaGrasso, 60, of Edison, N.J. Count 3: Hobbs Act Extortion Conspiracy 20 years in prison
  Count 27: Hobbs Act Extortion 20 years in prison
Anthony Alfano, 76, of Union, N.J. Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
  Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison
Tonino Colantonio, 32, Kenilworth, N.J. Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
  Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison
John Hartmann, 41, Kenilworth, N.J. Count 41: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Bookmaking Five years in prison
  Count 42: Illegal Gambling – Bookmaking Five years in prison
Guiseppe Pugliese, 32, Kenilworth, N.J. Count 52: Illegal Gambling Conspiracy – Poker Five years in prison
Count 53: Illegal Gambling – Poker Five years in prison

11-032 ###

45 arrested in illegal Bergen County gambling ring

45 arrested in illegal Bergen County gambling ring

Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 1:48 PM Updated: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 7:38 PM
By Rudy Larini

Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli announces at a news conference in Hackensack, today, the arrests of more than 40 people for their alleged involvement in an organized crime betting ring.

A gambling ring that took in $1 million a month in bets was cracked today with the arrest of 45 individuals, including four reputed associates of the Genovese crime family as well as a high school athletic director and a teacher from another school district.

Authorities also seized more than $5 million, about five pounds of marijuana and five vehicles during raids that began at 5 a.m. in Bergen, Hudson, Monmouth and Ocean counties.
. . .

The other ringleaders were identified as Mark Iafelice, 49, of Edgewater; Brian DiGuilmi, 48, of Emerson, and Bernard Duffy, 63, of Hasbrouck Heights. All are charged with racketeering, conspiracy and promoting gambling, which carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison.

Molinelli described the Skinners, Iafelice and DiGuilmi as “associates” of the Genovese crime family.

Others arrested included a North Bergen High School athletic director, Jerry Maietta, 37, of North Bergen; a North Bergen school aide, Ralph Marino, 52, of Cliffside Park, and John Prato, 36, of Brick, a teacher at Freehold Regional High School.

North Bergen spokesman Paul Swibinski, remarked, “Certainly everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”

. . .
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/42_arrested_in_illegal_gamblin.html

Sir John’s Pub in Jersey City was a Genovese/Gigante Family front.

SIR JOHN’S PUB

Sir John’s Pub in Jersey City represents another example of an organized crime associate having a hidden interest in a licensed establishment. John Ciani, the licensee for Sir John’s, until recently was a front for Genovese/Gigante crime family associate Anthony “Tony the Guinea” Rotolo of Bayonne. Rotolo is disqualified from holding the license himself because of a criminal record and ties to organized crime, which were summarized in State Police Superintendent Dintino’s prepared statement to the Commission at the public hearing:

Anthony Rotolo of Bayonne, New Jersey, is a Genovese/Gigante associate. Rotolo has been convicted on charges of extortion, fraudulent activities, assault and public disorder offenses.

Rotolo was a close associate of the late John DiGilio, after whose death Rotolo aligned himself with Genovese consigliere Louis “Bobby” Manna of Jersey City, who is presently incarcerated on federal racketeering charges.

During the Commission’s investigation, Rotolo and his wife Jane were observed by its agents on numerous occasions in 1988 and 1989 acting in a supervisory capacity at Sir John’s Pub. Rotolo’s wife was the tavern’s manager of record that time.

Despite observations by its agents, witnesses who appeared before the Commission repeatedly denied that Rotolo ran the business. A number of them admitted during interviews that Rotolo was in fact running the bar but gave different stories during testimony in private hearings before the Commission.

Waitress Donna Isabella admitted in an interview with Special Agent Grant Cuzzupe that she had been paid under the table by “Jane or Tony,” and that Tony was the boss. But when subpoenaed to testify, Isabella denied that Rotolo was her boss or that he paid her.

Joseph Fucci, a local building contractor, similarly contradicted himself. In an interview with Agent Cuzzupe, Fucci stated that Rotolo arranged for Fucci and his son to perform renovations at Sir John’s Pub. Fucci said Rotolo gave him a $1,500 deposit and orally agreed that Rotolo would be responsible for another $13,500 within a year. Fucci told Agent Cuzzupe that no payment schedule was set up because he and Rotolo are friends. Fucci said that Rotolo still owes $8,000 and pays “a few hundred dollars” whenever he sees Fucci. Again, however, Fucci’s story changed significantly and became confused when asked specific questions in his private testimony before then-Commissioner W. Hunt Dumont:

Q. When you told Special Agent Cuzzupe that Tony Rotolo gave you a sum of money to start this work, that wasn’t true?

A. I did a mistake. It wasn’t true because I didn’t know was — you know — what really I received the money that time.

Q. When you told Special Agent Cuzzupe that Tony Rotolo gave you some money —

A. No — Tony.

Q. — after that first time that wasn’t true either?

A. No, No.

COMMISSIONER DUMONT: Are you saying now that Mr. [John] Ciani gave you the money? THE WITNESS: No, now. All the time Ciani gave me the money.

COMMISSIONER DUMONT: I’m just interested in what you’re saying now. Ciani gave you the money? THE WITNESS: Ciani gave me the money.

Mauro “Moe” Abbato, the owner of Complete Vending, which supplied cigarettes to Sir John’s, told Agent Cuzzupe during an interview that he has known and been a supplier for Rotolo since he started his business in 1981. He initially loaned Rotolo $5,000 that would be repaid through machine proceeds, and he supplied Agent Cuzzupe with collection slips as evidence of this loan. During his private testimony, however, Abbato contradicted what hehad said in the interview:

Q. When you were interviewed by Agent Cuzzupe, you told him that it was Tony Rotolo who asked for the $5,000 loan and not Ciani?

A. When I — when — when Mr. Grant [Cuzzupe] called me up and told me that he wanted to meet with me, I asked him if there was anything that he might want to know from me, should I take any information with me and he said no, so I went cold.

To the best of my recollection, what he asked me I answered, you know. I —

Q. And when you told him it was Tony who wanted the $5,000 loan, was that the truth?

A. I might have thought it was, but I even thought that I gave Tony the money, but I didn’t give it to Tony….

Another associate of Rotolo, William Guarini, a local plumbing and heating contractor, performed renovations at Sir John’s. Work orders for Guarini’s services at Sir John’s have “Tony” written on one such document and Rotolo’s phone number on another. But in his testimony Guarini denied that Rotolo hired him and insisted instead that it was Ciani. Guarini could not explain why Rotolo’s name and phone number appeared on the invoices. Guarini also attempted to minimize his knowledge of Rotolo’s involvement at Sir John’s Pub in general and, specifically, in regard to the plumbing work at the establishment.

Q. The first time when you did the work, at the time of the renovations of Sir John’s Pub, who hired you to do the work?

A. Well, I was called down to look at it and I gave the price— well, Tony was down there when I went down there.

Q. Who told you to go down?

A. Ciani — I went over all the bathrooms with John Ciani and everything else.

Q. Who called you to go down there?

A . Ciani the first time.

And when you went there, you saw Tony?

I can’t recall. I think he was there. I’m pretty sure he was there. I can’t recall that, but I think he was there.

Who told you what kind of work had to be done?

What? Ciani, John Ciani.

Was Tony Rotolo involved in those conversations at all?

I don’t recall that part of it.

Is it possible he was?

Possible he was.

In fact, wasn’t it Tony who went over the work with you more than John Ciani did?

I can’t recall that part. Might have, yes, might have, but I can’t recall it. You know, it’s a year and a half ago and I can’t recall that part of it.

Interestingly, Guarini had previously completed work at the My Way Lounge and the Body Shop, establishments in which Rotolo also held undisclosed interests.

The use of John Ciani as a front was not Rotolo’s first attempt to conceal his ownership interest in Sir John’s. Rotolo and his first partner, Michael Della Rosa, purchased the property and Della Rosa formed the Midel Corporation, which then applied for the liquor license in 1987. Jersey City ABC authorities, however, determined that Della Rosa was fronting for Rotolo who, as the landlord, would have derived benefit from the bar through a lease. The Midel application for licensure was denied by Jersey City. (Della Rosa has since been convicted on gambling charges.)

In private session before the Commission, Della Rosa invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to all questions regarding his association with Rotolo and Sir John’s.

Shortly after Della Rosa’s license application was denied, John Ciani purchased the property and license. The license transfer to Ciani was approved in January, 1988, and six months later, Rotolo acquired a 50% interest in the real estate. A local newspaper article published shortly after Ciani obtained the bar and license identified Rotolo as the new owner of Sir John’s.

When John Ciani appeared in a private hearing before the Commission, he too invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. He did the same at the public hearing, resulting in Counsel Saros’ challenging his suitability to hold a liquor license.

Anthony Rotolo also invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in both private and public hearings.

Rotolo was surveilled by Commission agents on numerous occasions acting in a supervisory capacity. On at least four occasions in October, 1988, Rotolo was observed performing managerial functions such as unloading equipment, working in the kitchen, moving liquor, acting like a host with patrons, discussing renovations of the facility, using keys to open doors and assisting in deliveries. After the agents began issuing subpoenas for records and individuals to testify, however, Rotolo was not seen on the premises again. In fact, Rotolo had to be located elsewhere in order to serve him with a subpoena.

Surveillances in January, 1992, did not find Rotolo at Sir John’s; John Ciani was present, however. In conversation with Commission agents acting in an undercover capacity, Ciani indicated that he was now the sole owner, having recently bought out his partners. Real estate records corroborate that Rotolo divested himself of his interest in the property in August, 1990.

# # #

From a NJ SCI report.

 

United States of America v. Tino Fiumara, Michael Copolla, Jerry Copolla and Larry Ricci

United States of America v. Tino Fiumara, Michael Copolla, Jerry Copolla and Larry Ricci
Appeal of Tino Fiumara

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. – 605 F.2d 116
Submitted Aug. 6, 1979.Decided Sept. 5, 1979

 

 

Matthew P. Boylan, Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan, A Professional Corporation, Newark, N. J., Dennis D. S. McAlevy, Hoboken, N. J., for appellant.

Robert J. Del Tufo, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee; Maryanne T. Desmond, Chief, Appeals Div., Mark J. Malone, Asst. U. S. Attys., Newark, N. J., on brief.

Before ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

1

The defendant in this criminal proceeding has asked that we enter a stay or enjoin his sentencing proceedings in the district court pending appeal or consideration of a petition for mandamus. He contends that the district court’s refusal to exclude the public and press from his sentencing hearing will result in publicity jeopardizing his right to a fair trial in a case pending in a neighboring district. We do not read Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, — U.S. —-, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979), to grant the defendant a constitutional right to a private hearing in the circumstances of this case. Entertaining substantial doubts as to the likelihood of his success, both on the merits and on jurisdictional grounds, we deny defendant’s motion.

2

The defendant was convicted on June 20, 1979, of violations of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951-1952 (1976), and a presentence report was prepared at the direction of the trial judge. After reviewing the report, which contained references to other criminal activity, the defense requested a hearing at which it proposed to refute some of those allegations.

3

The trial and conviction were in the United States District Court for New Jersey sitting in Newark, New Jersey, and it was there that the sentencing hearing was scheduled for July 17, 1979. At that time, the defendant was under indictment for numerous other offenses, and was scheduled for trial in the Southern District of New York in October 1979. Many of the same newspapers and television stations that cover the district court in Newark also service New York City where the court for the Southern District of New York conducts its trials. The defendant timely asked that the public and press be excluded from the evidentiary hearing on the ground that prejudicial matters inadmissible in the New York trial would be divulged.1 The United States Attorney objected to closing the hearing, and the trial judge denied the defendant’s request. A single judge of this court granted interim relief, pending submission of defendant’s request for a stay to a motions panel.

4

In passing upon a motion for a stay, we consider the following factors:

5

1. the likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on the merits of the appeal;

6

2. whether there will be irreparable injury to the petitioner unless a stay is granted;

7

3. whether there will be substantial harm to other interested parties; and

8

4. the public interest.

