About | Buy Print Edition at Amazon | Contact | Great Jersey City Stories! | Live | Return to the Main Menu | Send this Page
2010
07.24

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

2010
06.16

Wed June 16 between 1 and 3 pm EST author Ade Makinde will be at
The Hudson County Facts Frankie DePaula Page
from London to exchange Frankie DePaula stories with us.

Mr Makinde has recently published a well researched book about the shooting of Hudson County boxer Frankie DePaula. Bring your own stories and talk to friends and family of the late Jersey City cult hero.

2010
05.14

Lucchese Crime Family Organization Chart
View Large Image as PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

FILED
LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL
MAY 14 2010
State Grand Jury Number SGJ585-10-2
Superior Court
CLERKS 0FFICE
10 -0 5 –0 0 0 5 7 -S
Docket Number STATE OF NEW JERSEY
v. INDICTMENT JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA
AKA “Blackie” GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO
AKA “CURLY” ALFONSO CATALDO AKA “TIC” MICHAEL RAMUNO, III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI
AKA “TIM” ROSANNA PERNA
. VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON
AKA “MAC” DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM The Grand Jurors of and for the State of New Jersey, upon their oaths, present that:
COUNT ONE
(Racketeering -First Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
-3­
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI ROSANNA PERNA VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co­conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, -at the times and places herein specified, did commit the crime of racketeering, that is, the defendants and other persons employed by or associated with an enterprise engaged in or the activities of which affected trade or commerce, purposely or knowingly did conduct or participate directly or indirectly, or did conspire in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation
of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c and N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d, all as hereinafter described.
THE RELEVANT TIMES
1. The predicate criminal activity occurred between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010.
THE RELEVANT PLACES
2. The predicate criminal activity took place at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of
·Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne,and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, in the
State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
THE ENTERPRISE
3. JOSEPHDI NAPOLI, MATTHEW MADONNA, RALPH V. PERNA, NICODEMO SCARFO, JR., JOSEPH M. PERNA, MICHAEL CETTA, FRANK CETTA, JOHN G. PERNA, RALPH M. PERNA, JOHN MANGRELLA, GARY MEDURE, ELLIOT PORCO, MARTIN TACCETTA, ANTONIO RUSSO, ALFONSO CATALDO, MICHAEL RAMUNO, III, RONALD SCRIPPS, GIANNI IACOVO, ROBERT DECRESCENZO, CHARLES BOLOGNA, JAMES FURFARO,ROBERT ROMANO, JOHN TURI, MICHAEL MAFFUCCI, GEORGE MAIORANO, BLERIM IBRIAMI, SHPETIM HANI, ROSANNA PERNA, VITA CETTA, EDWIN SPEARS, SAMUEL A. JULIANO, MICHAEL BRUINTON, DWAYNE SPEARS, KRISTEN GILLIAM, all of whom are co-conspirators, and Francine Hightower
who is a co-conspirator and member of the enterprise, but not charged in this indictment, and other persons whose identities are both known and unknown to the State Grand Jurors, would constitute an enterprise within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1c, that is, a union or group of individuals associated in fact, or associates thereof, which, among other names, members or associates thereof self identified as the “Lucchese” organized crime family or the “Nine-Trey Gangster Bloods,” for the purposes set forth below.
THE PURPOSES OF THE ENTERPRISE
The purposes of the enterprise would include the maintenance of its strength and the assurance of its perpetuation through specific rules and protocols applicable to its members and associates, including: discussing matters pertaining to the operation, conduct and control of the enterprise with no one other than members or highly trusted associates of the enterprise; resolving disputes or seeking direction from superiors within the enterprise through a specific chain of command; enforcing the protocols of the enterprise through any means necessary, including threats or use of violence; keeping a
member’s immediate supervisor within the enterprise informed of illegal activities and law enforcement activities targeting the enterprise; collectively generating income on behalf of and for the benefit the enterprise through various illicit schemes; and dividing proceeds from enterprise members’ criminal activities in accordance with enterprise protocol. A further purpose of the enterprise would be to shield its operation from detection by law enforcement authorities by, among other means: using code names when communicating; resorting to in-person meetings; using
wireless telephones in fictitious or nominee names; prohibiting membership or association in the .enterprise to those who may have law enforcement familial relationships or familial relationships with those who may have cooperated with law enforcement.
THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
The pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1d, engaged in by members of the enterprise, did consist of at least two incidents ·of racketeering conduct during the relevant time period stated above, including but not limited to: gambling offenses in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C : 37-1 et ~, theft offenses in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1 et ~, aggravated assault in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1), forgery and fraudulent practices in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1 et ~, failure to file tax returns or reports in violation of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8, failure to pay gross income taxes in violation of
N.J. S.A. 54:52-9, bribery in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2, possession with intent to di stribute controlled dangerous substances in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 et ~, unlawful use of firearms in violation of N. J.S.A. 2C:39-1 et ~, money laundering in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25, involving property valued in excess of $500,000, and conspiracy to commit the foregoing crimes in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C : 5-2, primarily in the following ways:
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by
deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns,
failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MATTHEW MADONNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
RALPH V. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13,14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. did c9mmit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
JOSEPH M. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, distribution of controlled dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as
other conduct.
MICHAEL CETTA
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated _assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, distribution of controlled dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which is the

subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other
conduct.

FRANK CETTA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging ln and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JOHN G. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling,
possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
RALPH M. PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, ‘ 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JOHN MANGRELLA did commit the racketeerirtg conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering,
all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
GARY MEDURE did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ELLIOT PORCO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MARTIN TACCETTA
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ANTONIO RUSSO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
ALFONSO CATALDO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated
assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MICHAEL RAMUNO III did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose; theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
RONALD SCRIPPS did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
GIANNI IACOVO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ROBERT DECRESCENZO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
CHARLES BOLOGNA
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, an.d 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JAMES FURFARO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ROBERT ROMANO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated
assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, la, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, lS, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
JOHN TURI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, la, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, lS, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, la, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
GEORGE MAIORANO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawfUl purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tqX returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
BLERIM IBRIAMI did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
SHPETIM RANI
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
ROSANNA PERNA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, II, 12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
VITA CETTA did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated
assault, possession of a weapon for an: unlawful purpose, theft by
deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns,
failure to pay gross income tax, and money laundering,
all of which is the subject of Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, IS, 16, 17, 18, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as
well as other conduct.
EDWIN SPEARS
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or
conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
SAMUEL A. JULIANO did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled dangerous substance, bribery, possession with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful use of firearms, unlawful possession of destructive devices or explosives, and money laundering, all of which is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of this Indictment, as well as other conduct.
MICHAEL BRUINTON did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
DWAYNE SPEARS
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or
conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
KRISTEN GILLIAM
did commit the racketeering conduct by engaging in and or
conspiring to commit repeated acts of distribution of controlled
dangerous substance, bribery, and money laundering, all of which
is the subject of Counts 19, 21, 33, and 34 of this Indictment,
as well as other conduct.
All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
FORFEITURES
1. All allegations heretofore set forth are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as if fully set forth herein, for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-3b.
2. The defendants have property constituting:
A. Interests, including money and other things of value, established, acquired, maintained, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, and
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d.

3. The said interests, all subject to forfeiture to the State of New Jersey, shall expressly include all items of real and personal property detailed within the attached “Appendix A” to this indictment which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
COUNT TWO (Leader of Organized Crime ~ Second Degree) JOSEPH DI NAPOLI and
MATTHEW MADONNA between in or about January 2005 t and in or about April 2010 t at the Township of GallowaYt at the City of Ventnort in the County of Atlantic t at the Borough of Elmwood Parkt at the Borough of Fort Lee at the Borough of Glen Rockt and at the Township of
t
Wyckoff t all in the County of Bergent at the Township of
Bellevillet at the Township of Cedar Grove at the Borough of Glen Ridge and at the Township of West Caldwell t all in the
t
t
County of Essext at the Township of East Amwell t in the County of Hunterdont at the Borough of Farmingdale t and at the Township Neptune t both in the County of Monmoutht at the Township of East Hanover t at the Borough of Florham Parkt at the Town of Morristownt at the Township of ParsippanYt and at the Township of Pequannockt all in the County of Morris t at the Township of Brickt at the Township of Toms Rivert both in the County of Oceant at the Borough of Bloomingdale t at the City of Cliftont at the Borough of Hawthorne t and at the Borough of North Haledont all in the County of Passaic t in the State of New York t in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniat elsewhere t and within the jurisdiction of this Court t were leaders of organized of
organized crime, in that the said JOSEPH DI NAPOLI and MATTHEW MADONNA purposely did conspire with others whose identities are both known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who compromised an illegal enterprise of individuals associated in fact, which referred to itself as the Lucchese organized crime family, as an organizer, supervisor, and manger, to commit a continuing series of crimes which would constitute a pattern or racketeering activity, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a and d, all of which is described in Count One of this Indictment and incorporated herein by reference, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2g. and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THREE (Leader of Organized Crime -Second Degree)
RALPH V. PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township
Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Town of Morristown, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonweatlh of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, was a leader of organized of organized crime, in that the said RALPH V. PERNA purposely did conspire with others whose identities are both known and unknown
to the Grand Jurors, who compromised an illegal enterprise of individuals associated in fact, which referred to itself as the Lucchese organized crime family, as an organizer, supervisor, and manger, to commit a continuing series of crimes which would constitute a pattern or racketeering activity, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a and d, all of which is described in Count One of this Indictment and incorporated herein by reference, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2g, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT FOUR
(Conspiracy -Second Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO { JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO{ III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
-28­
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM RANI VITA CETTA and
ROSANNA PERNA who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co­conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the
Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the
Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the. purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crimes of promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, theft by deception, falsifying records, failure to file tax returns, and failure to pay gross income tax, did agree that:
A. One or more of them knowingly would engage in conduct which would constitute the aforementioned crimes, or
B. One or more of them knowingly would aid in the planning, solicitation, or commission of the said crimes, that is:
1. Knowingly to accept or receive money or other property, pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person, whereby one or more of them would participate in the proceeds of gambling activity or engage in conduct which would materially aid gambling activity, by engaging in or materially aiding bookmaking to the extent that one or more of them received or accepted in anyone day more than five bets totaling more than $1,000, or by receiving, in connection with an illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, money or written records from a
….!
person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, or more than $100 in anyone day of money played in such illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(2), N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2b(1), and 2C:37-2b(2) .
1. Knowingly, with knowledge of the contents thereof, to possess a writing, paper, instrument or article of a kind commonly used in the operation or promotion of a bookmaking scheme or enterprise, constituting, reflecting or representing more than five bets totaling more than $1000, or of a kind commonly used in the operation, promotion or playing of a lottery or a policy scheme or enterprise, which constitute, reflect, or represent more than 100 plays or chances therein, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-3a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:37-3a(2).
2. Purposely to obtain by extortion property of another, that is, u.s. currency, by purposely threatening to inflict bodily injury on, physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5.
3. Purposely to attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:12.,.lb(1) .
4. To possess a certain weapon, that is, a knife, with the purpose to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d.
5. Purposely to obtain the property of another having a value of $75,000 or more, by deception, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4.
6. With purpose to deceive or injure another or to conceal a wrongdoing, to falsify or utter a writing or record knowing it to contain a false statement or information, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21~4a.
7. Knowingly, with intent to defraud the State or to evade, avoid, or otherwise not make timely payment of any tax, fee, penalty, interest, or any part thereof which shall be due pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law

