• mobtalkradioshow


We have been talking about this over on our Podcast and over on Youtube Live, but the fact is, RULE 14, is a very important aspect in criminal trials. In layman's terms, anytime you have a criminal trial, especially when it seems to be what the government labels "the mafia," you will consistently see defendants try to sever themselves from others at trial. Rather than bore you to death with legalese, let's give you a glowing example of what we are talking about. Imagine if Roy DeMeo who had albeit some 200 bodies, according the FBI, is put into a sweeping indictment with say Johnny Dio. Dio was a known union guy, not known as a killer. While both sets of crimes carry heavy weight, a guy with non-violent offenses does not want to sit next to a guy with a ton of violent offenses and hope the jury isn't swayed by all the hobbies Roy had. Nobody with small crimes wants to sit with anyone with big crimes.

Rule 14 Relief From Prejudicial Joinder. (A) Relief. If the joinder of offenses or the defendants in an indictment, any information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires. A defendant may be prejudiced by the admission in evidence against a co-defendant of a statement or confession made by that co-defendant.

So, you can see why a defendant might not want to sit next to someone convicted of a narcotics violation. Easy to understand right? In the case in Philadelphia, two trials were to begin. One was to begin in July, but those defendants have now or are expected to plead out later this month. A secondary trial was to begin in October. Two things I want to mention before I go any further. The first is that any allegation made, is an allegation. Second, is that just because you accept a plea deal doesn't mean you have committed any offense. There is something called the Alford plea, and on it's basis, an Alford plea is the admission to no crime being committed by the defendant, but rather there is evidence to likely substantiate that there is enough evidence albeit circumstantially or not to convict. It's your way of admitting nothing. That being said I want to touch on a few things in the Philly case specifically, because it's important to the case, and it substantiates albeit loosely what I have been discussing on the podcast with thousands of you.

First, IT IS NOT A CRIME, ALBEIT STATE OR FEDERAL, TO JOIN ANY GROUP. In 1970, when the RICO law was being hammered away pen to paper, the legal scholars warned each other that the way the law was worded could make it a crime, a federal crime, to be a member of a group, and many scholars warned that it was against the constitution to make that a law. In any event, it was worded differently, and RICO came into law. The monster in the RICO law is what we call an enterprise. An "enterprise" as "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." Remember being a member of a group is not illegal., this is wordsmithing by the feds. Nothing more. Also realize, that the government is not required to prove the existence of an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce for a section 1962(d) RICO conspiracy to violate section 1962. So they don't have to prove the existence of anything.

If joining a group is not a crime, fine. However in any organized crime indictment, they begin the indictment by explaining the history of organized crime in the United States, which to me, in it's form is prejudicial at best. I have never heard a prosecutor in any federal case explain the history of organized crime, and then follow it up with, but "it is not illegal to be a member of any group." But as you see down below, they make key references to the history of it, the reason for it, the explanation of it, but it's not a crime to be a member of anything.

In any event, I don't want to focus on the overwhelming nonsense that is a federal indictment. Let's go back to the beginning. In the Philadelphia indictment it is alleged that Stevie Mazzone is caught on a wiretap, at an induction ceremony, explaining to others that he wishes are for them to gain a foothold in Atlantic City. Keep in mind this investigation began in 2015. Now if we follow the logic of the federal government, and that Mazzone has any sort of leadership attributes, and if we go by the fantasy of the federal government that you follow orders or else, then one could certainly assertain, that Mazzone's word is the law of the streets right? His word is final, right? The government will have you believe if that his word is not followed there are consequences for that, right? If that is the case can we certainly acknowledge that what is said can be misunderstood on a tape too? Can we accept that what is said one day could change the next? According to the feds, Mazzone ordered it. The problem is, there are tapes, wiretaps and transcripts that prove, none of that happened, and in fact, guys were told repeatedly "Not to commit any crimes in Atlantic City, and stay the hell out of Atlantic City." FACTS.