9

See Croskey Street Concerned Citizens v. Romney, 459 F.2d 109, 111-12 (3d Cir. 1972) (Aldisert, J., concurring); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice P 62.05, at 62-25 (2d ed. 1975). Addressing the first of these factors we must weigh not only the likelihood of success on the merits but also whether the defendant will be able to satisfy the threshold requirements of jurisdiction. Defendant asserts in his brief that the order of the district court is reviewable at this stage and that as an alternative, jurisdiction exists for mandamus. Both the appeal and the proposed petition for mandamus, however, pose problems in the circumstances present here.

10

First, it is doubtful that the district court’s order is immediately appealable. Defendant concedes that the order is not final within the usual meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but argues that it comes within the exception to the rule of finality described in Cohen v. Beneficial Finance Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), and applied to interlocutory orders within

11

“that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Id. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225-1226.

12

The collateral order doctrine has been applied, though sparingly, in the criminal context. As the Court observed in United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 854, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978): “the rule of finality has particular force in criminal prosecutions because ‘encouragement of delay is fatal to the vindication of the criminal law.’ Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. (323, 325, 60 S.Ct. 540, 81 L.Ed. 783 (1940)).” In Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656-63, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), the Court set out three requirements for immediate appeal of a collateral order:

13

1. the district court’s order must have finally disposed of the question and did not leave the matter open, unfinished, or inconclusive;

14

2. the decision is not simply a step toward final disposition of the case on the merits;

15

3. the decision involves an important right which would be lost, probably irreparably, if review had to await final judgment.

16

Assuming, Arguendo, that the first two requirements pose no barrier, we are not persuaded that the third has been hurdled in the case Sub judice.

17

The defendant argues that he has a right to have the public excluded from the evidentiary hearing based on the holding in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra. But in Gannett, the Court stated explicitly that a defendant has no constitutional right to compel a secret trial, — U.S. at —-, 99 S.Ct. 2898. Moreover, it is significant that there the prosecutor agreed to bar the press, and the trial judge believed that an open hearing would pose a reasonable probability of prejudice to the defendant.

18

Another distinguishing feature is that the hearing at issue here is posttrial, rather than pretrial as in Gannett. The plurality opinion in that case formulated the question to be whether the public had “an independent constitutional right to insist upon access to a pretrial judicial proceeding,” Id. —- U.S. at —-, 99 S.Ct. at 2901, and the concurring opinion of the Chief Justice emphasized that the proceeding under scrutiny was not a trial, but a pretrial hearing, Id. —- U.S. at —-, 99 S.Ct. 2898. Here, by contrast, since defendant has already been convicted, the concern of the Gannett Court that the trial not be prejudiced by pretrial disclosures is not a consideration. Accordingly, we do not agree that the Gannett case supports the premise that the defendant acting alone has a constitutional right to exclude the public from a sentencing hearing.

19

Of course, defendant does have a right to a fair trial in the Southern District of New York. However, if publicity generated by the trial or evidentiary hearing in Newark affects the New York trial, he may then take appropriate steps there, the usual remedies of voir dire, change of venue, continuance, and the like being available in that forum. To that extent, therefore, the right to a fair trial in New York would not be irreparably lost by denying immediate review here.

20

We are mindful that the final judgment rule is to be broadly construed and that the Cohen exception must be kept within narrow bounds if the rule is to retain its vitality. Although this case may at best be in the “twilight zone of finality,” that there is available a remedy in another forum weighs against use of the collateral order exception here. See In re 1975-2 Grand Jury Investigation of Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 566 F.2d 1293, 1294 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 3092, 57 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1978). We conclude that the defendant has failed to make a strong showing that he is likely to prevail on his contention that the order is appealable, that he will be successful on the merits, or that without the stay he will be irreparably injured.

21

We do not overlook the strong statement of the court in the Gannett case that

22

“(t)o safeguard the due process rights of the accused, a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. Sheppard v. Maxwell (384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600), Supra. And because of the Constitution’s pervasive concern for these due process rights, a trial judge may surely take protective measures even when they are not strictly and inescapably necessary.” — U.S. at —-, 99 S.Ct. at 2904.

23

The trial judge’s responsibility is not limited solely to the case on his docket and in a situation like the one at bar he may not ignore the consequences in a nearby jurisdiction. But here it appears that preclusion of the public and press from the sentencing hearing is not the only way to protect the defendant’s rights. The same result may be accomplished by simply postponing the sentencing until after the pending trial in New York is concluded. The defendant has already offered to remain in custody and waive any right he may have to prompt sentencing. Although there is some indication in the record that continuance of the hearing may be a hardship for one or more witnesses, it would seem that taking depositions, either in conventional form or by videotape, would satisfactorily resolve that problem.

24

Defendant also asserts that the publicity generated might be harmful should a retrial be ordered in the New Jersey case. He will have the opportunity to raise that contention in a direct appeal from the convictions already entered. The collateral order doctrine, therefore, is not applicable to that argument since no right will be lost by awaiting final judgment. In the posture of the case at bar, we need not comment upon the validity of the defendant’s contention in this respect.

25

What we have said with regard to our doubts that the defendant can prevail on the merits of his request that the public be excluded similarly applies to the assertion that the order is reviewable under the court’s mandamus power. As the Supreme Court noted in its discussion of the subject in Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978), the moving party must show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Id. at 662, 98 S.Ct. 2552. Courts of appeals have broad authority on direct appeal but a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), may issue only when “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” 437 U.S. at 661, 98 S.Ct. at 2557. Thus, although a simple showing of error may suffice to obtain a reversal on direct appeal, to issue a writ of mandamus under such circumstances “would undermine the settled limitations upon the power of an appellate court to review interlocutory orders.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 98 n.6, 88 S.Ct. 269, 275, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967).

26

We perceive no strong likelihood that the defendant would be successful in receiving a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to order a closed hearing in the circumstances of this case. Because we conclude that the defendant has failed to make the necessary showing to justify either the issuance of a stay or an injunction pending appeal, his motion will be denied.

 

1

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3577 matters inadmissible as evidence at trial are not barred from disclosure to the court after a defendant’s conviction. That section provides:

“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”

Louis Anthony Manna and the conspiracy to murder John Gotti and Gene Gotti

Desciscio v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

September 4, 2009

RICHARD DESCISCIO, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Greenaway, Jr., U.S.D.J.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

This matter comes before this Court on the motion filed by petitioner, Richard DeSciscio (“Petitioner”), pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), seeking to reconsider the denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Conviction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Section 2255”),*fn1 and/or reconsider Petitioner’s sentencing.*fn2 Petitioner asserts that his right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was violated throughex-parte communications with the judge who sentenced him and ruled on his Section 2255 petition following his conviction. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

I. FACTS

On August 25, 1989 — approximately twenty years ago — a jury convicted Petitioner of racketeering, three counts of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering, murder, and conducting an illegal gambling operation. The convictions for conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering involved the planned murders of John Gotti and Gene Gotti, and the murder of Irwin Schiff in August 1987. Petitioner was tried with co-defendant, Louis Anthony Manna (“Manna”), for these crimes related to the Genovese Family’s organized criminal activities. United States v. Manna, No. 97-2034, 2006 WL 3063456 at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2006). Former District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry (“Judge Barry”) sentenced Petitioner to seventy-five years imprisonment on September 26, 1989.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on November 21, 1990. DeSciscio v. United States, 919 F.2d 733 (3d Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court of the United States denied Petitioner’s petition for certiorari on April 15, 1991. DeSciscio v. United States, 499 U.S. 962 (1991).

Petitioner eventually filed a motion to vacate his conviction, pursuant to Section 2255, on April 30, 1997. DeSciscio v. United States, No. 97-2285 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 1997). Judge Barry denied this motion, as untimely, on September 9, 1997, after finding no grounds for invoking the equitable tolling doctrine to excuse Petitioner’s late filing of the motion. Id.

Petitioner filed two motions seeking leave from the Third Circuit to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion. The first of these motions was filed on April 21, 2003 and denied on June 20, 2003. DeSciscio v. United States, No. 03-2129 (3d Cir. June 20, 2003). Petitioner’s second motion was filed on May 7, 2007. This motion sought to adopt the “principles articulated in the In re Louis Anthony Manna application presently before the court.” (Mot. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 at 2, attached as Ex. C to Resp’t’s Answer.)

Manna’s case, then before the Third Circuit, was an appeal of Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise’s decision dated, October 20, 2006, denying Manna’s Motion to Vacate Judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b). Manna, 2006 WL 3063456 at *10. In the opinion, Judge Debevoise outlined Manna’s discovery of FBI documents through several Freedom of Information Act requests. Id. at *5. The documents, though heavily redacted, represent official correspondence between several FBI field offices and the Director of the FBI (“FBI Memos”). Id.; (FBI Memos attached to Pet’r’s Mot. for Relief from J. as Ex. A, B. [hereinafter “Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. A” and “Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B”].)

The FBI Memos discuss an investigation into a potential plot to murder individuals involved in Manna’s and Petitioner’s trial and convictions. (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B.) The investigation sought to discover the veracity of an alleged plot by Manna, and possibly other inmates, to murder former United States District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, former United States Attorney Samuel Alito, and former Assistant United States Attorney Michael Chertoff. Manna, 2006 WL 3063456 at *6.

Petitioner alleges that the FBI Memos demonstrate that the FBI believed Petitioner was among the group of conspirators, and further, that the Government informed Judge Barry, after his conviction but before his sentencing, both of the existence of the murder plot and of Petitioner’s alleged involvement therein. (Pet’r’s Mot. ¶ 12.) Petitioner offers his twice-filed copies of the above-mentioned FBI Memos to support this allegation. (Pet’r’s Mot. ¶ 12; Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. A.) Petitioner alleges he was unaware of both the murder plot and the fact that information regarding the plot was given to Judge Barry. (Pet’r’s Mot. ¶¶ 11, 12.) Petitioner claims that he first discovered this information on January 2, 2008. (Pet’r’s Mot. ¶ 12.)

The FBI Memos focus on Manna as the source of the alleged threats. In one FBI memo, the Case Agent wrote that “Manna’s reputation and evidence presented at his trial indicate that he is more than capable of ordering the execution of others.” (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 37.) The FBI believed that Manna had once led “a particularly violent faction of the Genovese” Family and that his “incarceration should not be viewed as a barrier to any control he may have over other Genovese members or associates.” (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 38.) Although, in forty pages provided by Petitioner, the FBI Memos contain several instances of the name “DeSciscio,” nowhere is Petitioner’s name attached explicitly, or implicitly, to the murder plot. After an extensive discussion of Manna, the memo indicates that the government would review Petitioner’s telephone records, recordings, visitor’s lists, and correspondence records. (Id. at 38.)

The memo later states: “Newark [FBI] has made appropriate notifications to USMS, Newark, captioned victims, and Chief USDC Judge Newark.” (Id.) The FBI Memos do not indicate what constitutes an “appropriate notification.” (Id.; Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. A.)

On January 11, 2008, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion for Relief, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), to reconsider the denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Conviction, pursuant to Section 2255, and/or reconsider Petitioner’s sentencing. On February 4, 2009, the Government answered.

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks a hearing to consider his claims, under Rules 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(6), that he was denied due process, both during his sentencing and when his 1997 petition to vacate his sentence, pursuant to Section 2255, was dismissed.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) provides in part:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:…

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party… or,

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Where “the factual predicate of a petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion attacks the manner in which the earlier Section 2255 judgment was procured and not the underlying conviction, the Rule 60(b) motion may be adjudicated on the merits.” Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004). “However, when the Rule 60(b) motion seeks to collaterally attack the petitioner’s underlying conviction, the motion should be treated as a successive habeas petition.” Id.

To the extent Petitioner challenges the procedures of both his sentencing and his Section 2255 proceedings, this Court shall interpret this motion under Rule 60(b).