[R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], to fail to file a tax return as required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law [R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8.
9. Knowingly, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:48-1 et seq., to fail to pay and turn over
the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 54:52-9.
All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT FIVE
(Promoting Gambling -Third Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM .IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI VITA CETTA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County
of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County
of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did promote gambling by knowingly accepting or receiving money or other property, pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby the said defendants did or would participate in the proceeds of gambling activity or did knowingly engage in conduct which materially aided any form of gambling activity including but not limited to conduct directed toward the creation or establishment of a particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, towards the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording
phases, or toward any other phase of its operation, .by engaging in bookmaking and receiving or accepting in anyone day more than five bets totaling more than $1000, or by receiving, in connection with an illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, money or written records from a person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, ·or more than $100 in anyone day of money played in such illegal lottery, policy scheme or enterprise, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2a(2), N.J.S.A. 2C:37­2b(1), 2C:37-2b(2), and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity fo the same.
COUNT SIX
(Possession of Gambling Records -Third De”gree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
-37­
JOHN TORI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO
BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM RANI . VITA CETTA
and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of
Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with knowledge of the contents thereof, did possess a writing, paper, instrument or article of a kind commonly used in the operation or promotion of a bookmaking scheme or enterprise, constituting, reflecting or representing more than five bets totaling more than $1000, or of a kind commonly used in the operation, promotion or playing of a lottery or a policy scheme or enterprise, which constitute, reflect, or represent more than 100 plays or chances therein, contrary to the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:37-3a(1), 2C:37-3a(2) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT SEVEN (Attempted Theft by Extortion -Second Degree) JOSEPH·M. PERNA JOHN G. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA GIANNI IACOVO JAMES FURFARO and
ROBERT ROMANO between in or about June 2007, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North
Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did attempt to obtain by extortion property of another, that is,
u.S. currency, by purposely attempting to threaten to inflict bodily injury on, physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5 , N.J.S.A. 2C:5 -1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT EIGHT (Aggravated Assault -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA JOHN G. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA GIANNI IACOVO JAMES FURFARO and
ROBERT ROMANO between in or about June 2007, and in or about December 2007, at the· Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North
Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another, contrary
to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(l), N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT NINE
(Possession of a Weapon For Unlawful Purposes -Third Degree)
JOHN G. PERNA
and
ROBERT ROMANO on or about September 7, 2007, at the Borough of Fort Lee, in the County of Bergen, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did possess a certain weapon, that is, a knife, with the purpose to us it unlawfully against the person or property of another, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TEN (Theft by Deception -Second Degree)
JOSEPH M. PERNA between in or about March 2005, and in or about September 2006, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, and at the Borough of Glen Rock, both in the County of Bergen, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did obtain the property of the Washington Mutual Bank having a value of approximately $426,600, by deception, that is, by creating or reinforcing the false impression through the execution of various application documents in connection with
Washington Mutual Bank mortgage loan 03-2386-068873192-6, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA had specific employment and lawful income in support of said mortgage loan,
WHEREAS, IN. TRUTH AND IN FACT, as the said JOSEPH M. PERNA well knew, he was not employed by the entity nor did he receive the stated income identified in the documents he executed in support of the Washington Mutual Bank mortgage loan 03-2386­068873192-6, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20 -4 and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, th~ government and dignity of the same.
COUNT ELEVEN (Falsifying Records -Fourth Degree)
JOSEPH M. PERNA between in or about March 2005, and in or about September 2006, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, and at the Borough of Glen Rock, both in the County of Bergen, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with purpose to deceive or injure another or to conceal a wrongdoing, did falsify or utter a writing or record knowing it to contain a false statement or information, that is, various application documents in connection with Washington Mutual Bank home mortgage 03-2386-068873192-6, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA had specific employment and lawful income in support of said mortgage loan, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4a and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWELVE (Theft by Deception -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about September 2006, and in or about February 2009, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Borough of River Edge, all in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, purposely did obtain the property of the Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and Countrywide Home Loans having a value of approximately $475,000, by deception, that is, by creating or reinforcing the false impression through the execution of various application documents in connection with
mortgage loan 73825289, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA and ROSANNA PERNA had specific emplbymentand lawful income in support of said mortgage loan,
WHEREAS, IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, as the said JOSEPH M. PERNA and ROSANNA PERNA well knew, they were not employed by the entities nor did they receive the stated income identified in the documents they executed in support of mortgage loan 73825289,
contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6/ and against the peace of this State/ the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THIRTEEN (Falsifying Records -Fourth Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA
and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about September 2006, and in or about February 2009, at the Borough of Franklin Lak~s, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Borough of River Edge, all in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with purpose to deceive or injure another or to conceal a wrongdoing, did falsify or utter a writing or record knowing it to contain a false statement or information, that is, various application documents in connection with Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and Countrywide Home Loans
mortgage loan 73825289, attesting that the said JOSEPH M. PERNA and ROSANNA PERNA had specific e,mployment and lawful income in support of said loan, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4a and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT FOURTEEN
(Failure to File Tax Return -Third Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005/ and in or about April 2010/ at the Borough of Franklin Lakes/ at the Borough of Glen Rock/ and at the Borough of River Edge/ all in the County of Bergen/ at the Borough of North Haledon/ in the County of Passaic/ at the City of Trenton/ in the County of Mercer/ elsewhere/ and within the jurisdiction of this Court/ with intent to defraud the State or to evade/ avoid/ or otherwise not make timely payment of any tax/ fee, penalty/ interest/ or any part thereof which shall be due pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law
. 54:48-1 et seg)/ did fail to file a tax return for the calendar years ending 2005 and 2007/ as required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law
. 54:48-1 et seg) / contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State/ the government and dignity of the same.

COUNT FIFTEEN
(Failure to Pay Gross Income Tax -Third Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA and
ROSANNA PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Borough of Franklin Lakes, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Borough of River Edge, all in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:48-1 et seg., for the calendar years ending 2005, 2006 and 2007, did fail to pay and turn over the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-9 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT SIXTEEN
(Failure to Pay Gross Income Tax -Third Degree)
RALPH M. PERNA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of West Caldwell, in the County of Essex, _at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J . S.A 54:48-1 et seq., for the calendar years ending 2005, 2006 and 2007, did fail to pay and turn over the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
54:52 -9, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same .
COUNT SEVENTEEN (Failure to File Tax Return -Third Degree) MICHAEL CETTA and
VITA CETTA between in or about January 2007, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Wyckoff, in the County of Bergen, at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this. Court, with intent to defraud the State or to evade, avoid, or otherwise not make timely payment of any tax, fee, penalty, interest, or any part thereof which shall be due pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law
[R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], did fail to file a tax return for the calendar year ending 2007, as required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of the State Tax Uniform Procedure law [R.S. 54:48-1 et seq], contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-8 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT EIGHTEEN (Failure to Pay Gross Income Tax -Third Degree) MICHAEL CETTA and
VITA CETTA between in or about January 2005, and in or about April 2010, at the Township of Wyckoff, in the County of Bergen, at the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with intent to evade, avoid or otherwise not make timely payment of the tax required to be paid pursuant to N.J.S.A 54:48-1 et seq., for the calendar years ending 2005, 2006 and 2007, did fail to pay and turn over the gross income taxes due, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:52-9 and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT NINETEEN
(Conspiracy -Second Degree)
JOSEPH M. PERNA
MICHAEL CETTA
EDWIN SPEARS
SAMUEL A. JULIANO
MICHAEL BRUINTON
DWAYNE SPEARS
and
KRISTEN GILLIAM who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co~ conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East
Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crimes of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, official misconduct, bribery and the unlawful possession of electronic devices in correctional facilities, did agree that:
A. One or more of them knowingly would engage in conduct which would constitute the aforesaid crimes, or
B. One or more of them knowingly would aid in the planning, solicitation, or commission of said crimes, that is:
1. Knowingly or’ purposely to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, that is:
A. Heroin, in a quantity of one-half ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 (a) (1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35 -5 (b) (2)
B. Marijuana, in a quantity of one ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a) (1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b) (11)
1. Knowingly, in the capacity of a public servant, to commit an unauthorized act relating to said public office with purpose to obtain a benefit for themselves or another, or knowingly to refrain from performing a duty imposed by law or which clearly inherent in the nature of said public office, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2.
2. Knowingly, directly or indirectly, to offer, confer, agree to confer upon another or to solicit, accept, or agree to accept from another a benefit as consideration for a