When Joe "Electric" Servidio was arrested for a slew of charges, which included narcotics, he was caught at least twice, saying some very interesting things. Servidio was convicted as a result of that case, which he is in prison for, and then was indicted in the Philadelphia case on more narcotics charges. Very identical cases. Now, there is no connection criminally between Mazzone and Servidio, in fact even in the indictment, transcripts show that Servidio had no content with Mazzone at all. None. Servidio on a wiretap is caught explaining to another individual whose now a cooperator that he was told to "stay out of Atlantic City, not to commit any crimes there", but "I do what the fuck I want." In other words, that's the direct opposite of what the feds allege took place in an alleged making ceremony. Even if, let's say the audio is clear, and it was said, Servidio is proving that he did whatever he wanted even after being told by others not to. Servidio is looking at serious time once again, and while initially Mazzone was saddled with other facing very serious narcotics violations, he was severed from that case, and logically so, as Mazzone is being accused of really petty crimes when you break it down logically. As I said, the defendants he was severed from, are pleading out, sometime this month. Fine.

Weirdly, Joe Servidio is now being saddled with Mazzone for some reason. While I understand judges often saddle guys together just to get the trial going, RULE 14 seriously applies sin the case. Why does it apply? First, there is no violence in this case. None. Secondly, society looks at narcotics worse than rape and child molestation. Look at average sentences in rape cases, 2-4 years. Child Molestation, 3-6 years and under. Average narcotics charges 7-25 depending on the weight involved. I know someone who got 27 years first time out, for 200 lbs of marijuana in 1992. Society looks at drugs differently than they look at rape. We don't have the WAR ON RAPE. We have THE WAR ON DRUGS. On that footing, I wouldn't want to sit within 100 miles of a guy accused of drug dealing. So why is Servidio being saddle with Mazzone? Easy. To force plea deals. Nothing more nothing less. If they have no criminal line to connect them, then there is no enterprise. If money is not being transferred to one from another, and if Servidio hid what he was doing, then you cannot connect them, so why put them in the same car?

It's all about forcing plea deals. The choice Mazzone would have is a serious decision to make. You are forced to sit next to this guy, and the jury is gonna hear drugs and automatically going to think about the film Scarface. It's prejudicial, especially when their is not a single connection between the two except in name of a group, which is NOT ILLEGAL to be a part of. It's loose. The next choice Mazzone has, is he can try to get his case severed, and that would be the best option, which I believe knowing him, and the law is something he would push hard for. If he doesn't get that, his choice is to fight, face a jury which is going to be prejudiced at best, and even if somehow he. gets a mistrial, the government will refile the case again, which means another $250K down the well. If he cannot obtain a not guilty jury, then the government can keep pressing till he has no choice but to give in to something he hasn't done, or he can risk being bankrupted. That's how the system operates. The system is rigged. The government by saddling Servidio next to Mazzone is trying to force him to plead out to a case, I think he can beat. Ever had a public pretender? Their soul job is to get you to plead out, that's all they can do for you. In this particular case, a Rule 14 is needed in this case, especially when you consider what's at stake here, and what Servidio's past looks like. I fully expect the attorney's to file, and they should. Putting Mazzone with Servidio isn't fair, at all. If there was a connection, fine, but there isn't.

What I can tell you is this. Stevie Mazzone is beloved in his community. So much over the years has been distorted by the press and book writers who don't know what's what. I can tell you, which makes this important, is that Stevie is a great guy, always smiling, loves everyone, and everyone loves him. You will never ever meet a nicer, more family oriented human being in your life. I can state, for the record, there is no better role model, father, friend, or uncle one could have. It's truly a shame, that people just cannot leave old fairytales where they are. It's my hope, that despite whatever you want to believe, or what you read, that you understand this is how the government works. They will sew two bedsheets covered in shit together if they think you will believe it's one. They will allow rats to lie and impugn as long as they can acquire a plea or a conviction. They will pay people to invent, cajole and lie. These are facts. This is another example of the feds reaching for something that doesn't even exist on any level. Funny, they do nothing about the zombies in Kensington, they do nothing about he car jackings, but yet, they continually harass people for no other reason than they want headlines, and Stevie is just a new headline for them. It's repulsive. If Servidio wants to do some good, just plead out, fall on the sword, that's what your supposed to do. Holding out, making it worse for others, is selfish. Do the right thing.

172 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All