This Court need not review any direct challenges to the legitimacy of Petitioner’s conviction or sentencing as the Third Circuit has not granted him leave to file a second or successive Section 2255 petition. See In re Olabode, 325 F.3d 166, 169 (3d Cir. 2003).

A. Timeliness

“A motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Pierce Assoc., Inc. v. Nemours Foundation, 865 F.2d 530, 548 (3d Cir. 1988). However, Rule 60(b) limits the time within which the motion must be filed. Generally, a movant must file within a “reasonable time” from the date of the decision to be vacated. However, a motion for reason three (3) of Rule 60(b) may be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). A “reasonable time” to move to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b) is based on the circumstances of the individual case. Delzona Corp. v. Sacks, 265 F.2d 157, 159 (3d Cir. 1959). For example, where the information regarding the grounds for the motion was available for “almost two years” prior to the filing of the Rule 60(b) motion, the motion was not timely filed. Moolenaar v. Government of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1348 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Kamara v. Attorney General of U.S., 206 F. App’x 189, 191 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding 20 month delay not within a “reasonable time”).

Under certain circumstances, the principles of equitable tolling will allow the court to extend these limitations, but the doctrine does not extend to “garden variety claim[s] of excusable neglect.” Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990). Here, Petitioner does not argue excusable neglect; thus, he is entitled to no equitable tolling.

This Court finds that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is filed untimely. In the instant case, Petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion nearly twenty years after his sentencing and twelve years following the denial of his Section 2255 petition. In an apparent effort to circumvent the untimeliness of this motion, Petitioner claims he did not discover the evidence regarding the alleged ex-parte communications between the FBI and Judge Barry until January 2, 2008. (Pet’r’s Mot. ¶ 12.) This claim is not supported by the record.

In May 2007, Petitioner sought leave from the Third Circuit to file a second Section 2255 petition. In that motion, Petitioner incorporated the arguments raised in Manna’s pleadings before Judge Debevoise regarding similar Rule 60(b) claims. Judge Debevoise’s decision,*fn3 dated October 25, 2006, which denied Manna’s Rule 60(b) motion, outlined Manna’s allegations of exparte governmentalcommunications with Judge Barry, and extensively quoted the FBI Memos. These allegations, which are based on the same facts as Petitioner’s current claims, are largely identical to those raised by Petitioner’s current argument. This information leads this Court to conclude that Petitioner knew of the information contained within the FBI Memos long before he submitted this Rule 60(b) motion.

Since it appears from Petitioner’s submissions to the Court of Appeals thatPetitioner was aware of the FBI Memos at the latest in May 2007, and possibly as early as September 2005, this Court concludes that Petitioner delayed his filing and the motion was not made within a “reasonable time.” Therefore, this Rule 60(b) motion is denied because it was filed in an untimely manner.

B. The Merits

Even if Petitioner’s motion were filed in a timely manner, this Court would deny the motion on the merits. A movant under Rule 60(b) must “show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying reopening of the final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). “Such circumstances will rarely arise in the habeas context.” Id.

Petitioner fails to make any argument that might merit further review of the procedures of Petitioner’s sentencing or the denial of his Section 2255 petition. Petitioner’s argument appears to be that he should have been afforded the opportunity to move for Judge Barry’s recusal after she was allegedly informed of a plot to murder her. Since Petitioner alleges that Judge Barry learned of the murder plot before his sentencing, he believes the procedures for both that proceeding and the review of his Section 2255 petition were tainted.*fn4

Petitioner has offered little evidence to support his claim that Judge Barry received any information alleging Petitioner’s involvement in the murder plot. While the FBI Memos Petitioner provides here do discuss a murder plot against Judge Barry, they address a plot orchestrated by Manna. The only discussion of Petitioner in the memoranda is as a co-defendant at trial and an individual whose communications should be monitored based solely on his connection to Manna. (Pet’r’s Br. Ex. B (Docket Entry No. 1-2 p. 38).) Discussing the risk of the alleged threat, the FBI reported, “Manna’s reputation and evidence presented at his trial indicate that he is more than capable of ordering the execution of others.” (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 37.) The FBI, in a separate memo, went on to discuss Manna’s continued ability to utilize the Genovese organization for violent acts, noting, “Manna’s incarceration should not be viewed as a barrier to any control he may have over other Genovese members or associates.” (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 38.) These documents demonstrate the FBI’s singular interest in Manna as the source of the potential threat to Judge Barry, and do not support Petitioner’s assertion that the FBI believed him to be part of the murder plot.

The record fails to support any reasonable inference that Judge Barry was told about Petitioner being involved in the plot. The memos simply report that “appropriate notifications” were made to Judge Barry. (Pet’r’s Mot. Ex. B. p. 38.) Any number of notifications could have been appropriate, including a warning of generalized threats from prisoners. Petitioner’s inference that this language indicates Judge Barry was informed that Petitioner was part of a plot to kill her is baseless.

This Court finds that there is no basis to support Petitioner’s claim that ex-parte communications between the FBI and Judge Barry tainted his sentencing and the review of his Section 2255 petition. Petitioner has failed to state any “extraordinary circumstances” that would merit vacation of either his sentencing or Section 2255 proceedings.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is untimely and, and even if it were timely, it is without merit. Petitioner’s motion is denied.

JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, JR., U.S.D.J.

Opinion Footnotes

*fn1 A Section 2255 petition allows:
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress [to] claim[] the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States… [and to] move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255.

*fn2 Petitioner was tried and convicted before Judge Maryanne Trump Barry in 1989. She sentenced him on September 26, 1989. Judge Barry denied Petitioner’s Section 2255 motion on September 9, 1997.

*fn3 The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Debevoise’s denial of Manna’s Rule 60(b) motion. Manna v. United States, No. 06-4788, slip op. (3d Cir. June 28, 2007).

*fn4 Assuming, arguendo, that Judge Barry received information of the alleged murder plot by Manna, she would not have been required to recuse herself. See United States v. Dalfonso, 707 F.2d 757, 761 (3d Cir. 1983) (recusal unnecessary where a third party, or even the accused, makes unsubstantiated claims of “improper inducement”); see also In re Basciano, 542 F.3d 950, 956 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Although a plot or threat, real or feigned, may create a situation in which a judge must recuse himself, recusal is not ordinarily or routinely required.”).

LARRY DENTICO – a member of the ruling panel of the Genovese LCN Family

 

(jj) On or about August 28, 2003, the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida authorized the interception of wire communications of ALBERT FACCHIANO and others.

G. Factual Basis

17. The facts comprising the basis for this affidavit are derived from the following sources:

(a) information provided by confidential sources to Special Agents of the FBI;

(b) testimony at federal racketeering trials involving members and associates of LeNj

(c) physical surveillance conducted by law enforcement officers, including me;

(d) independent investigation by law enforcement officers, including me; and

(e) interceptions of oral communications occurring within the FOUR RESTAURANTS pursuant to previous Court Orders.

18. Unless otherwise noted, whenever I set forth a statement by a confidential source, the source spoke either directly to me or to another law enforcement officer, who thereafter communicated such information to me. Unless otherwise noted, all statements set forth herein that are attributed to confidential sources or other witnesses are stated only in substance and in part. In addition, unless otherwise noted,

29

BUG001308

information set forth herein concerning physical surveillance is based on my own participation in the surveillance or was communi~ cated to me by other FBI agents or other law enforcement officers who conducted such surveillance. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of securing authorization for the interception of oral communications, I have not included each and every fact that I have learned during this investigation. Rather, I have set forth only those facts that I believe are necessary to establish probable cause for the order sought herein.

II. PROBABLE CAUSE

A. Background

19. As detailed below and more fully described in the December 31, 2002 Affidavit, the January 31, 2003 Affidavit, the March 3, 2003 Affidavit, the April 2, 2003 Affidavit, the May 16, 2003 Affidavit, and the June 18, 2003 Affidavit (collectively the “prior affidavits”),9 there is probable cause to believe that the SUBJECTS and others as yet unknown are participating in the illegal activities of the racketeering enterprise, and the various racketeering offenses, described in paragraph 6, above. Pursuant to the December 31, 2002 Order, the January 31, 2003 Order, the March 3, 2003 Order, the April 2, 2003, the May 16,

9 The April 2, 2003 and June 18, 2003 Affidavits, as with the other prior affidavits, are fully incorporated herein by reference.

30

BUG001309

2003 Order, and the June 18, 2003 Order (collectively, the “prior orders”), authorization was received to intercept communications occurring within the FOUR RESTAURANTS –BRUNELLO’S PREMISES, AGOSTINO’S PREMISES, MARIO’S PREMISES, and the MARINA PREMISES. As explained below (and in the prior affidavits), interceptions to date confirm that the SUBJECTS are using the FOUR RESTAURANTS to engage in racketeering activities, including extortionate control of retail and construction businesses, loansharking, and labor bribery. The SUBJECTS have now discovered the FBI’s listening devices at two of these locations, and the other two listening devices were removed by the FBI to prevent their likely discovery. However, the TARGET SUBJECTS are continuing to meet at the FOUR RESTAURANTS and other locations that are impractical to specify to discuss the illegal activities of the racketeering enterprise. In addition, ARDITO has brought the ARDITO CELLPHONE to most of these meetings.

20. To date, all of the goals of the prior orders have not yet been achieved. Because of this, as well as the SUBJECTS’ discovery of the other listening devices, and the FBI’s belief from surveillance, intercepted communications, and source information that ARDITO and the other SUBJECTS continue to discuss their participation in racketeering activities at other locations besides the FOUR RESTAURANTS, this· application seeks authorization to intercept oral communications at locations used

31

BUG001310

by JOHN “BUSTER” ARDITO that are impractical to specify, through

a listening device placed in the ARDITO CELLPHONE, or other means.

B. The SUBJECTS’ Recent Activities Within the FOUR RESTAURANTS

  1. As explained above, the FBI intercepted oral communications occurring variously within the FOUR RESTAURANTS BRUNELLa PREMISES, AGOSTINO’S PREMISES, MARIO’S PREMISES and the MARINA PREMISES pursuant to prior orders. The interceptions from the prior orders, with the exception of the June 18, 2003 Order, are described in the prior affidavits. These interceptions, along with the interceptions described below, demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that the TARGET SUBJECTS are participating in the illegal activities of the racketeering enterprise, and the various racketeering offenses, described in paragraph 6, above.
  2. Because each of the conversations were quite long, I have not included every pertinent discussion that occurred during the intercepted conversations. The following descriptions of conversations are based upon my participation in the actual monitoring of the conversations, as well as a review by myself and fellow agents of the tapes of intercepted communications, logs completed by the monitoring personnel, draft summaries and partial transcripts of some of the conversations, as well as my conversations with monitoring personnel. Based on my training

 

32

BUG001311

and experience and my discussions with other law enforcement officers· involved in this investigation, I have also included interpretations of certain terms, phrases and names in parentheses. Wednesday, June lS. 2003 (The BRUNELLO PREMISES)

23 ..On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at approximately

12:00 p.m., ARDITO met at the BRUNELLO PREMISES with DORIS. During the conversation, which lasted for approximately one hour and fifty minutes, ARDITO stated that he·would not meet with Vinny (RUSSO) anymore on Friday’s because “Vinny owes Manny money.” “Manny” had apparently asked ARDITO to talk to RUSSO about paying the money. ARDITO was happy that “Manny” came to him (ARDITO) instead of going to someone else to complain about RUSSO. ARDITO mentioned that “they charge him a dime.” ARDITO and DORIS then discussed Joe Nina (who owns a restaurant) and other people, and ARDITO’s involvement with Nina. DORIS also mentioned “Macalla (ph.)” and ARDITO responded that he “got 15 years.” In part, I believe that ARDITO is discussing his involvement in the collection of a loan made by “Manny” to RUSSO.