violation of an official duty of a public servant, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2.
4. Knowingly to possess an electronic communication device, that is, a wireless telephone, while confined in a State correctional facility, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
2C:29-10(b) . All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY (Official Misconduct -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of ~orth Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said MICHAEL BRUINTON being a public servant, that is, a sworn law enforcement officer with the New Jersey Department of Corrections, having thereby the official functions and duties, among others, to display good faith, honesty and integrity, to be . impervious to corrupting influences and to refrain from
soliciting or accepting from any person anything of value for the performance of or for refraining from the performance of his duties or for violation thereof, and acting with a purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or others, did commit acts relating to his office constituting unauthorized acts or did refrain from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office, that lS, the said MICHAEL BRUINTON knowingly did use his position as a State Corrections Officer to smuggle contraband, including but not limited to narcotics and electronic .devices into the East Jersey State correctional facility in exchange for u.S. currency, and thereby did aid his coconspirators in the operation of an illegal narcotics and
electronics device distribution scheme within the State Prison system, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-ONE (Bribery -Second Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did directly or indirectly offer, confer, agree to confer upon another or solicit, accept, or agree to accept from another a benefit for consideration for a violation of an official duty of a public servant, that is, the said JOSEPH M. PERNA, MICHAEL CETTA, EDWIN SPEARS, SAMUEL A. JULIANO, DWAYNE
SPEARS, arid KRISTEN GILLIAM, knowingly did, directly or indirectly, offer, confer, or agree to confer upon the said MICHAEL BRUINTON, a public servant in his capacity as a sworn law enforcement officer with the New Jersey Department of Corrections, who knowingly did directly or indirectly solicit, accept, or agree to accept a benefit having a value in excess of $200, as consideration for the violation of an official duty of the public servant, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2(c) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-TWO (Unlawful Possession of Certain Electronic Devices in Correctional Facilities -Third Degree) JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about July 2007, and in or about December 2007, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, both in the County of Bergen, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Town of Morristown, in the County of Morris, at the Borough of North Haledon, in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess an electronic communication device, that is, a wireless telephone, while confined in the East Jersey State Prison, a State correctional facility, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-10(b) and
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
-62­
COUNT TWENTY-THREE (Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, that is, Oxycodone, a Schedule II Narcotic Drug, in a quantity of one ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a) (1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b) (4), and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-FOUR (Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, that is, cocaine, in an aggregate quantity of one-half ounce or more including any adulterants or dilutants, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5c, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-FIVE (Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly or purposely did possess controlled dangerous substances, that is, cocaine and Oxycodone, both Schedule II controlled dangerous substances, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1), and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-SIX
(Certain Persons Not To Have Weapons -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, having been previously convicted of the crime of burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2) on Union County Indictment UNN-95-07­00796-1, did possess certain firearms, that is, one .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, with a defaced serial number, one .32 caliber
Amadeo Rossi & CIA hand gun, serial number 2175, one double barrel Ithaca shotgun, serial number 194523, and one .22 single shot Winchester rifle, model number 60, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN (Unlawful Possession of a Weapon -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess certain weapons, that is, one .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, with a defaced serial number, and one .32 caliber Amadeo Rossi & CIA hand gun, serial number 2175, without first having obtained a permit to carry same as provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT
(Unlawful Possession of a Weapon -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess certain weapons, that is, one double barrel Ithaca shotgun, serial number 194523, and one .22 single shot Winchester rifle, model number 60, without first having obtained a firearms purchaser identification card, as provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5c, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWENTY-NINE (Prohibited Weapon -Third Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess a destructive device, that is, one incendiary bomb or military grenade, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3a, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of same.
COUNT THIRTY (Possession of Weapons During Commission of Certain Crimes -Second Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess certain firearms, that is, one .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, defaced serial number’, one .32 caliber Amadeo Rossi & CIA hand gun, serial number 2175, one double barrel Ithaca shotgun, serial number 194523, and one .22 single shot Winchester rifle, model number 60, while in the course of committing or attempting to commit or conspiring to commit violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5, contrary to the provisions
of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a), and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THIRTY-ONE (Prohibited Weapon -Fourth Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess a defaced firearm, that is, .357 caliber Dan Wesson handgun, contrary to the provisions of
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3d, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of same.
COUNT THIRTY-TWO
(Prohibited Weapon -Fourth Degree)
SAMUEL A. JULIANO on or about December 6, 2007, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, in the County of Essex, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, knowingly did possess dum dum bullets, that is, one box of fifty, .357 Magnum 110 GR jacketed hollow point bullets, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3f, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of same.
COUNT THIRTY-THREE
(Conspiracy -First Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL RAMUNO,III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI .GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM HANI ROSANNA PERNA VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM who are named as the defendants herein, and other persons whose identities are known and unknown to the Grand Jurors, who are co­conspirators and members of the criminal enterprise but not named as defendants herein, between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell,
all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in
the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Town of Morristown, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, at the City of Rahway, in the County of Union, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime of money laundering, did
agree that:
A. One or more of them knowingly would engage in conduct which would constitute the aforementioned crime, or
B. One or more of them knowingly would aid in the planning, solicitation, or commission of the said crime, that is:
1. Knowingly to transport or possess property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity, or engage in transactions involving property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity with the intent to facilitate or promote the criminal activity or knowing the transactions were designed
in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of said property, or knowingly direct, organize, finance, plan, manage, supervise, or control the transportation of or the transactions in property known or which a reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity, said property having a value of $500,000 or more, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21~25.
All in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THIRTY-FOUR
(Money Laundering -First Degree)
JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA
JOHN MANGRELLA
GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO ALFONSO CATALDO
MICHAEL ‘RAMUNO, III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI MICHAEL MAFFUCCI GEORGE MAIORANO BLERIM IBRIAMI SHPETIM RANI ROSANNA PERNA VITACETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON DWAYNE SPEARS and
KRISTEN GILLIAM between in or about June 2005, and in or about December 2007, at the Township of Galloway, and at the City of Ventnor, both in the County of Atlantic, at the Borough of Elmwood Park, at the Borough of Fort Lee, at the Borough of Glen Rock, and at the Township of Wyckoff, all in the County of Bergen, at the Township of Belleville, at the Township of Cedar Grove, at the Borough of Glen Ridge, and at the Township of West Caldwell, all in the County of Essex, at the Township of East Amwell, in the County of Hunterdon, at the Borough of Farmingdale, and at the Township
Neptune, both in the County of Monmouth, at the Township of East Hanover, at the Borough of Florham Park, at the Town of
Morristown, at the Township of Parsippany, and at the Township of Pequannock, all in the County of Morris, at the Township of Brick, and at the Township of Toms River, both in the County of Ocean, at the Borough of Bloomingdale, at the City of Clifton, at the Borough of Hawthorne, and at the Borough of North Haledon, all in the County of Passaic, in the State of New York, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elsewhere, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, while engaged in the racketeering activity set forth in Count One of this Indictment, knowingly did transport or possess property or did engage in transactions involving property known to be, or which a reasonable person
would believe to be, derived from criminal activity, including but not limited to racketeering, gambling offenses, theft by extortion, aggravated assault, theft by deception, falsifying records, bribery, official misconduct, possession with the intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances, weapons offenses, unlawful electronic devices in correctional facilities, failure to file tax returns or reports, failure to pay gross income tax, and conspiracy to commit those offenses, with a value of $500,000, or more, with the intent to facilitate or promote such activity or knowing that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the property derived from the said criminal activity, and/or by knowingly directing, organizing,
financing, planning, managing, supervising, or controlling the transportation of or the transactions in property known to be, or which a reasonable person would believe to be, derived from criminal activity, that is, the said JOSEPH DI NAPOLI, MATTHEW MADONNA, RALPH V. PERNA, NICODEMO SCARFO, JR., JOSEPH M. PERNA, MICHAEL CETTA, FRANK CETTA, JOHN G. PERNA, RALPH M. PERNA, JOHN MANGRELLA, GARY MEDURE, ELLIOT PORCO, MARTIN TACCETTA, ANTONIO RUSSO, ALFONSO CATALDO, MICHAEL RAMUNO, III, RONALD SCRIPPS, GIANNI IACOVO, ROBERT DECRESCENZO, CHARLES BOLOGNA, JAMES FURFARO, ROBERT ROMANO, JOHN TURI, MICHAEL MAFFUCCI, GEORGE
MAIORANO, BLERIM IBRIAMI, SHPETIM HANI, ROSANNA PERNA, VITA CETTA, EDWIN SPEARS, SAMUEL A. JULIANO, MICHAEL BRUINTON, DWAYNE SPEARS, KRISTEN GILLIAM, did transport or possess U.S. currency, engage in banking and financial institution transactions, make purchases, payments and receive extensions of credit for the purchase and maintenance of real and personal property and the purchase or lease of vehicles, including but not limited to the property set forth in the Forfeiture Section of Count One of this Indictment, knowing, or having reason to belive, the property that was transported or possessed was derived from criminal activity, that the transactions involving said property were
designed in whole or in part with the intent to facilitate or promote the criminal activity, or to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the said
property derived through criminal activity, or that the
direction, organization, financing, planning, managing,
supervision, or control of the transportation of or transactions
in said property was of property known, or which a reasonable person would believe, to be derived from criminal activity, cohtrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25a and N.J.S.A. 2C:21~25b and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6, and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same.
NJ Division of Criminal Justice
A True Bill:
Date :—-J.d”—’/~r!…….:…../_~__
J
‘-.’. ‘-”‘.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL
State Grand Jury Number SGJ585-10-2 Superior Court Docket Number ____________________~
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
v. JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA APPENDIX A NICODEMO SCARFO I JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA , ) JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA
AKA “Blackiell GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TACCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO
AKA “CURLYII ALFONSO CATALDO AKA “TICII MICHAEL RAMUNO I III
RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO
ROBERT DECRESCENZO
CHARLES BOLOGNA
JAMES FURFARO
ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI
GEORGE MAIORANO
BLERIM IBRIAMI
SHPETIM RANI
AKA “TIM” ROSANNA PERNA VITA CETTA EDWIN SPEARS SAMUEL A. JULIANO MICHAEL BRUINTON
AKA “MAC”
DWAYNE SPEARS
and
KRISTEN GILLIAM
All allegations set forth within Count One of the captioned
Indictment are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as
if fully set forth herein, for the purpose of alleging
forfeitures pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:41-3b.
2. The defendants have property constituting:
A. Interests, including money and other things of value, established, acquired, maintained, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c, and
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d.
3. The said interests, all subject to forfeiture to the State of New Jersey, shall expressly include all items of real and personal property:

I) REAL PROPERTY -
Property Address Property Owner
1) 3119 Glasgow Ave. Toms River, NJ 08743 Block: 1079 Lot: 11 Joseph Perna

2) 243 Eastview Terrace Joseph & Rosanna Perna Wyckoff, NJ 07841 Block: 393 Lot: 5
As substituted by:
392 Cornell Street Joseph & Rosanna Perna Wyckoff, NJ Block: 479 Lot: 4
3) 38-40 Tillinghast St. Vita Cetta Newark, NJ 07108 Block: 3029 Lot: 8
4) 3411 Lisbon Ave. Michael Cetta Toms River, NJ 08753 Block:1076.09 Lot: 21 &23
..

