INDUCTION CEREMONY IS NOT EVIDENCE. GO AHEAD AND PUT PERSIANO ON THE STAND, AND YOU'LL LOSE.
The Philadelphia "mob" case is getting smaller and smaller. Many defendants in the case are negotiating plea deals, and some have accepted them. A few defendants still await their day in court and others are allegedly negotiating plea deals. Any time a case gets severed and co-defendants go their separate ways. There are benefits to that and negative aspects to that. On one hand the more serious of those charges were to go on trial July 5, but with those defendants according to various reports pleading out, that leaves another pending trial which is slated to begin in October.
Whether or not, that trial ever takes place, is going to have several mitigating factors. I would expect, that there will be some sort of plea agreement offers on the table, but from the other side of the fence, the deal has to be worth it, to even consider. If we put stock in what allegedly the government has offered other defendants with more serious charges 6-7 years, then logically we have to assume, just peering into defendants prior convictions, which is also applied on the scale, then one might suggest that because those defendants are facing more time because of the past, then the deal absolutely has to be worth it for any defendant. You can roll the dice, all day, but that's a decision only a defendant can make for themselves. Don't forget Joey Merlino rolled the dice in New York, and essentially won.
The one thing I keep hearing is, "they have an induction ceremony on tape." It's specifically coming from the two goofy gossip twins down in Philadelphia. One thing I would like to point out. While, that may or may not be factual, it's not evidence and it's also not a crime. Keep in mind these two, specifically one of them likes to hide in bushes taking photos of men, and peeking over fences like a borderline stalker. Factually speaking, joining any group, albeit the Masons, The Boy Scouts, The Moose Lodge, is NOT a federal, state or city crime, therefore any statement about induction ceremonies is about as stupid as it gets. One of the more annoying factors, is that these two cherry pick non facts to discuss and ignore glowing facts, and ignore glowing miscues from the FBI. They have not once mentioned the fact that an FBI supervisor from day one didn't believe a word MOB RAT ANTHONY PERSIANO said from day one, and told those handling PERSIANO not to believe anything he said. That's important. It's almost similar how they never mentioned that the handler of JR RUBEO THE MOB RAT in the MERLINO trial, got into major trouble, and a supervisor from the FBI was suspended for what they allowed his handlers to do. 97 of 114 days unsupervised.
The crux of this indictment, comes from many informants, it's not one, but the fact remains, that PERSIANO was the major one behind the majority of the alleged most damaging tapes, and information. The problem there? Simple. Persiano continued to break the law throughout his time working for the FBI and they allowed it, knew about it, and used the power within the government to get other investigations shut down on Persiano. An example of that would be the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Newark Division. They were looking into additional fraud charges against Persiano, and suddenly those were dropped. According to the FBI Anthony Persiano became a cooperating witness in 2015, right as the investigations into the alleged Philadelphia mafia began, yet in 2016, well after he was working for the feds, put in fraudulent checks into his CODE RED FIRE WATER and RESTORATION ACCOUNTS. It's not like it happened prior to his agreement. He continued while under the FBI's supervision to commit fraud, and larceny.
In fact, in one particular case, when it came out that Persiano was an informant, one victim approached the FBI in an effort to get her life savings back which Persiano stole. This victim was told, they could come in and sit down to discuss the matter. The victim asked if they could bring an attorney, just because this was a situation the victim just wasn't fully understanding(their legal rights) and immediately was badgered and dissuaded by the case agents in bringing an attorney. In other words "NO." This victim was further victimized by the government, over an issue their informant created and they upheld and allowed to take place. Many of the victims in this case, were told that CIVIL LITIGATION might be the only route to take. Well, Persiano has still not be setenced and his sentencing has been pushed back into October, which is rare considering the case. The government is waiting until this Philadelphia case is resolved to sentence him, is what I believe to be the case. So, the question is, if Persiano is in hiding, how does one even go about filing for civil litigation? The simple answer is, you can't, and you won't ever be able to. All that money that Persiano stole from people is gone. They have no way of ever recovering. As I said they have been victimized twice now. Once by Persiano and now by the FBI.