24. ARDITO talked extensively about his case (this likely refers to a prior criminal case involving ARDITO). ARDITO mentioned $1,000,000, and how PELUSO and another attorney worked for him on the case. Also during their discussion, ARDITO and DORIS talked about a “Dr. DiMateo” [Robert DiMateo] ‘. (I am aware

33

BUG001312

that DiMateo was under investigation by the FBI for his

involvement in submitting false claims to the Social security Administration on behalf of Neil Parrello, brother of Pasqual”e Parrello, a capo in the Genovese Family who is currently

incarcerated on racketeering charges.)

25. PELUSO then arrived. PELUSO said that “Dom”

(DOMINICK CIRILLO the former acting boss of the Genovese LCN Family) said that “if that’s what he wants to do,” that’s what 1’11 do. 1I The others at the table wanted PELUSO to explain “it” to everybody. PELUSO responded, “Who’s everybody?” PELUSO also said that “hell is probably talking about “Larry” (DENTICO, believed to be a member of the ruling panel controlling the Genovese LCN Family). PELUSO later stated that he was going to “see someone,ll and mentioned breaking someone’s legs, that the “guy made us look bad.” ARDITO said that he warned “him” that if “you don’t bring the money, you are not going to get that machine back./I ARDITO also mentioned going to DiMateo. In this portion of the conversation, in part, ARDITO, PELUSO and the other SUBJECTS are discussing messages received from CIRILLO and DENTICO relating to ARDITO’s attempt to control the Genovese LCN Family’s interests in Connecticut.

26. Later in the conversation, the participants talked about Neil and Patsy (Parrello, brothers who were both charged in racketeering indictments filed in this District, along with other

34

BUG001313

members and associates of the Genovese LCN Family). At another point, they discussed “Salerno” (possibly Fat Tony Salerno, the former boss of the Genovese LCN Family) and Frank Costello. ARDITO said that “Frank” is “dead.”

Thursday, June 19, 2003 (MARIO’S PREMISES>

27. On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at approximately 12:07 p.m., ARDITO and PELUSO met at MARIO’S PREMISES. During the conversation, which lasted for approximately two hours, PELUSO mentions “Joey C.”, and ARDITO stated that he was “getting 10%” shaking everyone down. ARDITO mentioned “Scooter” (ANTHONY GUIDO) and PELUSO mentioned a “Stevie” and a “Joey Blue Eyes,” as well as another “kid.” PELUSO stated that “they killed him.” After they “killed,” they gave information. ARDITO and PELUSO were talking softly at this point in the conversation, discussing how “they” killed her husband. DORIS, who had since arrived, mentioned T.J. Gelardo (a soldier in the Luchese LCN Family) being on a doctor’s payroll (a possible no-show job). ARDITO also brought up “Dr. DiMateo,” and that it had just “slipped his mind” for a minute. They discussed how Gelardo was on the doctor’s payroll, and ARDITO thought that it was a “shylock loan” which a doctor had given to Gelardo to pay Gelardo back and to write off the loan. (In June 2003, Dr. Jude Barbera was convicted in this District of various tax and fraud charges that involved his relationship with Gelardo; ARDITO and PELUSO are

35

BUG001314

discussing how Gelardo was apparently employed by Barbera to pay

back an extortionate loan that he received from Gelardo) .

28. ARDITO, PELUSO, and DORIS then spoke of visiting prisons. PELUSO stated that where “Bobby” (Manna, a made member of the Genovese Family whom agents believe is a high-ranking soldier serving a prison sentence) is, there is no visiting on Wednesday. PELUSO said that next Wednesday, he and John Mitchell

(lawyer for ERNEST MUSCARELLA) were going to go and visit Manna. PELUSO mentioned that “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA, a capo in the Genovese LCN Family who is on the administration panel that is now running the Genovese Family, and who recently pleaded guilty in two separate racketeering cases filed in the Eastern District of New York and in this District) and “Quiet Dom” (DOMINICK CIRILLO)

“were consulted on this.” MUSCARELLA reportedly stated that “he”

(Manna) knows “where the money is.” DORIS stated that “this is the innocent guy.” Again, in this conversation, ARDITO, PELUSO and DORIS discussed a visit by PELUSO and another attorney to Bobby Manna, who is in prison, to discuss an issue with him. MUSCARELLA and CIRILLO had been consulted.

29. Towards the end of the conversation, ARDITO spoke on the ARDITO CELLPHONE with someone (possibly “Joey”), and with the owner of MARIO’S as well. The owner said “135,000 plus what he gave Vito (DiSalvo, a soldier in the Genovese LeN Family) .If Based on my knowledge of the investigation, I believe that this

36

BUG001315

is referring to the fact that PALADINO received a loan from a

friend of the owner of MARIO’S named “Joe” LNU. Vito DiSalvo, as the “godfather” of the loan, received approximately $10,000 of the loan proceeds. ARDITO said that PALADINO told ARDITO that

PALADINO had also paid back “Vito’s money.” ARDITO stated that he would make an appointment with “him and PALADINO” face to

face. The owner said that he did not think that “Joe” is lying. ARDITO said that “they robbed a lot of people” and that there are two Paladinos, and that one would get blamed for what the other would do. AEDITO also said that to give $250,000 “you’re crazy”

(referring to a loan). ARDITO also said that “Patsy” (Genovese

LeN Family capo Patsy Parrello) was “beat”   for $250,000. ARDITO
further said that an “Albanian” (possibly ABISH   LAJQI) was
involved. ARDITO called “Vito” (DiSalvo) a “nickel and dime
hustler. “          

30. ARDITO stated that “Pat” (Parrello) had some money that he wanted to bury (that is, illegitimate money that he wanted to put on the street through loansharking), and they wanted ARDITO involved, but ARDITO said “no.” ARDITO also said that he spoke with “Riggi” (Patsy Parrello’s wife) and told her not to go to PALADINO for money or she would go to jail

(presumably, because ARDITO believed that PALADINO and DISALVO were cooperating). ARDITO said that he did not want to get involved with “Vito” because ARDITO’s name “came up” regarding

37

BUG001316

money laundering, and because ARDITO “doesn’t trust any of them.”

30. Also during this conversation, PELUSO mentioned “Louie” (MOSCATIELLO) (a member of the Genovese LCN Family) ,10 and said that someone had lied three times in front of “Ernie’s son” (MUSCARELLA’s son, possibly Biagio Nicchia, MUSCARELLA’s stepson, who has also been charged_with MUSCARELLA and MOSCATIELLO in the Local 14 indictment). PELUSO stated that if “Barney” (Bellomo, believed to be the former acting boss of ·the Genovese LCN Family) was around, “what would have happened”

(implying that if Bellomo had been out of jail, there would have been consequences for the person who lied) . Friday, June 20. 2003 (AGOSTINO’S PREMISES)

31. On Friday, June 20, 2003, at approximately 11:54 a.m., ARDITO and RUSSO met at AGOSTINO’S PREMISES. During the conversation, which lasted for approximately two hours and five minutes, ARDITO and RUSSO discussed the money that RUSSO owes to “Manny.” ARDITO told RUSSO that “Manny” came to ARDITO about the money. ARDITO said that he was not taking “Manny’s” calls. RUSSO stated that he wanted to “commit himself to him,” and RUSSO said he used to give “Manny” $500 a month (presumably as part of a plan to repay the loan to “Manny”). It appears from this

10 MOSCATIELLO was arrested on February 26, 2003, in connection with an indictment charging MOSCATIELLO with racketeering and related charges regarding the Genovese LCN Family’s extortionate control of Local 14 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.

38

BUG001317

interception, as also discussed above that “Manny” went to ARDITO for assistance in collecting on the loan “Manny” made to RUSSO.

32. Later in the conversation, ARDITO said that he would “know today.” ARDITO also mentioned an agent (of the FBI) who had come down to visit someone, as well as “Dr. DiMateo”

(Robert DiMateo, who as previously mentioned, is under investigation for filing false paperwork) .

33. The conversation returned to the.money that RUSSO owed to “Manny,” and RUSSO acknowledged that he had been paying “Manny” slowly. RUSSO and ARDITO also discussed union laborers and “stamps” (benefit stamps for union employees). RUSSO asked if PELUSO had gone to see “Mario” (MARIO GIGANTE, a soldier in the Genovese LeN Family, and brother of Vincent “the Chin” Gigante, the boss of the Genovese LCN Family) and ARDITO stated that “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA) wanted to get a message. ARDITO referred to a “swap,” and RUSSO mentioned “Gambino./I (Apparently, RUSSO, who is currently associated with the Gambino LeN Family, wants to leave the Gambino Family and become associated with ARDITO and the Genovese LeN Family through a personnel swap). ARDITO also stated that he had to speak to Tony Migano (ph.)

(believed to be Anthony Megale, a Gambino LCN Family capo) . ARDITO also described speaking “to the big guy” and referred to “Ernie” and what “Ernie” wants (MUSCARELLA). ARDITO also spoke about “wrapping the whole thing up” and how they had been

39

BUG001318

described as “has-beens.” I believe this to be a reference to the continuing dispute within the Genovese LCN Family between ARDITO over the Family’s interests in the Connecticut.

34. Later in the conversation, PELUSO arrived. PELUSO stated that he was going to see “Barry” (Manna) the following week. PELUSO also said that his sister (Manna’s sister) had called. PELUSO also said that “that guy” was delivering a “bad message” (possibly referring to a message from MUSCARELLA) . ARDITO described what MUSCARELLA said through “Blaise” (Biagio Nicchia, MUSCARELLA’s stepson). PELUSO said that he and “Blaise” had been together, and there was no communication and that “he is not getting the right message.” PELUSO mentioned “Quiet Dom”

(DOMINICK CIRILLO, the former acting boss of the Genovese LCN Family). PELUSO related his conversation with MUSCARELLA. ARDITO responded that he “doesn’t understand Quiet Dom.” PELUSO replied that “he and Larry” (DENTICO) were always close. PELUSO said that he wanted to tell “he [CIRILLO] and Larry [DENTICO] this is what he wants, what can I do.” Again, this is believed to refer to communications from MUSCARELLA and others that pertain to the ongoing dispute regarding the Genovese LCN Family’s interests in Connecticut. PELUSO is apparently complaining that Nicchia is giving ARDITO an incorrect message from MUSCARELLA, and PELUSO related what he believes MUSCARELLA really said since PELUSO was also at the meeting. PELUSO is also

40

BUG001319

complaining about problems with the avenues of communication between the leaders of the Genovese Family, many of whom have­been indicted and have limited contact with other members of the Family, and those who carry the messages on their behalf, such as Nicchia and PELUSO.

  1. At another point in the conversation, ARDITO stated that “he” (MUSCARELLA) knows that there “is a rat among us.” ARDITO believed that the rat is with “Scop” (Pasquale Deluca, a member of the Genovese LCN Family with interests in Connecticut). PELUSO stated that \’we got to get proof to point” the finger (referring to the “rat” or cooperating witness) . PELUSO also stated that this person “ratted” on good guys.
  2. Towards the end of the conversation, PELUSO spoke about going to “Barney” (Bellomo) for help. ARDITO said that “he needs two good guys,” presumably for his crew. PELUSO said that “Sallie” (SALVATORE LARCA) is a good guy, and asked about “Hippy”

 

(MICHAEL “HIPPY” ZANFARDINO). Later, ARDITO mentioned “Vinny Ocean” (a former high-ranking member of the Decavalcante LCN Family and a current cooperating witness) . PELUSO and ARDITO further discussed whether there was a “boss of bosses.” ARDITO mentioned “Joe Bonnano.” Saturday, June 21, 2003 (the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES)

37. On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at approximately 12:45 p.m., ARDITO and KATHY IVELLI (believed to be ARDITO’s

41

BUG001320

girlfriend, who is frequently present for discussions involving organized crime) met at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES. PELUSO later arrived. The conversation continued for over three hours. ARDITO told IVELLI that agents from the FBI had visited “Tomas” and had asked him how-much he paid to “Riggi,” Patsy Parrello’s wife. ARDITO also stated that “Tomas” (TOMAS TERRACIANO) had been asked whether “you and ‘Duke’ [SONNY MARKS1 cashed checks for doctors.” Later, ARDITO stated that there was going to be another “pinch” (series of arrests), and noted that agents had

asked if ARDITO had taken over for “Patsy” (Parrello).