5) 476 James Way Michael & Vita Cetta
Wyckoff, NJ 07841
Block: 342
Lot: 1
6) 11 Knoll Terrace Ralph & Andrea Perna
West Caldwell, NJ 07006
Block: 3305
Lot: 10
7) 3 Donna Drive AnnaMarie & Ralph Perna
East Hanover, NJ
Block: 96
Lot: 47
II) PERSONAL PROPERTY -
A -Bank Accounts:
Account Name Account Number
Commerce Bank accounts:
1) Anthony M. Perna UTTMA 2490241672
Rosanna Perna Custodian
2) Joseph Perna UTTMA 0069180552
Rosanna Perna Custodian
3) Vita Cetta & Rosanna Perna 3450363670
4) Rosanna Perna 3451659905
5) Rosanna Perna 3450417533
Joseph Perna
6) Michael J. Cetta UTTMA 2490101269
Vita Cetta Custodian
7) Vita Cetta 3452301753
8 Vita Cetta 3450551973
9) Vita Cetta 0028051372
10) Vita Cetta 0510248322
Michael Anthony Cetta

3451614766 2490100440
3451615754
3450389068
1030279228679 3000017828900
VIN SAJWA44C879B13479 5N3AA08C44N810209 JNKAYOIF66M259981 IGIYY33P5P5113180 IG3AK4796DM405658 IG4GJ1178HP445906 40867S105773 IN9RS26595N214020 5LMFU28566LJ28415 IG6DW677170127035 IFMDU73E74UB67147 IG6DM57T870100153
5LMFU28526LJ25530
11) Vita Cetta 12) Vita Cetta Michael Anthony Cetta 13) Vita Cetta
Michael Anthony Cetta 14) Ralph and Andrea Perna Wachovia Bank: 15) Andrea and Ralph Perna
16) Ralph and Andrea
b-Vehicles:
Registered Owner Michael Cetta Michael Cetta Michael Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Vita Cetta Donato Magno Anna Marie Perna Ralph M. Perna Ralph M. Perna Andrea Perna Perna
Vehicle 2007 Jaguar XKR 2004 Infinity QX56 2006 Infinity M35 1993 Chev. Corvette 1983 aIds. Hurst 1987 Buick Regal 1964 Chevrolet 2005 Motorcycle
2006 2007 2004 2007 2006
Lincoln Cadillac STS Ford Explorer Cadillac CTS Lincoln
-5­
..
.
~ .-~

Andrea Perna 2000 Jeep IJ4GW48SXYC286910
Jasmin Crespo 2002 Jeep IJ4GW48S92CI01284
C -United States currency:

$3,711 Joseph and Rosanna Perna’s Residence $81,494 Michael and Vita Cetta’s Residence $1,102 Ralph M. and Andrea Perna’s Residence $25,867 Samuel Juliano’s Residence $4,982 Ralph V. and AnneMarie Perna’s Residence $19,888 John Perna’s Residence $69,319 Joseph DiNapoli’s Residence
D -Various Items of Personal Property:
From the residence of Joseph and Rosanna Perna As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 51
-9 watches
From the residence of Ralph V. and Andrea Perna As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 64
-16 watches
From the residence of John Perna As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 70 A
-3 flat screen televisions -7 watches -1 jewelry box with diamond earrings
From the safe deposit box of Michael and Vita Cetta As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 69C
-11 watches -56 items of jewelry -3 items of vintage United States currency-collection
From the residence of Michael and Vita Cetta As described in Grand Jury Exhibit 69A
-68 sports memorabilia items -22 watches -3 Rolex certificates of authenticity -6 items of jewelry -1 black box containing 6 pairs of cufflinks
~F’LED
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYiMAY 1 4 2010 LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL
State Grand Jury Number SGJ585-10-2 Superior Court
10-05-00057-3
Docket Number
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
. v. JOSEPH DI NAPOLI MATTHEW MADONNA RALPH V. PERNA
NICODEMO SCARFO, JR. JOSEPH M. PERNA MICHAEL CETTA FRANK CETTA JOHN G. PERNA RALPH M. PERNA JOHN MANGRELLA ORDER OF VENUE
A/K/A “BLACKIE” GARY MEDURE ELLIOT PORCO MARTIN TECCETTA ANTONIO RUSSO A/K/A “CURLY”
ALFONSO CATALDO A/KIA “TIC”
MICHAEL RAMUNO, III RONALD SCRIPPS GIANNI IACOVO ROBERT DECRESCENZO CHARLES BOLOGNA JAMES FURFARO
ROBERT ROMANO
JOHN TURI
MICHAEL MAFFUCCI
GEORGE MAIORANO
BLERIM IBRIAMI
SHPETIM RANI
A/K/A
“TIM”
ROSANNA PERNA
VITA CETTA
EDWIN SPEARS
SAMUEL A. JULIANO
MICHAEL BRUINTON A/K/A “MAC”
DWAYNE SPEARS
and
KRISTEN GILLIAM
An Indictment having been returned to this Court by the State Grand Jury in the above caPtioned/natter,
IT IS ORDERED on this I~t1\ day of fV) ~ ,2010, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the State Grand Jury Act, that t~e County of Morris be and hereby is designated as the County of Venue for the purpose of trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Superior Court shall transmit forthwith the Indictment in this matter and a certified copy of this Order to the Criminal Division Manager of the County of Morris for filing.

2010
05.08
‘Entirely too comfortable’ with the Jersey Mafia
By CHRIS BAUD / The Trentonian

On Feb. 17, 1970, Frank Sinatra flew into Trenton to testify before the New Jersey State Investigative Commission as part of an ongoing investigation of organized crime.

Rumors of Sinatra and the Mafia had floated around since 1947, when Sinatra accompanied Joseph “Joey Fish” Fischetti to Havana as part of a meeting of American mobsters with deported boss Charles “Lucky” Luciano.

National gossip columnist Walter Winchell “dimed” on Sinatra, describing his relationships with underworld characters. Sinatra was also associated with Chicago mobster Sam “Mom” Giancana, and in a show of loyalty gave up his gaming license after it was learned he allowed Giancana to stay at his lodge in Lake Tahoe. He also had ties to New York’s Carlo Gambino, and Raymond Patriarca of New England.

Mario Puzo’s character Johnny Fontane, the heartthrob singer-actor of “The Godfather” who got his big break when Vito Corleone made a movie producer “an offer he can’t refuse,” was a thinly veiled representation of Sinatra. Although there are many variations on the story, it was believed Sinatra was helped early in his career when North Jersey gangster Willie Moretti “convinced” bandleader Tommy Dorsey to let Sinatra out of his contract by shoving a revolver in his mouth.

“Sinatra was what I call a ‘mob groupie,’ ” said mob historian Carl Sifakis of Queens, N.Y. “In Las Vegas, he was partner with Sam Giancana, one of the top Mafia figures in America. When he made his movie comeback, he used his mob contacts to get him the role in ‘From Here to Eternity.’ ”

But throughout his life, Sinatra fought (sometime with his fists) to keep people from talking about his underworld buddies, saying, “I wouldn’t have had so many problems if my last name didn’t end in a vowel.”

His appearance at SIC headquarters at 218 W. State St. happened only after the singer fought a subpoena for months. Sinatra had faced contempt charges for noncompliance and called the SIC “a three-ring circus.”

Details of Sinatra’s testimony were kept secret, although members of the SIC told reporters that Sinatra had been a helpful witness and answered all their questions.

But after Sinatra’s death on May 15, 1998, one member of the SIC told The Trentonian that the legendary singer from Hoboken had been evasive and flatly denied any association with organized crime figures.

“He was not very cooperative,” said Glen Miller of Princeton, the panel member. “He called our commission a ‘circus’ when we just wanted to know what he knew about organized crime.”

The FBI had a file of 1,275 pages on Sinatra, charting everything from Mafia ties to his relationship with President John F. Kennedy to his indulgence in high-priced call girls with Rat Pack buddies Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr. and Peter Lawford.

Sinatra was merely the most famous New Jerseyan linked to organized crime in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A year earlier, associations with mobsters ruined the careers of two Mercer County politicians.

On Dec. 11, 1968, Assistant Attorney General William J. Brennan 3rd told the state chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, a journalistic society, that three members of the New Jersey Legislature were “entirely too comfortable with organized crime.”

Brennan, the son of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., was directing a Mercer County grand jury investigating organized crime and corruption in local government.

Saying that crooks had infiltrated numerous industries and labor unions, Brennan added: “Too many local governments are responsive more to the mob than to the electorate that put them in office.”

Brennan’s statements came on the heels of a series of Life magazine articles about organized crime, charging that the Mafia wielded great influence in New Jersey, specifically linking Hudson County’s Congressman Cornelius Gallagher, as well as a retired state trooper, to the mob.

In 1957, cops had disrupted a meeting of La Cosa Nostra in Apalachin, N.Y., bringing the existence of a national crime syndicate into the spotlight and forcing FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to acknowledge the existence of the Mafia.

But by 1968, little was known about the inner workings of the mob. Francis Ford Coppola’s Hollywood version of “The Godfather” was still four years away, and the public had rarely heard such insider language as “consigliere” or “capo.” Additionally, Watergate had not yet destroyed the public’s trust in elected officials.

Brennan’s accusations struck like a thunderbolt, shaking the legislative body to the core, and touching off weeks of raging controversy. Brennan wouldn’t reveal the names of the three politicians, but he added fuel to the fire a day later, saying there were three other state officials with close connections to the mob.

Gov. Richard Hughes, in a meeting with Democratic Party leaders and Attorney General Arthur Sills, asked Brennan to disclose the names. Brennan refused, stating that the meeting of party leaders did not constitute a political body and his disclosures could make him vulnerable to defamation suits.

