Search
  • mobtalkradioshow

JUDGE TOSSES OUT GOVERNMENTS DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN SOUTH PHILLY INDICTMENT

Updated: Apr 5


While the title may be a bit preemptive, because the judge overseeing the 15, now 14 defendants in the indictment in Philadelphia, has given the government ten more days to appeal his decision based on protecting the discovery motions. While the legalese can be a bit obnoxious, the simple truth of the matter is that the government in the case didn't want to hand over any substantial discovery in the case without some protections in order. Meanwhile 14 guys are going to have to fight a big case, and the mere fact the government hasn't handed over a damn thing, is a bit absurd. It's not uncommon.


The main argument is not allowing discovery to be viewed at home by the defendants. The government doesn't want any defendant to have unmonitored or unfettered access to discovery. The government is concerned that, discovery will be handed out, or access would be given to others in an effort to "intimidate, or threaten," witnesses in the case. They want the defendants in the case, to only have access of discovery in the case only while in their attorney's offices. Meanwhile some in this case are under house arrest, and with Covid restrictions makes it's almost impossible to have adequate time to go over discovery and to prepare. Scheduling meetings with attorneys and Covid, and with the bail restrictions handicaps the defendants in the case, and the judge overseeing the case agreed.


I find it a little hard to fathom, that a part of the governments argument against this, is that they fear for the safety of the informants in the case, and worry that once discovery begins they will "disseminate," who those informants are. It's a baseless argument. I'll tell you why. When someone has become a government snitch, they leave the streets, so it's not impossible to NOT know at this point who talked. The government has leaked their own information in hopes of keeping two of the defendants in lock up awaiting trial, which didn't work. We know from the government's own mouth that they have "many witnesses, including made and associated members of the mafia, and even have an alleged making ceremony on tape." If that is truly the case, then it won't take much to figure out whose talking. The proof of who anyone might think it is, via paperwork is like the period at the end of a sentence at this point. They know, trust me. If you think paperwork is going to certify that, you're out of your mind. The streets know. Trust me.


The other argument the government has used, was that they are afraid that information about the informants will leak to the public, somehow tainting a jury pool, or their scumbag informants. They have a valid point, but why can't the public know? Shouldn't they be allowed to know the scum the government hires to do their dirty work? Shouldn't we find out that they are vile pukes? Anthony Persiano, who is just one of the rodents in this case has such a shitty lie filled past, they can't even use him to testify, because he if does, he's gonna get called out, as will the FBI for allowing such a bottom feeder to not only exist, but paid him while he was breaking the law. He'd be a good witness for the alleged mob, but a horrible one for the FBI. John Rubeo ring any bells? Same scum there too. He was a failed, corrupted witness the feds allowed to disco dance around the law, full well knowing he was doing it. Same thing here. Why can't we know? If you can impugn a defendant with old allegations which he has been acquitted of, then why can't we character assassinate these bums who can't do a day in prison and place their mouth on the governments tit?


While the judge in the case understood the governments position, the ruling was that while there will be things in place to protect some discovery, the government's request was NOT all encompassing, and they needed to refile their gripe to change the terminology, and that the previous argument would not encompass the entirety to the discovery. The government will likely resubmit their arguments, and I would logically assume the judge will sign off on certain elements, not all. The biggest thing the government doesn't want is someone like me getting my hands on the rats paperwork, because you already know what I will do. I won't hesitate. If you can put out lies that informants tell, and attempt to make it fact, then why can't I crucify the rats? I'd expect the resubmittal to be handed in early next week.



215 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All