38. At a later point in the conversation, the parties discussed a check cashing place and Roger Bombace (an associate of the Genovese LeN Family who recently pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in this District). ARDITO indicated that he had thrown Bombace out of Patsy’s Riggoletto restaurant

(Parrello’s restaurant). They also discussed bugs at a table in Patsy’s Riggoletto. ARDITO speculated that “Roger” (Bombace, whom they believe is cooperating with the Government) had told the Government that ARDITO had taken over for “Patsy” (Parrella). PELUSO and ARDITO described how “Tomas” (TERRACIANO) and “Duke”

(MARKS) get percentages from the check cashing scheme. ARDITO later noted that “Tomas and Duke are shitting in their pants” (presumably because of their concern that Bombace is cooperating, and would reveal the existence of their check cashing scheme).

42

BUG001321

They continued to speculate during the conversation; at one point, PELUSO stated that “Roger” (Bombace) must have “opened his hands” and must have said that “Tomas” (TERRACIANO) was “Patsy’s”

(Parrello’s) partner. ARDITO was apparently speculating as to whether “Tomas” cashed checks himself, and PELUSO said that if “Tomas” had sent “Roger” to cash checks, then the “Feds know.”

39. Still later in the conversation, PELUSO stated that “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA) had said that he needed to send two more notes and that this is the “chance he has to take.” PELUSO also said that “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA) and “Louie” (MOSCATIELLO) send the problems to “Larry” (DENTICO). ARDITO said that “Larry’s” time will come. PELUSO said that they must be saying that they “misunderstood the message” (from MUSCARELLA). PELUSO also speculated that “Larry” (DENTICO) must have thought MUSCARELLA was “going to do 15 years” (on his two pending cases). At a further point in the conversation, ARDITO told PELUSO that he had sent a message back to “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA). PELUSO then” recounted a conversation with other high-ranking members of the Genovese LCN Family. PELUSO said that “Louie” (MOSCATIELLO) had said that it’s 99% certain. “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA) had said that “He’s a captain and he’s not being taken down.” MOSCATIELLO, in turn, had said that “he” (MUSCARELLA) is going to have a tough time telling “Larry” (DENTICO). According to PELUSO, “Ernie”

(MUSCARELLA) replied, “Who the hell is Larry?” PELUSO then told

43

BUG001322

I •

“Ernie” (MUSCARELLA) that “Scop” Deluca was lucky. MUSCARELLA replied, “he’s just acting, he’s not made yet.” PELUSO also said that he (MUSCARELLA) would be better off making “Artie” (believed to be ARTHUR NIGRO, a Genovese LCN Family soldier) a captain {Capo}. This is believed~to refer to the ongoing dispute involving ARDITO pertaining to the Genovese LCN Family’s interests in Connecticut.

40. PELUSO and ARDITO also discussed “bookmakers” who were “splitting with a restaurant. ARDITO mentioned that “Ernie”

(MUSCARELLA) was going to a meeting when he got “pinched.”

ARDITO also mentioned “Fritzy” (Giovannelli, a capo in the

Genovese LCN Family who is under indictment in this District for

racketeering charges including obstruction of justice). PELUSO

and ARDITO returned again to discussing “Tomas” (TERRACIANO) and

“”Duke” (MARKS). They discussed how the FBI had purportedly visited “Tomasll again and how “Duke” was upset. ARDITO said that there was going to be another “pinch” (series of arrests by law enforcement). PELUSO told ARDITO that he had told “Tomas” that “if you lie, it’s a crime, so it’s better to say nothin’.” PELUSO also speculated that “Roger” (Bombace) could have said that ARDITO was “Patsy’s boss.” PELUSO stated that the FBI will “lean on Duke” because the FBI can break him (that is, PELUSO is expressing his belief that the FBI will be able to pressure MARKS into cooperating with its investigation).

44

BUG001323

Monday, June 23·, 2003 (the BRUNELLa PREMISES>

41. On Monday, June 23, 2003, at approximately 11:56 a.m., ARDITO, DORIS, and JOHN PISTONE (“the Plumber”) met at the BRUNELLO PREMISES and spoke for over two hours. During the conversation, ARDITO advised DORIS that agents of the FBI had visited “Tomas” (TERRACIANO) at his house. ARDITO said that the agents had told “Tomas” that ARDITO had taken over for “Pat”

(Parrella), and discussed the doctors upstairs from Rigoletto’s and “Duke” (SONNY MARKS). ARDITO stated that “the check cashing guy, Dominick (Colosuono)” had told the truth. ARDITO speculated that it was Roger (Bombace) who had told the FBI about this (that

is, revealed the existence of the check cashing scheme in which TERRACIANO and MARKS were involved). DORIS reminded ARDITO that ARDITO had warned the doctors to pay the taxes on the money. They also discussed whether Rigoletto’s was “wired” with a listening device. ARDITO mentioned that he was “taking care of

Pat’s business.” ARDITO also stated that “Tomas” was in fact

involved in a check cashing “scam.” ARDITO said that “Tomas” was

“sneaking a piece of that”·and that “Tommy” (Franco) and “Nicky”

(Devito) were also involved. ARDITO thought that they might “get another pinch” (get arrested for that) .

42. DORIS then asked about the “stuff” (cases· of wine) that were down in the basement. ARDITO said that the agents did not ask about that. (This is an apparent reference to wine

45

BUG001324

provided to Gino Ottomanelli, a cooperating witness, who in turn

provided it to Patsy Parrello and later “Tomas,” which ARDITO and “Tomas” believe was stolen property). DORIS mentioned tax evasion

“unless the doctors say that they were being pressured to pay 15 percent eu/i).” DORIS stated that “Tomas” was the “weakest link,” meaning the individual most likely to cooperate with the FBI’s investigation.

  1. ARDITO then mentioned that PELUSO had gone to see “Bobby Manna” (a high-ranking member in the Genovese LeN Family) in the “pen” (prison). ARDITO also stated that “they know all about Buster taking care of it. They know all about that. CUI) I’m gonna go” (referring to his belief that he was going to be arrested shortly).
  2. The participants then discussed money owed by PALADINO to Joe LNU (the same individual on the phone with ARDITO and the owner of Mario’s the prior week). ARDITO reported that PALADINO said that he only owed the “guy” a few dollars. ARDITO said that PALADINO “even paid him for the godfather” (referring to the payment made to Vito DiSalvo for arranging the loan). ARDITO said that they were “going to make a shylock out of him.”
  3. Later in the conversation, ARDITO said that someone had said to him “I know about you being the boss of Connecticut,” but that ARDITO did not “know what the guy was talking about.” ARDITO said that he “knocked him off the $200 a

 

46

BUG001325

• • • • ‘.

month payroll.” ARDITO then told a story about a police

lieutenant’s son who recognized “the kid.” The son had purportedly disappeared. ARDITO thought that the agents are working on finding the son. ARDITO said that he suspected that

“the stool pigeon and his father were in on this.” (This likely relates to ARDITO’s belief that the FBI is investigating the disappearance of Steve Aiello, the son of a civilian employee of the NYPD who ran the NYPD’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Aiello disappeared after he testified as an alibi witness for the defense that resulted in the acquittal of Victor Mirdita, an Albanian who had been charged with murdering the son of Pasquale Parrella in an apparent dispute between members of the Genovese and Gambino LeN Families.)

46. ARDITO also complained that “they’ve been saying we’re has-beens. A couple of them come out, I’ll show them what kind of has-beens we are.” ARDITO again stated that he thought that “Tomas” would be arrested in three weeks and that “they”

(the Government) had “Roger” (Bombace, meaning that he was cooperating with the FBI). DORIS said that “Roger” was charged with “a gun.” Still later, ARDITO noted that “he has an appointment with the judge anytime [he] wants to go eat with him.” ARDITO said that he “did Pat a favor once, and the next day he came back for another one.” ARDITO again returned to speculating about the next “pinch” and said he thought he was not

47

BUG001326

on “any tapes.” He also described “Durso” (Michael Durso, a cooperating witness) as “a piece of shit compared to the guy from Jersey who cooperated from Sam the Plumber’s crew.” (Sam “the Plumber” Decavalcante was the boss of the LCN Family that bears his name.) ARDITO described what happened in 1974, when “they opened it up and made everybody.”

Thursday, June 26, 2003 (the BRUNELLO PREMISES)

  1. On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at approximately 12:56 p.m., DORIS and PELUSO met at the BRUNELLO PREMISES and spoke for over two hours. ARDITO arrived late. During the conversation, DORIS and PELUSO initially discussed “Tomas” and what he had told the “Feds” regarding “Riggi” –Pasquale Parrello’s wife. DORIS mentioned an “audit” and “IRS.” PELUSO said that the FBI was “taking pictures.” PELUSO stated that ARDITO needed to “put Megale in his place” (Anthony Megale, a Gambino LeN Family capo based in Connecticut). PELUSO also said that “Scop” (Deluca) must have told “him.”
  2. The conversation turned to George Barone (a former member of the Genovese LCN Family and current Government cooperating witness) and “flipping.” ARDITO also mentioned “Ernie” (MUSCARELLA) and ARDITO sounded upset. ARDITO said that “George” was still in Florida. ARDITO explained his conversation with “Quiet Dom” (CIRILLO), but it was inaudible. ARDITO mentioned “stool pigeons” (cooperating witnesses). PELUSO

 

48

BUG001327

, .

mentioned “Vinny Gorgeous” (Basciano, a made member of the

Bonnano LCN Crime Family). Later in their conversation, they discussed “Ernie’s” statements and his case.s (MUSCARELLA’s two cases, one in this District, and the other in the Eastern District of New York). DORIS discussed his plea. Friday. June 27. 2003 (the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES)

  1. On Friday, June 27, 2003, at approximately 11:55 a.m., ARDITO and PELUSO were intercepted at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES. The conversation was almost entirely inaudible due to interference from other conversations. Monday, June 30, 2003 (The BRUNELLe PREMISES)
  2. On Monday, June 30, 2003, at approximately 12:00 p.m., ARDITO, PELUSO and DORIS met at the BRUNELLO PREMISES. During the conversation, which lasted for approximately two· hours, PELUSO said that Ralphie Coppola (a soldier in the Genovese LCN Family who is believed to have been killed in the late 1990s) should have had his cousin watching his back

 

(protecting him). ARDITO also talked about “Roger” (Bombace, who, as described earlier, is an associate of the Genovese LCN Family who recently pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in this District) “turning,” (cooperating) and PELUSO responded, “Why else would they go to Tomas (TERRACIANO) ?” In this conversation, ARDITO and PELUSO were discussing their belief that Bombace was cooperating with the Government and providing

49

BUG001328

incriminating information about Tomas. Other FBI agents did in fact interview Tomas around this time.

Tuesday, July 1, 2003 (the MARINA PREMISES)

51. On Tuesday, July I, 2003, at approximately 12;02 p.m., ARDITO and DORIS met at the MARINA PREMISES. PELUSO arrived later during the conversation. During the conversation, which lasted for approximately two hours, DORIS said that FBI agents went to see Colosuono (the owner of Prima Check Cashing, headquartered in Westchester, New York) at least three times. Later, PELUSO said, “We asked him about other check cashing places.” DORIS mentioned Tomas (TERRACIANO) and Duke (SONNY MARKS). PELUSO then talked about aiding and abetting a conspiracy to defraud an insurance company, and said that “we” don’t care how much of a percentage “they” were getting. PELUSO also commented, “Don’t you think they know about the Javits Center.” In this conversation, among other things, PELUSO was talking again about a health insurance fraud and check cashing scheme involving TERRACIANO, SONNY MARKS and Dominick Colosuono.