Brennan was, however, willing to turn over confidential files on the legislators. Hughes, fearful of jeopardizing informants named in the files, declined.

Frank McDermott, R-Union, was president-elect of the state Senate and demanded public disclosure of Brennan’s six.

The day after Christmas, the Evening News of Newark, citing “unimpeachable and completely authentic” sources, printed the names of Brennan’s three pols who were too comfortable with organized crime. On the list were two assemblymen, Republican John Selecky of East Windsor and Democrat David Friedland of Hudson County.

Most shockingly, Sido Ridolfi, Mercer’s prominent Democratic state senator, was also named. Ridolfi, who had served in the Senate representing Trenton since 1954, was a former president of the upper house and served as acting governor briefly in 1967.

Although Selecky and Ridolfi both denied any wrongdoing, they told reporters they had an inkling of the associations Brennan had in mind.

Ridolfi had helped John Simone, a k a Johnny Keyes, in the purchase of a house at 710 President Ave. in Lawrence. Simone was a cousin of Angelo Bruno, Philadelphia’s boss of bosses. Simone had been sentenced to two years for bootlegging by a federal court in 1944 and had a long record of other offenses, including assault and robbery. In 1980 he would himself fall victim to a mob rubout.

It was also learned that Ridolfi had represented the Bralynski brothers, Edward and Raymond, in a number of real estate deals, and the three jointly owned land in Hamilton that was in the path of an extension of Interstate 295 between Nottingham Way and East State Street Extension. Edward Bralynski had received notoriety when he was seen accompanying Simone to a city trial for Bruno in a motor-vehicle violation case.

Selecky had testified as a character witness for Salvatore Profaci, owner of the Hightstown restaurant Ming Room, who had been charged with abusive language toward a trooper in a traffic violation case. Profaci’s uncle, Joe Profaci, had ruled one of the fearsome Five Families of the New York Mafia from 1930 until his death in 1962. Salvatore Profaci had also been caught by state police digging what was believed to be a grave in Millstone Township in 1968.

Friedland, meanwhile, had been involved in a loan sharking deal. Woodbridge Township car-wash owner Julius Pereria filed a complaint against reputed Mafia figure John DiGilio, who had extorted Pereria for $6,000 interest on a $3,000 loan.

On Dec. 30, Brennan appeared before a committee to investigate the Legislature and confirmed that Selecky, Ridolfi and Friedland were indeed the men who were “entirely too comfortable” with the Mafia.

Brennan, saying that a man need not be convicted of a crime to be considered a member of a crime ring, insisted that the three had exercised poor judgment in their actions, and that legislators should not represent clients in criminal cases. Brennan then came under fire, as a lawyer for the committee, Sidney McCord, called Brennan’s testimony “flimsy” and “all innuendo.”

In mid-January 1969, Brennan was relieved of his charge of investigating corruption as a new state anti-crime probe was formed.

“If the testimony concerning the other three names is as flimsy as this,” McCord said, “I see no reason to make any more names public so that people can say, ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’ ”

But the Brennan incident undoubtedly helped raise public awareness of the problem of corruption.

Within a month of his speech before Sigma Delta Chi, the State Investigative Commission, which later questioned Sinatra, was formed. At the same time, the federal government launched an anti-Mafia strike force consisting of officials from seven federal agencies. Based in Newark, the team conducted raids and gathered intelligence on Mafia families believed to be raking in $1 billion a year in the state.

Although Gov. William Cahill was premature when he announced a complete victory over organized crime late in 1970, as the Philadelphia and New York families continued to exert influence in the state, the Mafia did take a major hit in the early 1970s.

A dozen high-ranking mobsters went to jail rather than break omerta — the Mafia’s code of silence, enforced by murder — and U.S. Attorney Ken Lacey brought indictments against 122 state officials. Lacey most notably won a conviction against Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio for extortion and conspiracy.

Perhaps most importantly, Brennan’s charges helped pave the way for tougher standards of ethics for elected officials and a zero tolerance for association with crime figures.

A committee led by Sen. Alfred Beadleston, R-Monmouth, sharply criticized Ridolfi, Selecky and Friedland.

Of Ridolfi, they said: “Senator Ridolfi has had undesirable business associates and clients of questionable character.

“He failed to exercise sound judgment when he learned that there was question as to the character and reputation of his business associates.”

Its report said Selecky had “brought the Legislature under a cloud of disapproval,” adding that he should have refused to appear as a character witness for Profaci and severed his relationship with him.

Selecky was outraged.

“How did I bring this house under public disapproval?” Selecky asked. “I stood up for a man who had committed no crime, who happens to have an Italian name and who happens to have an uncle who has been dead for five years.”

Ridolfi, who claimed he had no knowledge of Simone’s involvement in organized crime, steadfastly maintained he was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Just last year, Ridolfi said: “It was not fair, and the coverage of [The Trentonian] was not fair.”

The committee exonerated Brennan’s second trio of politicians: John Horn and Lee Laskin, both assemblymen from Camden County, as well as Sen. Frank Farley of Atlantic County, saying there was no evidence any of the three could be linked to organized crime. Brennan himself had said the evidence against them did not match those of Ridolfi, Friedland and Selecky.

Since the committee had found Ridolfi, Selecky and Friedland had broken no laws, it did not recommend any action against them. Still, the damage was done. Ridolfi chose not to run for re-election. Selecky, who vowed to run again, was nonetheless pressured out by GOP leaders.

Of course, Sinatra, the man who invented cool and lived like a rock star before rock ’n roll existed, could never go out of style. He continued to play to adoring audiences until the late 1990s.

“When you become an icon, you can get away with a lot of things,” mob historian Sifakis said.

Ridolfi and Selecky, merely politicians, weren’t so lucky.

2010
05.07

Immigrant Presence and The “Mob Tax”

Fuel bootlegging, La Cosa Nostra and the Russian Mafia

. . .

Jermyn described a significant presence of immi­grants involved in the motor fuel tax evasion cases:

There was a large number of Turkish immigrants at the retail levels and there were eastern bloc immigrants who became involved all the way up the chain of distribution to the point where they were actually acquiring gasoline terminals as a result of bootlegging activities.

. . . .

There was a language barrier to begin with. Conspiratorial conversations were often in a foreign language. There weren’t many agents that could speak Rumanian, unfortunately, or Russian. There was inability to infiltrate the closely-knit groups by way of informants or police agents and, in addition to that, these individuals were well-educated and oftentimes smarter than law enforcement agencies.

Q. Did you also find the presence or involve­ment of traditional organized crime groups in the motor fuel tax evasion cases?

A. Yes. Just as with any other industry, where there is an opportunity to make money, illegiti­mate traditional organized crime groups infil­trate that industry. In this case, that occurred very early on…

…the immigrants who became involved in businesses were bright enough to realize that they had to pay tribute to traditional organ­ized crime families in order to operate in certain areas, and there was usually a one or two cents per gallon levy by the mob families imposed upon the sale of bootlegged gasoline.

Q. Is that called the “mob tax”?

A. Yes… amounted to millions and millions of dollars.

Jermyn said the investigation revealed the in­volvement of three traditional organized crime fami­lies in the early period of bootlegging between 1981 and 1988 – the Lucchese, Genovese and the Colombo organized crime families. “And later on in the schemes the Gambino family also became involved,” he said.

Jermyn characterized the relationship between traditional organized crime and the eastern bloc immigrants as “very cooperative.”

[O]ne of the abilities of the organizational skills of the principals involved in these schemes was that they were able to forge a very close working relationship. It became almost like a cartel between the traditional organized crime fami­lies and the eastern bloc people, and they were able to monopolize and control the price of unbranded gasoline in the Long Island area for many, many years.

He recalled a surveillance that revealed a “sum­mit meeting” between the bootleggers, the organized crime figures and the eastern bloc people, “sitting at a large conference table in a meeting room in Long Island.”

Q. Who was the most significant organized crime figure you prosecuted?

A. [O]ne of the defendants in the racketeering case, which was prosecuted federally, was a captain in the Colombo organized crime family by the name of Michael Franzese. There were also many organized crime associates who were prosecuted and convicted and were serving lengthy jail terms.

Jermyn described one motor fuels case in which Franzese was involved:

The amount that was actually evaded was in excess of $30 million dollars and it involved a company where a bond was actually obtained for the payment of the taxes and Mr. Franzese bribed the official in the bonding company to issue the bond. The bonding company actually ended up losing additional moneys, so that there were many victims other than just the state and the federal government.

The Violent Side of Fuel Tax Evasion

Testimony was heard from various witnesses about a darker side of fuel tax evasion and an underlying fear among those in the business.

Rackets Chief Jermyn testified:

Where necessary, violent means have been used to expand a particular bootlegger’s sphere of influence. We’ve estimated as many as a dozen murders have taken place in the last seven years as a result of the bad guys infiltrating the mar­ketplace.

Jermyn described the murders of Michael Markowitz and Phillip Moskowitz. Markowitz, he said, was “one of the bigger bootleggers in the New York area.” He was an eastern bloc immigrant who came to this country with virtually no money in 1979 but at the time of his death had “upwards of 30 million dollars just in assets… not even counting various bank accounts over in Austria and Lichtenstein.” Markowitz was shot in the head while sitting in his Rolls Royce in Brooklyn in 1989.

Phillip Moskowitz was murdered after he was indicted and “certain tapes were released in which he compromised the positions of various organized crime families and identified them as being active in the bootlegging business. His body was found in New Jersey,” Jermyn said.

SCI Special Agent Diszler gave testimony based on the Commission’s own investigation.

BY COUNSEL HOEKJE:

Q. Agent Diszler, have you sensed a fear among the witnesses to whom you have spoken?

A. In most instances we have. Most of them are aware, through the media, of course, that there have been violent homicides which have oc­curred in New York and New Jersey concerning this industry.

Witnesses have told me that they can discern certain accents over the telephone quite easily and many times have felt intimidated and threat­ened by the sales pitch which they get. Even bank officers have expressed an underlying fear to me.

Many times these individuals attempt to open bank accounts in New Jersey at local banks and when they fill out the bank applications it is learned that they have no roots to the community whatsoever. If the accounts are opened, within days and sometimes within hours there are wire transfers moving through their accounts which number in the thousands of dollars. These banking people who are not familiar with the businesses involved often become highly suspi­cious and concerned enough to usually contact the local police departments.