The government really can't put Persiano on the stand. It would be a very bad move on their part, and I think that's a big reason why the government is throwing low ball sentencing agreements. They know, they will be embarrassed if it goes to trial, because once again it will show, just like it did in every informants case in the last 20 years, how they allow their informants to break the law, turn a blind eye to everything, as long as it meets the bottom line, which is CONVICTION RATES. If cases are so powerful, so filled with facts, they why on earth would anyone, especially "Johnny Law," types give in? They wouldn't. It means the case is soft and has holes that be exploited given the right talented attorney. If they put Persiano on the stand, his lies, his fraud, his continued criminality, the ability to continue to free wheel, run a restaurant, buy cars, spend money, will all come to light in front of a jury. The feds will want to lay claim of an organization, but the fact is, an organization is not a crime. We've said it before, if the feds are going to give a half assed dissertation on organized crime, they should at least follow that up with, but it is NOT illegal to be a member of anything. They never do that. It's a weave of words. One on hand they are willing to say that the origins of Cosa Nostra began in 1930. Well, that's not even accurate. In my opinion it's always been a little prejudicial to say organized crime, or to even explain what it is, because if it's not illegal why and what are you explaining. Rico Laws, when they were founded, originally were going to make organizations a federal crime, but legal scholars said that, making the law like that would be against our amendments and against the constitution. So instead of making it illegal in name, they make it illegal in functionality. That's America for you, say one thing do another.
PLEAS DON'T MAKE THEM GUILTY OF ANYTHING
I hear this all the time. It's always people who don't understand the system, or how the government works, who say, "well why plead to something if you didn't do it?" While that's a great question, it's also a moronic one too. Sometimes a plea is the less of all the evils. I accepted a plea myself, so before anyone even says "he wouldn't know," well actually I do. There are a few things you have to understand. Most importantly, on the federal level, you are going to spend a quarter of a million dollars defending yourself in a RICO case. That's number one. Even if somehow you get a mistrial, let's say that's the best you get. The government can refile. That's another hundred grand out of your pocket. Let's say that ends in a mistrial. Once again, they can refile. They can refile until they get a conviction, or until they bankrupt you. If that doesn't work, they can go after your family, your wife, your cousins, anyone, for RICO allows it. Anywhere they can draw a line between you and your alleged money and criminality they will. Vincent Gigante didn't give in to the nut act until they told him they would go after his wife, his children and they would bankrupt them all, and take their homes. That is YOUR GOVERNMENT at work. So your options are, fight and maybe you get acquitted, get a mistrial and the money draining begins.
You have a wife, a girlfriend, elderly parents, children. Are you supposed to put them through trial after trial and hope at the end that they have enough money to live on? The government and the system in general is fully designed to handicap defendants from day one. Those are facts. If you don't have any money, you'd better have Jesus on speed dial, because if you cannot afford an attorney we will give you the dumbest rookie attorney you've ever seen, whose job it is, to lighten the sentence. They don't have reputations, they don't have friendships. Friendships between attorneys, is the mitigating factor most days. Don't have bond money, sorry, you're fucked. The reality is, the system is flawed and designed to force defendants, to plead out. Conviction rates are what they want. From day one of intake till your trial, it's all designed to force you to admit. So accepting the reality that you don't have money, or that they will harass your family, or take your home, I don't know many people who have wives and kids who would ever put them in that situation. They'd eat a bullet before they ever did that, so pleas are just a sub-function of business as usual. Many people accept pleas, on aspects of what they did. Many times they have to take a charge they absolutely didn't have anything to do with, to lessen the load for themselves and their families, so please, understand the system and how it works before you give a half assed dissertation about I would never accept anything if I didn't do it. You would, in fact accept it. You have no choice. I just wanted to make that clear for the pundits who will come along and say that nobody accepts something they didn't do. They do. Trust me. Sometimes the ends justifies the means, and in this case, I understand why some are pleading out, and some are still on the fence. Pleading out may be a legal admission to conform to some sort of legal ambiguity, but trust me it's not an admission of guilt. It's the ends, justifying the means.