Thursday, July 3, 2003 (The MARINA PREMISES>

52. On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at approximately 11:59 a.m., ARDITO and DORIS met at the MARINA PREMISES. PELUSO also joined the meeting and participated in the conversation. During the conversation, which lasted for over. two hours, ARDITO said that “Anthony” (Mangone, Patsy Parrello’s lawyer) was still

50

BUG001329

bringing messages back and forth (from Parrella, who is in

prison, to other members and associates of the Genovese LCN

Family). ARDITO also said that a “pinch” (arrest) was coming

down in the next week, and PELUSO said that they (the FBI) might

be “working finer points.” Also during the conversation, PELUSO

mentioned Tomas (TERRACIANO) and “Pat” (Pasquale Parrello, a capo

in the Genovese LCN Family) and then said that if “Roger”

(Bombace) gave them more, they (the Government) can get

TERRACIANO to “flip” (cooperate). PELUSO also commented that

Roger knew about “bookmaking, he made pickups” and he knows about

“the checks.” ARDITO responded that Tomas (TERRACIANO) “doesn’t

know nothing.” ARDITO also said that “the $250,000 thing is not

over with.” In· this conversation, the SUBJECTS were again

discussing the types of incriminating information Bombace could

give to the Government if he cooperated.

c. The SUBJECTS’ Discovery Of The Listening Devices

53. On or about July 9, 2003, the SUBJECTS discovered

·the listening devices at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES and the MARINA PREMISES. Specifically, on July 9, 2003, ARDITO met with two unidentified individuals, as well as PALADINO and.others. During the meeting, I overheard ARDITO and the others manipulating the tape that was wrapped around the listening device, which had been installed underneath the table at which the SUBJECTS were meeting .. This indicated to me that they had discovered the

51

BUG001330

listening device, and that it was no longer underneath the table.

  1. Thereafter, ARDITO and the other SUBJECTS were observed leaving AGOSTINO’S and traveling to the MARINA PREMISES. At the MARINA, after a brief conversation, I overheard a sound that appeared to be someone feeling for a listening device underneath the table. I heard the individual who was conducting the search bump against the listening device, which was also under the table at the MARINA PREMISES. The individual left that device underneath the table, but the SUBJECTS, including ARDITO, left the table.
  2. As a result of the discovery of these two listening devices, agents removed the devices. Agents also removed the listening devices at the BRUNELLO PREMISES and the MARIO’S PREMISES before they could be detected.
  3. Following the discovery of these listening devices, the FBI has learned, from source information and from surveillance, that the SUBJECTS have returned to the restaurants for meetings, but are careful to check for listening devices. For example, several of the SUBJECTS have been observed meeting at several of the FOUR restaurants on the following occasions:

 

(a) July 16, 2003: ARDITO, DORIS, and PELUSO were observed meeting at the MARINA PREMISES with an unidentified individual at approximately 1:15 p.m. At 2:18 p.m., PELUSO left the PREMISES, and at 2:49 p.m., ARDITO and DORIS left the

52

BUG001331

PREMISES.

(b) July 22, 2003: At approximately 12:53 p.m., ARDITO and DORIS were observed meeting at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES.

(c) August 4, 2003: At approximately 11:49 a.m., ARDITO and DORIS were observed meeting at the BRUNELLq PREMISES. PELUSO later arrived before 12:37 p.m., and ARDITO, DORIS, and PELUSO met until 2:45 p.m.

(d) August 20. 2003: At 11:45 a.m., ARDITO arrived at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES. At approximately 11:50 a.m., a car arrived, and ARDITO met with two unknown males. These two individuals left at approximately 12:26 p.m. Thereafter, at approximately 12:39 p.m., JOHN ALBANESE (believed to be a member of ARDITO’s crew who lives in Florida) arrived. PELUSO arrived at approximately 1:36 p.m., and they met until approximately 3:30

p.m.

D. ARDITO and the Other SUBJECTS Regularly Meet At Locations That Are Impractical To Specify To Further The Goals Of The Racketeering Enterprise

57. As explained in the Prior Affidavits and above,· the TARGET SUBJECTS, including ARDITO, and other members and associates of LCN, regularly meet at the FOUR RESTAURANTS -­BRUNELLO PREMISES, AGOSTINO’S PREMISES, the MARIO’S PREMISES, and the MARINA PREMISES to discuss, among other things: (i) the operation and leadership structure of the Genovese LCN Family;

53

BUG001332

and (ii) criminal activities -such as loansharking, gambling, extortion and control of labor organizations -of the SUBJECTS and other members and associates of the Genovese LCN Family. However, based on physical surveillance that I and other members of the Task Force have conducted, as well as intercepted conversations at the FOUR RESTAURANTS, it is clear that, in addition to these four locations, there is probable cause to believe that ARDITO, the other TARGET SUBJECTS, and other members and associates of LCN as yet unknown have used, and will continue to use, locations that are impractical to specify to conduct their meetings in order to accomplish, to discuss, and to commit the offenses described in Paragraph 3 above. There is also probable cause to believe that during these meetings, ARDITO will have the ARDITO CELLPHONE with him, since he carries the ARDITO CELLPHONE with him at all times.

58. As set forth below, there are locations used by ARDITO, the other SUBJECTS, and other members and associates of LCN, that are impractical to specify to conduct their meetings in order to accomplish, to discuss, and to commit the offenses described in Paragraph 3 above, in addition to the FOUR RESTAURANTS described above. In addition, based on my training and experience conducting organized crime investigations, because the SUBJECTS are now aware of the existence of the listening devices at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES and the MARINA PREMISES, they

54

BUG001333

“‘. • • • • •

will likely become more cautious in conducting their criminal affairs at those restaurants and will likely use other locations to conduct meetings. Indeed, ARDITO uses various and changing

locations to conduct his meetings with the other SUBJECTS and to meet with other members and associates of LCN. Thus, interception of communications at the FOUR RESTAURANTS revealed, and would reveal if such interceptions alone were authorized, only a portion of the pertinent communications occurring among the SUBJECTS during their day-to-day meetings. Authorizing the interception of communications at locations used by ARDITO that are impractical to specify through the listening device placed in the ARDITO CELLPHONE or other means will provide law enforcement with a more complete picture of the SUBJECTS’ criminal activities.

59. Communications among the SUBJECTS intercepted at the FOUR RESTAURANTS have confirmed that the SUBJECTS engage in numerous other meetings, and seek to meet at a variety of locations impractical to specify, in an effort to thwart law enforcement. For example:

a. As explained in the May 16, 2003 Affidavit, at a meeting on Monday, January 6, 2003 at the BRUNELLO PREMISES, which was recorded pursuant to the December 31, 2002 Order, the SUBJECTS explicitly discussed the need to meet at other restaurants because of a concern that their conversations at the

55

BUG001334

BRUNELLO PREMISES were being monitored. This conversation among

the SUBJECTS then turned to finding a place to meet where they would not be subject to electronic surveil”lance by law enforcement. ARDITO said to PELUSO, “Pete, we gotta find a restaurant./I PELUSO suggested “Spoto’s” (a restaurant in the Bronx), and ARDITO said, “I don’t care about . . . (i/a) . II ARDITO again said, “We gotta find a different place.” DORIS said that he can’t take the heat (law enforcement) in Agostino’s

(Restaurant). PELUSO mentioned a restaurant near a train station. PELUSO also suggested Francesco’s on Shore Road in New Rochelle, and ARDITO agreed. Then, referring to the Government’s ability to monitor conversations electronically, DORIS said, “two miles away, they (law enforcement) can hear you.” ARDITO responded, “No they can hear ya.” PELUSO then said, “They put the … (i/a) two miles away, then listen and record.” ARDITO responded, “They don’t have to put a bug in there./I PELUSO continued, “And they can even have a booster that they can transmit the signal farther.” This conversation establishes that the SUBJECTS are conducting meetings at other locations

(specifically restaurants) during which they discuss their criminal activities.

60. In addition to the intercepted communications described above, my belief that there are locations psed by ARDITO to conduct his meetings with the other SUBJECTS and other

56

BUG001335

members and associates of LCN that are impractical to specify is ~urther supported by my conversations with CS-l. As discussed in paragraph 47 of the December 31, 2002 Affidavit, CS~l is a source who has provided reliable information to the FBI about members and associates of the Genovese LCN Family, including the SUBJECTS. CS-l is aware that the SUBJECTS –ARDITO, PELUSO, DORIS and others –meet regularly at a variety of locations to conduct their meetings. Most recently, CS-l has stated that ARDITO, PELUSO and DORIS have met on several occasions since July 9, 2003 (the date of the discovery of the listening devices) at the La Gr6tta Trattoria in Yonkers, New York, which is near the location where ARDITO’s daughter lives.

  1. The fact that ARDITO uses locations that are impractical to specify to conduct his meetings with the other TARGET SUBJECTS and other members and associates of La Cosa Nostra is also corroborated by the physical surveillances conducted by me and other agents.
  2. The summary of physical surveillances listed in this application is not exhaustive; the results of every surveillance have not been included. On the following days, other FBI agents, NYPD detectives, and I have observed the SUBJECTS and other LCN members and associates at the following meetings in a variety of locations:

 

Ca) July 18. 2002: At approximately 11:33 a.m.,

57

BUG001336

PELUSO was observed leaving his residence in the Bronx, New York,

and driving to ARDITO’s home. ARDITO and PELUSO were observed having a discussion during their trip. They drove to the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES. Following lunch, ARDITO and PELUSO were observed returning to PELUSO’s vehicle and having an animated discussion while driving back to the Bronx.

(b) August 12. 2002: At approximately 11:26 a.m., ARDITO was observed meeting with GUIDO. ARDITO, PELUSO and DORIS then drove to Knuckleheads Restaurant, in Pelham Bay, New York. They were observed waiting in the vehicle for several minutes, after which they entered Knuckleheads. They left Knuckleheads a short time later and drove to the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES.

(c) August 13. 2002: At approximately 11:38 a.m., ARDITO and PELUSO were observed meeting with Joe Salcito (a former union representative) and Danny Murphy (a delegate for Local 15 of the International Union of Operating Engineers who has been charged in a racketeering indictment in the Eastern District of New York in connection with the Colombo Family’s extortionate control of Local 15) at Arturo’s Restaurant in Queens, New York.

(d) August 27. 2002: At approximately 10:45 a.m., GUIDO was surveilled meeting with ARDITO at ARDITO’s residence in Queens, New York.

(e) September 9. 2002: At approximately 2:57

58

BUG001337

p.m., ARDITO, PELUSO, and DORIS left the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES and drove together to Ultimate Auto in Eastchester, New York. At Ultimate Auto, ARDITO and DORIS were observed speaking with Frank Salerno.

(f) September 12, 2002: PELUSO and ARDITO were surveilled leaving the BRUNELLO PREMISES. They drove together to Pasquale’s Rigoletto Restaurant and sat at a table in the rear of the restaurant.

(g) September 26, 2002: At approximately 11:16 a.m., PELUSO was observed meeting with Lours MOSCATIELLO at Pelham Bay Brokerage, in the Bronx, New York. They had a “walk and talk” –that is, they left the premises of the Pelham Bay Brokerage and walked around the block while having a conversation. Later on September 26, 2002, at approximately

11:58 a.m., ARDITO and PELUSO met in front of PELUSO’s house and drove together to Buona Notte Restaurant, on Mulberry Street, New ·York, New York (the restaurant associated with Genovese capo MATTHEW IANIELLO) .