BY CHAIRMAN ZAZZALI:

Q. Are you comfortable identifying the type of accents that you referred to before when people got those anonymous calls?

A. Yes, I would be comfortable in saying that itwas definitely a Soviet, Eastern European ac­cent.

. . .

From a NJ SCI report

2010
05.06

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.

 

2010
05.05

MEDFORD VILLAGE RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB

The Medford Village Resort and Country Club in Medford Township, Burlington County, was used by some members and associates of the Bruno/Scarfo crime family to further illegal gambling activities.

Moreover, the club was partly owned, until 1985, by Anthony “Tony Buck” Piccolo of Philadelphia, who was until recently acting boss of the crime family.

Finally, the club’s license was improvidently issued in 1971 because the establishment did not meet the legal criteria to qualify for such a license. The license remains in place to this day.

The situation has been allowed to occur in part because Medford officials do not require background investigations of licensees. The township police chief told Commission agents that any background investigations are done by the municipal clerk, with the ultimate responsibility lying with the State ABC. He said his department has never done a criminal history check or a fingerprint check on applicants for licensure. The chief acknowledged that he is aware that the club has been associated for years with operatives of the Bruno/Scarfo crime family yet he never passed the information to the governing body.

The crime family member who used the club for purposes associated with gambling was Salvatore “Shotsie” Sparacio, along with several of his associates including Blase Salvatore, Sr., Thomas Lauria, Nicholas J. Caputi, Sr., James Grandrimo, Sr. and James C. Grandrimo, Jr. In his statement during the public hearing, State Police Superintendent Dintino confirmed that Sparacio “has been identified as a soldier in the Bruno/Scarfo crime group.” He also attested to the fact that Sparacio used the Medford Village Country Club to meet with operatives involved in the illegal gambling operation. Colonel Dintino identified Salvatore, who is Sparacio’s cousin, and Thomas Lauria as organized crime associates working for Sparacio in his gambling network.

Sparacio and several of his subordinates have been observed together often at the Medford Village Resort and Country Club by law enforcement officers from various agencies. The continual presence of Sparacio and the others is alone a violation of ABC regulations. Moreover, there is no evidence that Sparacio was ever “sponsored by” or “personally attended by” a club member on his continual visits to the Medford Village Club, another violation of ABC requirements for club licenses. In September, 1981, Sparacio was put on the Casino Control Commission’s exclusion list, which was created to keep undesirable persons out of the casinos. Sparacio has defied the exclusionary order. After this Commission’s public hearing, which took place more than 10 years after Sparacio was barred from the casinos, he was told by club president Michael Procacci through an intermediary to keep out of the club. Blase Salvatore, however, remains a member despite his criminal record. James Grandrimo Sr. and James Grandrimo Jr. are also members.

Salvatore was also employed as manager at the club while on a state prison work release program in 1977. Such employment was in violation of ABC regulations in that Salvatore did not possess a Rehabilitation Permit from the ABC, which is required whenever an employee has a criminal record. Sparacio has seven gambling convictions between 1948 and 1990, two of them with Thomas Lauria. Salvatore has four bookmaking convictions between 1969 and 1987.

Salvatore’s 1986 conviction stemmed from his arrest on club premises on October 19, 1985. Police found gambling wagers valued at $6,700 on his person, along with the key to an apartment in Mount Laurel that was used for accepting telephone bets. Gambling operative Nicholas Caputi, Sr. was arrested at the apartment the same day as Salvatore; gambling records were found in his possession. Salvatore and his codefendants Caputi, Sparacio, Steven Argentina, Lauria and James Anderson were all ultimately convicted.

Another item confiscated from Salvatore at the time of his arrest was his phone directory. Commission Special Agent Michael Hoey testified at the public hearing as to the significance of its contents:

At that time, his phone directory contained the names of two La Cosa Nostra members from the Philadelphia family, those being Thomas DelGiorno, who most people know as a cooperating witness but at the time was a La Cosa Nostra member, and also the name of Salvatore Sparacio, who is also a made member of a Philadelphia family.

There were also other names of lower-level gambling operatives that are accountable to the Bruno/Scarfo organization ….

In his public hearing testimony, Thomas DelGiorno identified both Salvatore and Sparacio as bookmakers aligned with the Bruno/Scarfo organized crime family:

Q . Do you know Blase Salvatore, Senior?

Yes.

Is he an associate in the Philadelphia mob?

He’s with Shotsie. Shotsie’s cousin, too, I think.

Were they involved in illegal gambling activities together?

Bookmaking business.

Did you have any part in that?

In their business?

Yes.

At what time? At the time of —

Well, tell us what time that you know them to be involved in bookmaking and what —

I met Blase and Shotsie around 1964. I was — I was in my early twenties and I had just started into the bookmaking business. They were the first bookmakers that I worked for and that was the sports business. I worked for them for a couple of years and then my business just — I used to turn half of the booking to them. My business grew and I pulled it away and started taking care of it myself.

When you worked for Blase Salvatore, where did you used to meet with him?

He’d come over to my house in Philly sometimes and sometimes I’d go over to Camden. There was a — I might have the wrong place. It was either 4th or 5th and Pine. There was a little bar there, bar/ restaurant or something.

* * *

Q. When did you first meet Shotsie Sparacio?

A. Around the same time. He was Blase’s — well, wait. Him and Blase — yeah, he was Blase’s partner in — but I didn’t deal with [Sparacio] at that time directly. I had met him but never did business with him. I first got to know him and got close to him around ten years later, like around ’74.

* * *

Anthony Piccolo’s involvement in organized crime was detailed by Colonel Dintino at the public hearing.

Anthony “Tony Buck” Piccolo has been identified as a soldier and member of the Bruno/Scarfo organized crime family. A first cousin of Nicodemo Scarfo, Piccolo was elevated by Scarfo to consigliere.

In 1989, Piccolo assumed a leadership position as acting boss when Scarfo was convicted on federal RICO charges. It was during this time that Piccolo was recorded conducting the “making” ceremony by an informant reporting to the New Jersey State Police. Piccolo’s activity with the Bruno/ Scarfo family was a violation of his probation stemming from a 1987 commercial bribery conviction. It is known that Piccolo was president of the now defunct Baron Maintenance Services, Inc., a Camden, New Jersey company involved with contract bid rigging. In addition to his earlier conviction for commercial bribery, Piccolo was arrested during [New Jersey State Police] Operation Broadsword and charged with numerous crimes, including illegal gambling.

Thomas DelGiorno provided first-hand informa

tion about Piccolo’s membership in the Bruno/Scarfo

family.

Q. Do you know Anthony Piccolo, known as Tony Buck?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know “Tony Buck” to be a made member?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know approximately when he was inducted into the family?

A. Well, I heard that he was made for a lot of years; maybe in the late ’50s or early ’60s.

Q. Who made him consigliere?

A. His cousin Scarfo.

Q. And how did you learn that?

A. Scarfo told me he’d been, you know, [made] the consigliere.

Q. Did Scarfo tell you why he selected Tony Buck?

A. Not really. He — I knew why. Because it was his cousin. I mean, he didn’t explain that to me. He didn’t have — he doesn’t have to explain why he does it. You know, he was the boss.

. . . .

Q. Before he became consigliere, he was under a captain?

A. Me.

Piccolo acquired an ownership interest in Medford Village in 1974 when his company, Baron Maintenance Services, Inc., formerly of Philadelphia and Camden, bought into the club. The interest was never hidden but was always listed in publicly available corporate papers.

On January 7, 1974, Alfred Squitire, one of 15 original partners in the club, transferred 84 shares of his stock to Baron Maintenance. Piccolo’s signature appears on the sale agreement. In December, 1985, almost 12 years later, Piccolo signed documents transferring his stock from Baron Maintenance to Michael Procacci of Cherry Hill, the club president.

Piccolo’s signature as president of Baron Maintenance appears on receipts acknowledging a $40,000 check dated December 18, 1985, and a $53,812.50 check dated June 16, 1986, both from Michael and Frances Procacci, in payment for Baron’s shares of stock. Piccolo signed many other documents during his 12-year association with the club.

During the Commission’s public hearing, Counsel Saros asked Piccolo about these transactions but he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer any questions.

Q. When Alfred Squitire became one of the original partners of Medford Village Resort and Country Club, was he representing your interest?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am. [Exercising Fifth Amendment privilege]

Q. What was Squitire’s involvement with Baron Maintenance Services?

A. That would be the same answer.

Q. On January 7, 1974 Squitire transferred his shares in Medford Village Resort and Country Club Incorporated to Baron Maintenance Services. Was that transfer done at your direction?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am.

Q. The SCI is in possession of a number of corporate documents executed by the partners of Medford Village Resort and Country Club Incorporated. I show you one such document which is Exhibit 21 —

MR. ZAZZALI: Let the record show that Exhibit 21 is being shown to the witness and to his counsel, Mr. [Salvatore] Avena.

Q. I would direct your attention to Page 3 of the document and ask if that’s your signature as president of Baron Maintenance Services?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am.

Q. Why did you want an ownership interest in the country club?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am.

Q. On December 4, 1985, the stock held by Baron Maintenance Services was sold to Michael Procacci. Why was that done?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am.

Q. $100,000 was paid by Mr. Procacci to purchase the stock. What was done with that money?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am.

Q. You will now be shown Exhibit Number 13 which shows the front of a check made out to Baron Maintenance Services in the amount of $40,000. Below is a typed receipt indicating that the check was, in fact, received and your signature appears under that. Is that, in fact, your signature as president of Baron Maintenance?

A. That would be the same answer, ma’am.

* * *

The country club is owned and operated by two for-profit business entities known as Medford Village Resort and Country Club, Inc., and Medford Associates. A third entity, purportedly non-profit and known simply as Medford Village Resort and Country Club, holds the club liquor license and assists in the operation of the country club.

Separate investigations by the ABC Enforcement Bureau and the Commission have established that the “non-profit” corporation which holds the club’s liquor license has been a sham since its inception in 1971. The country club is, in fact, operated by the for-profit corporation. During the public hearing, Commission Special Agent Hoey was asked to elaborate on the ABC regulation regarding club licenses:

A club liquor license is one which can be issued by any township or city and state. It really has no monetary value in that it’s not sold or bought. A township has the ability under current ABC guidelines to issue as many or as few club liquor licenses as they so desire and basically that’s the reason why they’re of little value as far as resale. This is the kind of liquor license that Medford Village Country Club [has].