(h) October 22, 2002: At approximately 11:34 a.m., ARDITO left his residence and picked up PELUSO. They first drove to Mulino’s Restaurant, 99 Court Street, White Plains and met with LOUIS GIGANTE (believed to be an associate of the Genovese LCN Family who is the son of MARIO GIGANTE, a soldier in the Genovese LeN Family, and nephew of Vincent Gigante, the Boss

59

BUG001338

• • • • .’ • •

of the Genovese LCN Family who recently pleaded guilty to

criminal charges in the Eastern District of New York). ARDITO and PELUSO went to Pasquale’s Rigoletto Restaurant at approximately 4:28 pm. They left the restaurant at approximately

5:05 p.m. At approximately 7:48 p.m., ARDITO and PELUSO met at the McDonald’s Restaurant on Philip Avenue and East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx, which is across the street from PELUSO’s, residence. ARDITO and PELUSO walked outside until approximately

8:08 p.m., at which time LARRY DENTICO (who is believed to be a member of the ruling panel of the Genovese LCN Family) arrived. DENTICO, ARDITO! and PELUSO met for approximately an hour at a table in the McDonald’s, until about 9:08 p.m.

(i) October 28. 2002: At approximately 12:14 p.m.” ARDITO met with PELUSO for over an hour at Pasquale’s Rigoletto Restaurant. At approximately 1:38 p.m., ARDITO met with LARRY DENTICO at Rino’s Restaurant, in the Bronx, New York. After approximately three hours at Rino’s, ARDITO and DENTICO exited Rino’s and walked to Spoto’s Restaurant, where they met PELUSO. They were observed having a conversation on the street until approximately 3:42 p.m.

(j) October 30r 2002: At approximately 2:46 p.m., ARDITO and PELUSO drive to Mulino’s Restaurant in White Plains, New York (the restaurant at which they had previously met Louis Gigante). After apparently waiting for someone who did not

60

BUG001339

arrive, they left.

(k) November 15, 2002: At approximately 11:35 a.m., ARDITO and PELUSO met at the McDonald’s across from PELUSO’s residence. They met for approximately 25 minutes, until 12:01

p.m. ARDITO then drove to his daughter’s home in Yonkers, New ·York, where he met VINNY RUSSO. ARDITO, PELUSO, and RUSSO then met at Franel1a Tratoria Restaurant, in Eastchester, New York. They met there for approximately three hours, from 1:04 p.m. until 3:57 p.m.

(1) December 13, 2002: At approximately 11:47 a.m., PELUSO arrived at the home of ARDITO’s daughter, where cars registered to ARDITO and RUSSO were already parked. They met together until approximately 2:30 p.m.

(m) December 16, 2002: At approximately 12:21 p.m., ARDITO, PELUSO, and DORIS met at ARDITO’s residence and drove in DORIS’ car to the Parkside Restaurant in Queens, New York (the restaurant owned by Genovese capo ANTHONY FEDERICI). They met there until approximately 2:36 p.m. Later that day, PELUSO and ARDITO were observed having a conversation in PELUSO’s vehicle as they traveled to a meeting with an unidentified individual at the Louis Seafood Restaurant, in the Bronx, New York.

(n) December 19, 2002: At approximately 2:58 p.m., ARDITO met with an unidentified male until 4:10 p.m. at Pasquale’s Rigo1etto Restaurant.

61

BUG001340

(0) January 6, 2003: At approximately 2:12 p.m.,

PELUSO and ARDITO met at Pasquale’s Rigoletto and drove to Fiorino Jewelers, in the Bronx, New York. Once there, they spoke on the sidewalk with GERALD FIORINO (brother-in-law of Barney Bellomo, former acting boss of the Genovese LCN Family).

(p) January 22. 2003: At approxima~ely 10:00 a.m., ARDITO and PELUSO drove to 720 Post Road, Easfchester, New York, to the offices of Drs. George and Jeffrey Shapiro. Based on intercepted conversations that occurred around the time of this meeting, I believe that they met or attempted to meet with Genovese soldier MARIO GIGANTE at the doctor’s office. ARDITO and PELUSO later traveled to Pasquale’s Rigoletto from 12:27 p.m. until 12:54 p.m.

(q) January 31. 2003: From approximately 2:41 p.m. until 4:20 p.m., PELUSO was observed meeting with FIORINO at Fiorino Jewelers.

(r) March 22. 2003: ARDITO met with DOMINICK CIRILLO

(former acting boss of the Genovese LCN Family) at a bar inside the Sea Shore Restaurant from approximately 12:13 p.m. until 1:27

p.m. ll

11 Although I believe that ARDITO and the other subjects continued meeting at other locations in addition to the FOUR RESTAURANTS during the period from January through July 2003, there are few additional surveillances of meetings outside of the FOUR RESTAURANTS during this period because the resources of the FBI task force were focused on conducting surveillances and intercepting communications occurring at the FOUR RESTAURANTS.

62

BUG001341

• • • • • • • .’

(s)’ June 27, 2003: At approximately 12:43 p.m., ARDITO met DOMINICK CIRILLO at the Sea Shore Restaurant, City Island, New York.

(t) July 1, 2003: At approximately 2:27 p.m., ARDITO and PELUSO traveled,together to Pasquale’s Rigoletto, where they met TOMAS TERRACIANO at the rear door’and entered together.

(u) , August 11, 2003: At approximately 1: 53 p. m., cars that I recognized as belonging to ARDITO, PELUSO and DORIS were observed in the marina parking lot near where DORIS’s boat is docked in the New Rochelle, New York. ARDITO, PELUSO, and DORIS were observed leaving the boat at approximately 3:31 p.m.

(v) August 25, 2003: At approximately 11:53 a.m., ARDITO was observed parking at the marina in New Rochelle, New York, near the location where DORIS’ boat is located. At approximately 1:53 p.m., the car recognized by the surveilling agent as belonging to the individual known as “AI the Electrician,,12 was observed at the marina, parked next to ARDITO’s car. At 4:53 p.m., ARDITO and “AI the Electrician” left the boat.

63. Between July 2002 through August 2003, in addition to surveillances of meetings occuring at the FOUR RESTAURANTS, members of the FBI task force have conducted surveillances of

12 “AI the Electrician” is believed to be an associate of the Genovese LCN Family who was present at the meeting when ARDITO and several of the other SUBJECTS found one of the listening devices.

63

BUG001342

ARDITO and the other SUBJECTS on approximately twenty-one occasions, which are described above in paragraphs 62(a) through

(v) . From these surveillances, we have observed that ARDITO has, in fact, used locations that are impractical to specify to meet with the other SUBJECTS. ARDITO has had meetings at . approximately twenty different locations during those twenty-one surveillances. The locations at which these meetings have been held include the inside of cars, on the street as part of a “walk and talk,” at approximately twelve different restaurants (in addition to the FOUR RESTAURANTS), at a jewelry store, an auto store, a doctor’s office, and on a boat.

  1. Based on the foregoing results of physical surveillances, as well as on my experience in this and other LCN investigations and source information, I believe that ARDITO is using locations in addition to the FOUR RESTAURANTS that are impractical to specify to conduct his meetings with the SUBJECTS and with other members and associates of LCN. These locations. that are impractical to specify are being used to discuss LCN activities, including extortionate control of retail and construction businesses, loansharking, labor bribery, as well as other offenses including check cashing fraud and medical billing fraud.
  2. Furthermore, there is probable cause to believe that ARDITO will have the ARDITO CELLPHONE with him during his

 

64

BUG001343

meetings at various and changing locations with the other SUBJECTS. My belief is based on the following:

a. I have obtained records from Nextel Communications indicating that ARDITO has only one cellphone, which is the ARDITO CELLPHONE. ARDITO continues to use the ARDITO CELLPHONE to the present.

b. According to CS-1, ARDITO carries the ARDITO CELLPHONE with him at all times, and regularly uses it.

c. I have reviewed numerous interceptions of oral communications of meetings involving ARDITO and other SUBJECTS at the BRUNELLO PREMISES, AGOSTINO’s PREMISES, MARIO’S PREMISES, and the MARINA PREMISES. During many of these meetings, ARDITO makes, or receives, calls on the ARDITO CELLPHONE. For example, during the period from March 27, 2003 through July 3, 2003, at meetings during which the FBI intercepted oral communications at one of the FOUR RESTAURANTS, ARDITO placed or received calls on the ARDITO CELL PHONE 18 times. Moreover, on July 3, 2003, ARDITO and Kathy Ivelli were intercepted at the MARINA PREMISES entering numbers from ARDITO’S pocket phone book into the database in the ARDITO CELLPHONE so that ARDITO would no longer have to carry his pocket phone book with him every day.

65

BUG001344

F. Unavailability of Alternative Investigative Technigues

66. For the following reasons, normal investigative techniques have been tried without success, ‘reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if continued, reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to employ:

(a) As set forth in detail in the prior affidavits, the confidential sources of information described herein do not know all of the details of the SUBJECTS’ criminal conduct believed by your affiant to be necessary to ensure a successful prosecution of the SUBJECTS .. Although CS-l has overheard some of the SUBJECTS’ meetings, CS-l is not privy to the full scope of the illegal activities being discussed by the SUBJECTS, nor is CS-l present or able to overhear all of the SUBJECTS’ discussions at the various and changing locations at which those meetings are conducted. Moreover, CS-l is not willing to wear recording devices nor is CS-l willing to testify, as CS-l fears for CS-l’s safety. Similarly, although CS~2 has observed the SUBJECTS meeting regularly within the MARIO’S PREMISES, CS-2 has not been able to overhear the SUBJECTS’ conversations. Finally, CS-3 has provided only limited information about one meeting involving the SUBJECTS at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES, but was not present during that meeting or any other meetings among the SUBJECTS. No additional confidential sources of information are currently available in

66

BUG001345

.’

this investigation.

(b) As set forth in detail in the prior affidavits, physical surveillance of the SUBJECTS provides only limited evidence-as to their illegal activities. Physical surveillance, in and of itself, is useful mainly in placing individuals together, but provides limited evidence of the purpose of their meetings or the content of their conversations. For example, physical surveillance has permitted law enforcement to identify SUBJECTS JOHN “BUSTER” ARDITO, PETER PELUSO, MICHAEL DORIS, VINNY RUSSO, ANTHONY GUIDO, JOHN PALADINO, ABISH LAJQI, GERALD FIORINO, LARRY DENTICO, DOMINICK CIRILLO, TOMAS TERRACIANO, LOUIS MOSCATIELLO, KATHY IVELLI, ANTHONY ASCENZIA, JR., JOHN ALBANESE, MARIO GIGANTE, and LOUIS GIGANTE, JR. and others on numerous occasions at a variety of locations, but was unable to ascertain the subject matter of their conversations. Thus, the physical surveillance in this investigation has been helpful in placing people with each other, but has provided limited evidence of the purpose of the meetings or the content of their conversations. Moreover, physical surveillance is met with only limited success when the targets of the surveillance are conscious of surveillance and take steps to evade the surveillance. For example, as set forth in the March 3, 2003 Affidavit, and as described above, communications intercepted at the FOUR RESTAURANTS have established that the SUBJECTS are

67

BUG001346

extremely sensitive about surveillance and have been aware of surveillance conducted by agents in this investigation. The information that will be gained from electronic surveillance will assist in establishing the roles of individuals associated together, the nature of their activities, the location of physical evidence and the like. In addition, with the knowledge provided beforehand by electronic surveillance that a meeting is to take place at a given location, it may be possible to establish physical surveillance at that location in advance, thereby minimizing the risk of discovery inherent in following the SUBJECTS or remaining in the vicinity of target locations for long periods of time.

(c) As set forth in detail in the prior affidavits, use of a federal Grand Jury, as discussed with the Assistant United States Attorneys working on this investigation, does not, at this time, appear to be a promising method of investigation. The witnesses who could chiefly provide evidence to the Grand Jury as to the illegal activities and the identities of the racketeering enterprise members are, themselves, the identified members of the racketeering enterprise and of LeN generally. All” of these individuals face prosecution; it is unlikely, therefore, that any of them would testify voluntarily. Nor would it be desirable at this time to seek immunity for any of the known members of the racketeering enterprise in order to

68

BUG001347

. compel their testimony. Immunizi~g them could foreclo’se the possible prosecution of the most culpable persons, and would thwart the public policy that they be held accountable for their illegal activities. Moreover,. immunizing the witnesses cannot ensure the production of truthful testimony, and it is likely that these individuals would refuse to testify in contempt of Court, particularly in view of their ties to LCN. In any event, the granting of immunity is premature until the full scope of the illegal activities described above is known. The issuance of Grand Jury subpoenas to other individuals likewise would not likely lead to the discovery of critical information and undoubtedly would alert members of the racketeering enterprise to the existence and scope of the investigation, possibly causing the SUBJECTS to flee or to go into hiding, destroy evidence, threaten known or suspected Government agents or informants, or otherwise adversely affect the Government’s investigation.

(d) As set forth in detail in the prior affidavits, applications for search warrants would appear to be premature at this stage of the investigation because, among other reasons, the results of searches would not be likely to identify unknown conspiracy members or to describe fully the nature and extent of the illegal activities of the SUBJECTS. Moreover,a search would inevitably tip-off targets of this investigation.

(e) As set forth in detail in the prior

69

BUG001348

affidavits, based on my experience, an undercover operation is

not feasible due, in part, to the unwillingness of the SUBJECTS to deal extensively with outsiders who are not members or associates of LCN and are neither friends nor acquaintances of Genovese LCN Family members or associates. Moreover, it also would cast suspicion upon –and consequently endanger –any informant who might attempt to introduce into the organization an outsider, whom the SUBJECTS might suspect is an undercover Special Agent. As described in the December 31, 2002 Affidavit, a Special Agent in an undercover role was able to overhear parts of a conversation between the SUBJECTS at one of the FOUR RESTAURANTS, but the Agent’s overhear was incomplete and constituted far from the full breadth of the SUBJECTS’ discussion. Moreover, if the same Agent were to begin to sit in close proximity to the SUBJECTS on a regular basis, it would unquestionably raise the SUBJECTS’ suspicions and potentially compromise the investigation. As a result, it would be extremely difficult, and dangerous, to attempt to penetrate the organization with an undercover Special Agent and the likelihood of successfully doing so is remote at best.

(f) As set forth in detail in the prior affidavits, interviews of the SUBJECTS do not appear to be a promising avenue of investigation. Based on my experience and the experience of other Special Agents of the FBI, I believe that

70

BUG001349

any interviews of the SUBJECTS or the LCN members they have met with would not be successful. Mor.eover, interviews of any of the SUBJECTS or of other LCN members and associates would ‘likely be counterproductive as the interviews might alert them and the SUBJECTS to the covert investigation. In addition, because of their culpability, there is no reason for the SUBJECTS to provide information unless confronted with facts that would encourage them to provide truthful information. Failing that, they are likely to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination. Interviews would also place the SUBJECTS on notice of the scope of the investigation. Interviews of victims of the extortions would not likely be fruitful because many of them have not yet been identified. Moreover, many of the business owners and union officials who may be able to provide information appear to be confederates of the SUBJECTS and, because of fear of reprisals from the SUBJECTS, would not be likely to provide truthful information, and the interviews may result in the disclosure to the SUBJECTS of the existence of the investigation.

(g) As set forth above, electronic surveillance in this case has revealed that ARDITO and PELUSO have used cellphones. Agents have obtained authorization to intercept, and in fact intercepted, communications over PELUSO’s cellphone pursuant to the June 18, 2003 Order from June 18, 2003 through July 17, 2003. However, those interceptions, while helpful to

71

BUG001350

law enforcement, provided a very limited picture of PELUSO’s and

the other SUBJECTS’ criminal activities. PELUSO and the other individuals with whom he spoke were extremely careful and guarded on the cellphone, recognizing the potential for electronic interception. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the interception of PELUSO’s cellphone would not provide law enforcement with detailed information about the SUBJECTS’ criminal activities. Moreover, telephone toll records and pen register devices show only that a conversation occurred. They do not reveal the topics discussed, the contents of the communications, or the identities of the actual participants.

(h) Furthermore, although agents have previously intercepted communications occurring at the FOUR RESTAURANTS, those communications have revealed only part of the SUBJECTS’ criminal activities. As set forth above, the SUBJECTS conduct their meetings not just at the FOUR RESTAURANTS, but at numerous other restaurants and locations that are impractical to specify, including in cars, during “walk and talks” on the street, and in offices. Based on my training and experience, and, as corroborated by the interceptions at the FOUR RESTAURANTS, the SUBJECTS are extremely conscious of the possibility of law enforcement surveillance, and therefore have meetings at locations at which they believe the likelihood of electronic interception is reduced, such as on the street or in public

72

BUG001351

restaurants. Indeed, the SUBJECTS in this case are now aware of

the listening devices at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES and the MARINA PREMISES, as well as the existence of an investigation by law enforcement into their activities. Although they continue to meet at the FOUR RESTAURANTS (as set forth above, most recently as of August 20, 2003 at the AGOSTINO’S PREMISES), they are even more likely to be cautious in conducting their meetings in

furtherance of their racketeering enterprise as a result of their discovery of the listening devices. In sum, based on my training and experience, and my knowledge of this investigation, I believe that ARDITO and the other SUBJECTS regularly meet at locations that are impractical to specify in an effort to thwart law enforcement’s ability to intercept their criminal conversations. Because of their use of locations that are impractical to specify, the FBI could not obtain Title III authorization to intercept the SUBJECTS’ communications at all of the different locations at which they meet in order to understand fully their criminal activities. Accordingly, the authorization to intercept oral communications at the FOUR RESTAURANTS and of ARDITO at locations that are impractical to specify will enable the FBI to get a more complete understanding of the SUBJECTS’ criminal activities and their involvement in the Genovese LCN Family, and to defeat their constant attempts to evade law enforcement scrutiny.

73

BUG001352

(i) Although an April 22-, 2003 order issued by

the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut authorized the interception of wire communications in which JOHN ARDITO is named as a target subject (the “Connecticut Order”), this wire interception will be of minimal assistance to this

investigation. First, the other SUBJECTS in this investigation are not named as target subjects with respect to the Connecticut Order, so interceptions pursuant to the Connecticut Order are unlikely to be of much assistance with respect to the relationship between the SUBJECTS in this investigation, and their criminal activity. Moreover, the FBI believes that, although ARDITO was named as a subject in the Connecticut Order, the focus of the Connecticut Order is on other individuals, including Pasquale “Scop” Deluca (believed to be a rival of ARDITO’s with regard to his control over certain interests of the Genovese LCN Family in Connecticut), rather than on ARDITO and his crew.

67. For the above reasons, it is believed that the only means by which the full scope of the SUBJECTS’ ongoing criminal activities can be ascertained is by the interception of the SUBJECTS’ oral communications as applied for herewith.

III. CONCLUSION

A. Personnel

68. As noted above, this case is being investigated by

74

BUG001353

r. • • • • • • •

the Joint Organized Crime Task Force of the NYPD and FBI. It is

anticipated that, during the requested electronic surveillance, all monitoring will be performed and supervised by Special Agents of the FBI and Special Federal Officers.

B. Minimization

69. All interceptions of oral communications occurring at the FOUR RESTAURANTS and at the various and changing locations used by ARDITO will be minimized in accordance with Chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code. The Special Agents of the FBI and Special Federal Officers who are to carry out the requested interceptions of oral communications will be instructed concerning the steps that they should take to minimize the interceptions. Any interception will cease when it is determined that the monitored conversation is not criminal in nature or that none of the named interceptees or other co-conspirators is a party to the conversation. The agents and officers will be permitted to spot check to determine whether a minimized conversation has turned criminal in nature. Moreover, when intercepting conversations at the locations used by JOHN “BUSTER” ARDITO that are impractical to specify pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(11) (a) (iii), no interception will begin until the agents and officers conducting the interception have reason to believe, through physical surveillance, source information, prior interceptions or conduct,

75

BUG001354

or other facts revealed during the course of the,investigation, that ARDITO and other SUBJECTS or other members and associates of LCN are ~ngaging in conversations regarding the SUBJECT OFFENSES.

70. It is requested that the order authorizing interception of oral communications provide that, if necessary, translators be authorized to assist in conducting this surveillance and to receive disclosure of intercepted communications. Certain of the SUBJECTS are expected to communicate with each other in the Italian language. It may therefore be necessary to secure the services of translators in order to assist Agents in monitoring and translating the intercepted communications. All such translators will be under contract to the FBI and will be directly supervised by the FBI and deputized law enforcement officers of the NYPD. It is further requested, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(5), that, in the event the intercepted communications are in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that code or foreign language is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception.

c. Period of Interception

71. ‘The information set forth in this affidavit establishes, among other things, probable cause to believe that: JOHN “BUSTER” ARDITO, PETER PELUSO, MICHAEL DORIS, VINNY RUSSO,

76

BUG001355

ANTHONY GUIDO, JOHN PALADINO, ALBERT FACCHIANO, MICHAEL “HIPPY”

ZANFARDINO, SALVATORE LARCA, RICHARD SERVIDIO, ABISH LAJQI, ANDREW RIBUSTELLO, ERNEST MUSCARELLA, GERALD FIORINO, PHILLIP BUONO, DOMINICK DEVITO, RONALD CACCIATORE, LARRY DENTICO, DOMINICK CIRILLO, PAT SIMONE, TOMAS TERRACIANO, JOHN LAMAGNA, JOHN PISTONE, LOUIS MOSCATIELLO, MATTHEW IANIELLO, ANTHONY

FEDERICI, JOSEPH SALCITO, KATHY IVELLI, SONNY MARKS, GUS CURCIO,

ANTHONY ASCENZIA, JR., ARTHUR NIGRO, JOHN ALBANESE, MARIO GIGANTE, LOUIS GIGANTE, JR. and others as yet unknown, will discuss and engage in criminal activity at the FOUR RESTAURANTS and at locations used by ARDITO that are impractical to specify.

72. IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED that an order be issued authorizing Special Agents of the FBI and Special Federal Officers to intercept oral communications occurring at the FOUR RESTAURANTS and at locations used by ARDITO that are impractical to specify concerning the affairs of the enterprise described herein and the SUBJECTS’ commission of the above-described offenses. Because the offenses described herein are continuing in nature and are likely to continue after the initial interception of the particular communications that are the objects of this request, it is requested that the Court’s order authorizing interception of oral communications not be required to terminate automatically when the types of communications described above have first been obtained, but be permitted to

77

BUG001356

continue until all oral communications are intercepted that reveal fully the manner in which the·SUBJECTS, and·others as yet unknown, participate in the above-described offenses, or until the accomplishment of the objectives set forth in , 13, supra, or for a period of thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier. The 30­day period shall be measured from the earlier of the date on which investigative or law enforcement officers begin to conduct interception under this Court’s Order or ten days from the date of this Court’s Order.

  1. IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED that an order be issued authorizing Special Agents of the FBI and Special Federal Officers to intercept oral communications both in the Southern District of New York and outside this jurisdiction but within the United States through the use of a “mobile interception device” pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(3). As described above, ARDITO engages in criminal conversations at locations in the Southern District of New York and in other jurisdictions that are impractical to specify. The ARDITO CELLPHONE, which ARDITO carries with him on his person, therefore constitutes a mobile interception device as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(3). The Court will be advised of the locations (and Districts) of the interceptions.
  2. IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED that Special Agents of the FBI, detectives of the NYPD, and employees of the FBI possessing

 

78

BUG001357

required technical expertise be permitted to enter onto private property and to effect surreptitious entry onto locations for ,the purpose of effectuating this order, including installing, maintaining, and removing any electronic interception devices to be used in accomplishing the proposed interception of oral communications at the FOUR RESTAURANTS and at locations used by ARDITO that are impractical to specify. The Court will be notified as soon as practicable after each such entry.

Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation

~~to before me this day of September, 2003

79

BUG001358