Now, also there are other types of liquor licenses which are basically referred to as retail liquor licenses and these, of course, are worth money when bought or sold….

Q. And did the country club’s use of a club license violate ABC regulations?

A. The way it was utilized, yes…. According to ABC regulations, club liquor licenses have to be issued to non-profit organizations … basically for VFWs, Knights of Columbus, that type of charitable organization or recreational entity.

… Medford Village Country Club … abused the club liquor license. In fact, as a result of our investigation and an investigation in some cases that paralleled our investigation which was done by the … State ABC Enforcement Bureau, we were able to determine that that club liquor license at Medford Village was, in fact, a sham in almost every respect.

There … weren’t separate bank accounts … separate meetings and minutes….With a club liquor license … you’re supposed to have a minimum of 60 voting members and it’s supposed to be autonomous….With … Medford Village there were six directors who were all original investors in the club….They called the shots so absent that club liquor license the for-profit entity ran the business, and it’s this … entity [in] which Mr. Anthony Piccolo, the La Cosa Nostra member, had a stock interest….

Q. And there is currently pending an ABCenforcement action against the licensee. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that’s true, and there are extensive charges along the lines that I just related concerning the club license being a sham.

The ABC charges center on the non-profit status of the entity that holds the liquor license. The matter is scheduled to be heard in December by an administrative law judge.

In executive session, club president Michael Procacci testified at length regarding the three Medford Village entities, in particular the “nonprofit” organization utilizing the club license. When asked for an explanation as to why this type of license was obtained, Procacci, a successful and wealthy businessman, placed the responsibility on his lawyers and his own lack of knowledge on the subject. He also said that the only reason a club license was sought was because a plenary retail license was not available.

In terms of the operational practices of the business entities, little distinction is made between the non-profit and the profit making entities. Moreover, club membership must be 60 or more persons and each member should be allowed to vote on management issues. Procacci was asked:

Q. With respect to the non-profit corporation, has the general membership of the country club ever been involved in voting for the trustees of the non-profit corporation?

A. They never had any — they have never had any rights.

Q. They never had any involvement with the non-profit corporation?

A. They never had any rights to get involved there. They had their own body in amongst themselves to be the liaison people between the membership and the ownership, so they wouldn’t have any involvement at all, that line of questioning.

The managing partners, one of which was Baron Maintenance, make all of the decisions and Procacci seems to possess absolute power, as his private session testimony reflects:

When it comes to memberships, I want to bring this here out, they have a Board of Governors that run the club itself. It’s a body of people that are members that have their own associates into the club. If somebody gets out of order, it comes to the Board. If anybody is — for instance, if a new member comes up to sign up for a membership, we have a membership committee. They search it. They — and they bring it to the Board of Governors, and they accept them or reject them.

Q When was the Board of Governors set up?

A. 1981 or ’79 something in that area.

Q. How do you as managing partner relate to the Board of Governors?

A. Well, how do I relate to them? It’s very simple. The manager reports to me. He sits in on the — with them as manager, and sometimes, they ask him to leave while they talk about their people and their club.

But anything that came out at the Board of Governors went to the manager, and the manager reported to me. And if I thought that something would be detrimental to the club, I would object, and I would go there and talk to them.

Q. Did you have veto power over any action they might take?

A. Well, if it was really out of line.

But they didn’t do anything out of line. I never — I never remember where I vetoed anything —

Q. You didn’t have to.

A. — in 20 years. I didn’t have to. Sure, I had veto power. If they’re talking about spending money that wasn’t in the kitty, I had veto power. That’s it.

Q. At any time, did you object to a certain individual becoming a member of the country club?

A. Absolutely. First of all, the name would never be — never be handed into the membership committee. When the name would come up for — to be a member, if I didn’t like him, I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t even submit it to the membership committee because I would tell the membership committee I refused to take them in for reasons. But I never had that problem either.

* * *

During the public hearing, Commissioner Evenchick asked Special Agent Hoey to elaborate on the roots of the problems with the licensure of the Medford Village Resort and Country Club:

COMMISSIONER EVENCHICK: Agent Hoey, I think I understood you to say that in the early 1980s and over the years until recently, you determined or your investigation disclosed that the local authorities have done virtually nothing by way of checking the backgrounds of individuals associated with this club. Is that correct? MR. HOEY: That is correct, yes.

COMMISSIONER EVENCHICK: Can you clarify for us what you mean when you refer to local authorities? MR. HOEY: Well, according to — my understanding is according to ABC guidelines, rules and regulations that the local townships have the ability to or should conduct background investigations. Now, it can be done by the township fathers, it can be done by the police department at the instruction of the township fathers, but somebody is obligated to do some kind of background investigation …

In the case of the country club, it was never done in Medford. Sometimes townships do as little as a criminal history check which is very minimal. What should really be done is that the finances to purchase a facility should be looked into in depth, along with criminal background investigations and the interviewing of people that are going to buy into the liquor license so the township has a good feel for who’s getting a liquor license.

With the case — with Medford Village Country Club, the Township, unfortunately, didn’t do anything.

COMMISSIONER EVENCHICK: Did anyone ask any of the Township authorities why they did nothing? MR. HOEY: Well, I went there on an interview during the course of the investigation, and I was told by local authorities that they didn’t feel that it was their function to do that and they really, unfortunately, didn’t understand what ABC rules and regulations were all about. I don’t think they realized that, you know, they were supposed to do this as far as — you know, as far as a background investigation.

COMMISSIONER EVENCHICK: Were you satisfied with that explanation, sir? MR. HOEY: Well, I don’t think at the time I really — I wasn’t satisfied, no, or we weren’t satisfied but that’s what we were told.

2010
05.04
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.”

2010
05.03

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.”).

2010
05.02

MEMORIES

Philadelphia disc jockey Gerald “Jerry” Blavat is an organized crime sycophant who, despite his ne­farious associations, has been able to get and keep a liquor license in Margate, Atlantic County. In his disc jockey patter, Blavat calls himself “the Geator with the heater” and “the boss with the hot sauce.”

Blavat has openly associated with members of the Bruno/Scarfo family for two decades and, in fact, even served as a driver for Philadelphia crime boss Angelo Bruno on occasion. According to former mob capo Thomas DelGiorno, Blavat is a close friend of whoever happens to be the boss of the Bruno/Scarfo family at any given time.

Although he is generally unknown outside the Delaware Valley area, Blavat has wide contacts in the entertainment world. Because of these contacts, as well as his friends in organized crime, he can open many doors in various walks of life.

Since 1974, Blavat has been the owner of record of a restaurant and night club in Margate called Memories where he frequently performs his disc jockey show playing “oldies” records. He also appears at other clubs in southern New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The financial arrangements for his appearances at the three other New Jersey clubs violated ABC regulations because he received all or a portion of cover charges in cash as well as a percentage of liquor sales. Such funds were not recorded on the books of the licensees either as income or payments. While the licensees were disciplined by the ABC, Blavat himself was never cited because its regulations do not apply to enter­tainers.

Blavat has allowed Memories to be used as a regular meeting place and hangout for the Scarfo family, contrary to ABC regulations. According to Thomas DelGiorno, in 1984 he had been assigned by boss Nicodemo Scarfo to murder crime family mem­ber Salvatore Testa but was having trouble setting him up for the kill. DelGiorno testified that because Memories was the only place Testa visited regularly and appeared to be relaxed, he asked Scarfo if he could commit the murder there. But he said Scarfo told him not to do it. Scarfo told him, “ ‘I use that. I go in there all the time. I meet guys in there. I don’t want to ruin the joint.’ ”

In a statement submitted to the Commission at the public hearing, New Jersey State Police Superin­tendent Justin J. Dintino, a nationally recognized expert on organized crime, said of Blavat:

Blavat was an associate to, and a chauffeur for, the late Philadelphia crime boss Angelo Bruno. He has also been identified as an associate to Nicodemo Scarfo. Throughout has professional career, Blavat has openly associated with members and associates of the Bruno/Scarfo family, including John Martorano, the late Frankie “Flowers” D’Al­fonso, Joseph Merlino, Salvatore Merlino and Tyrone DeNittis.

Although Blavat has no criminal record, Com­mission Special Agent Grant F. Cuzzupe cited in detail his long association with organized crime figures, which has been extensively documented by surveillances of numerous law enforcement agencies over many years. This documentation leaves the Commission with no doubt that Blavat truly is con­nected to the Bruno/Scarfo crime family.

When subpoenaed to appear at a private Com­mission hearing, Blavat answered questions pertain­ing to his show business career and his licensed premises, Memories, but he invoked his Fifth Amend­ment privilege on questions regarding his organized crime affiliations. And when he appeared under subpoena at the public hearing, Blavat refused to answer all questions.

The testimony of Agent Cuzzupe established that Memories has been frequented by members and associates of the Bruno/Scarfo organized crime group, including Nicodemo Scarfo, Larry Merlino and Phillip Leonetti, and that the sons of Scarfo and Merlino were arrested on the premises “after a violent alter­cation.” DelGiorno confirmed that testimony:

Q. Did you ever go [to Memories]?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ever meet other members or associates of the Philadelphia family there?

A. We all hanged out there in the summer. We always went there, everybody, you know, everybody that had a place down the shore or everybody came down the shore. At one time during the weekend we’d stop over there to have a drink.

Q. Did you ever pay for your meals or drinks there?

A. No, not very often.

DelGiorno also described Blavat’s longstanding affiliation with the Bruno/Scarfo family and his close ties to its leaders:

Q. How long have you known [Blavat]?

A. I’ve known him a lot of years, off and on.

Q. Is Blavat an associate in the Philadelphia family?

A. Blavat was a friend of — started out from what I know of him — I met him when I was a kid. Then he surfaced again as a friend of Angelo Bruno’s, yes.

Q. Was he also a friend of Nicky Scarfo’s?

A. Later on, yeah, not at the — well he — he made — Blavat made friends as they came along. Like, if Angelo Bruno was the boss, he was Blavat’s friend. Scarfo was the boss, Phil Testa was the boss, he was Blavat’sfriend. Scarfo became the boss, he was Blavat’s friend. If one of these guys [point­ing to the members of the Commission] becomes the boss, he’ll be Blavat’s friend.

Later in his testimony, DelGiorno elaborated on Blavat’s lengthy history with the family:

Q. How far back does Blavat’s association with the Philadelphia mob go?

A. Like I said I — I know of it going back to when Angelo was living. He used to hang out with Angelo.

Q. Was Blavat Bruno’s driver at times?

A. Oh, yeah, drove him around a lot, you know.

Q. During when?

A. During the early and middle 70s and late 70s.

Sworn testimony in other forums from ex-Bruno/ Scarfo members Philip Leonetti and Larry Merlino help substantiate Blavat’s relationship with this group. Leonetti, who was the family underboss prior to his incarceration, stated that Blavat paid $500 per week to Scarfo from the proceeds of Memories in ex­change for protection from unionization. And Merlino confirmed that Local 54 of the bartenders union was kept out of Memories at Scarfo’s behest. DelGiorno corroborated Leonetti’s statements regarding the $500 tribute that Blavat paid to Scarfo.

In 1987, the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice filed a civil lawsuit against Blavat, alleging that he acted as a “front” in the purchase of the mentioned yacht for Nicodemo Scarfo. The suit alleged that proceeds generated by the Scarfo crime group’s criminal enterprises were used to purchase the vessel. During the public hearing, DelGiorno testified regarding the yacht purchase as well as Blavat’s bogus rental of Scarfo’s Florida home:

Q. Did Blavat assist Nicky Scarfo by acting as a front for him in the purchase of a yacht?

A. Yes, he did. He had —

Q. Let me ask you first, why did Scarfo select Blavat for that?

A. Well, he was the most legitimate-looking guy at the time from — you know, from a banker’s point of view and for that — you know, for the purpose of the loan he seemed the most legitimate-looking guy….

Q. And would you explain exactly how Blavat asisted Scarfo in the purchase?

A. Well, from the — from the understanding that I got from Scarfo, he just put the — went out and bought the boat and Scarfo gave him whatever down money that he needed and I think there was a mortgage on — mortgage of 800 or 850 a month and Jerry would write a check every month and pay that and Scarfo would reimburse him the money. I also think

and I’m not positive about this, but I think that he had told me one time that [Blavat] wrote that off on Memories as a — as a business deal….

Q. Did Blavat also assist Scarfo in a similar fashion with Scarfo’s purchase of a vacation home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida?

A. Yes…. This was explained to me by Scarfo and his attorney, Bob Simone, that Scarfo had purchased this home in Fort Lauderdale and the way that he did it was to put so much money down and then form a corporation that was supposed to be leasing this home to individuals as a vacation spot, and he had around three or four guys — that he had them sign a lease for like three or four months a year. I think that they were pre­tending that they were paying 3500 a month rent, and what they would do is come down to give Scarfo the 30 — well, they would give Scarfo a check for 3500 and he would reim­burse them by giving them the cash and Blavat was part of it.

Q. Do you recall who any of the others were?

A. One was Bobby Stone and two other guys. I think — I really don’t remember the other two names. I think he had four of them that were doing three months apiece.

Q. Did Blavat ever actually visit the Fort Lauderdale home to make it appear as though he was renting it?

A. Oh, yes, That’s — that’s why it’s — that’s how the story came about of how he ex­plained it to me that — I had been — it had been explained to me how he purchased the home but never with — who was actually, you know, pretending they were leasing it but one— one weekend we went down there and it was on a Sunday and we had — we were all in his house and Spiker or one of them was making spaghetti and meatballs, and he said that Blavat was coming and Blavat came into the place around ten o’clock or some­thing, ten-thirty that morning, eleven o’clock. He came in, said hello to everybody. He went over — he went, sat down with Scarfo for a little bit talking to him. He went and he ate a meatball sandwich, came back to the table and said good-bye, so when he was leaving I asked Nicky, I said, “Where is he going?” He said, “Back to Philly,” so I said, “Wait a minute. You mean to tell me this guy flew to Florida to eat a meatball sandwich?” He said, “No, no, no. He comes here be­cause he’s one of the guys that leases the house and he thinks that because he shows up that the surveillance will pick him up and if they ever ask him if he’s really leasing he could say ‘yeah’.”

Scarfo’s house and boat both have been repos­sessed by the bank. * * *

As an entertainer Blavat has used a variety of locations to generate cash through his corporation called “Celebrity Showcase.” In private hearing testimony, Blavat described this entity as the one “that handles Jerry Blavat, the entertainer. Celebrity Showcase is the corporation that books Jerry Blavat, and is paid, and then Celebrity Showcase pays Jerry Blavat a salary for his performance.”

But the benefits from these arrangements go beyond the simple collection of a paycheck. Blavat and his employees literally take over an establish­ment when he is there. To a large degree, he has been able to violate ABC regulations with impunity. For example, Blavat used now deceased Bruno/Scarfo soldier Samuel Scafidi as an overseer or floor man­ager during his shows at various locations. He also employed Scafidi’s son-in-law, John Hansen, as his head doorman. Because both men have criminal records, they are disqualified from working in li­censed premises.

The Commission’s investigation determined that Blavat was booked on a continuing basis in some southern New Jersey licensed establishments, in­cluding the Ivystone Inn, later called the Betsy Ross Inn in Pennsauken during the late 1970s and much of the 1980s; Bubba’s in Pennsville in January, 1986; and Degenhardt Caterers in Mt. Ephraim from 1987 through 1989. Blavat’s performances at the Betsy Ross Inn were purportedly arranged through Bruno/ Scarfo associates Tyrone DiNittis and Carl Botzenhardt.

At some of these locations, the program was billed as “Jerry Blavat’s Memories West.” The lounge area at Degenhardt’s was even remodeled after Memories in Margate. Blavat testified in private hearing that he was paid “X amount of dollars plus the door” for the use of his name, likeness and performance at these various establishments. Con­firming this, William Degenhardt, president of Degenhardt Caterers, testified that Blavat was paid $650 per night plus all proceeds from customer admission fees.

According to ABC Senior Inspector John Schmidt, who participated in surveillances as part of an Enforcement Bureau investigation of Degen­hardt’s from January, 1988, to March, 1989, Blavat and his employees ran the lounge portion of Degen­hardt’s and collected the proceeds from the cover charge. That revenue was not tallied in a cash register; nor was there any accounting for the amount of cash being collected. This money was turned over directly to Blavat, a practice that also violates ABC regulations. When Schmidt interviewed Blavat and Degenhardt, he asked what was done with these funds. Schmidt related their responses to the Com­mission:

Q. What statements did each of them make with respect to what was done with the mon­eys collected as the cover charge?

A. They both stated that the money collected as a cover charge was to go to Jerry Blavat, the entire amount. Mr. Blavat stated that he used that money to purchase advertising time from two Philadelphia radio stations and that was also what Bill Degenhardt stated that was told to him by Blavat.

Q. Do ABC regulations allow for money to be taken on licensed premises and not be processed through the licensee?

A. No, they don’t.

Schmidt verified through his investigation that Degenhardt’s was not maintaining true books of account pertaining to the cover charges. Blavat and Degenhardt admitted to Inspector Schmidt that they had agreed that Blavat would receive a percentage of liquor sales on nights that he appeared at the lounge, in violation of ABC regulations. He said:

It would make Jerry Blavat basically hold­ing a beneficial interest in that license and that his compensation was based on the amount of sales conducted. It was over and above any reasonable salary paid to an entertainer.

Blavat had a similar agreement in 1986 with Bubba’s, which is no longer open. The owner and licensee of Bubba’s, Joseph Rappa, Jr., testified before the Commission regarding Blavat’s appear­ances at the bar and the collection of a cover charge as well as the payment of a percentage of liquor sales.

These cash transactions enabled Blavat to under­report his earnings. At the public hearing, former Bruno/Scarfo capo Thomas DelGiorno asserted that Blavat boasted to him that this was exactly the case:

Q. Blavat charges an admission fee at the various lounges where he appeared in New Jersey and he also had a cover charge at Memories. Did he ever tell you what he did with that money?

A. Oh, one time I had — let me put it in perspective. One time we had talked to him about not just the admission fee at the door but the conversation was about his whole business in general, meaning these disc jockey shows, and he had told me that that’s where he makes most of his money. He sometimes or most of the time gives the door so much money, a little bit of money, and the door has this fee and that he only reported a very small portion of that — of that door at these

when he was the disc jockey and at Memories and at wherever he had the door. That’s how he made his money; that, you know, the money they didn’t have to show.

Did he tell you what he did with a salary that he would receive from one of the lounges when he received part by check and part by cash?

That’s what I meant; that the door would be part of the salary and — whatever he received by check was not — was a small percentage of what he made that night, is what I’m trying to get across. Let’s say it was 25 percent and the other 75 percent had come from the door or from whatever else the guy gave him under the table.

The ABC Enforcement Bureau investigation of Degenhardt’s Caterers resulted in charges against the license, some of which were related to the busi­ness arrangement with Blavat. Degenhardt’s was also cited for Blavat’s employment of Bruno/Scarfo soldier Sam Scafidi and John Hansen, both of whom were criminally disqualified. Commission surveil­lances at Degenhardt’s corroborated that both Scafidi and Hansen worked on the premises during Blavat’s appearances. According to testimony by Joseph Trymbiski, who worked at the Betsy Ross Inn during part of the time period Blavat had his show there, Blavat told him that Sam Scafidi was his “eyes and ears.” Blavat himself admitted during the private hearing that he was friendly with and employed Scafidi. Blavat described Scafidi’s role as follows:

He just was there — Sam Scafidi was an old guy that had — just an old nice guy that hung around. I got guys that come to the clubs and hang and follow Jerry Blavat for 25 years that just like to be a part of that, and Sam was one of those guys that was — he was like a second father.

Q. What work did he do for Celebrity Showcase?

A. Really, just watched out for my interest to make sure that nobody was doing anything, cheating or anything like that.

Q. Can you give me some concrete examples of that?

A. He just was around me, that’s all.

Q. Was he on the payroll of Celebrity Showcase?

A. I think he was, yes.

Q. Specifically, what were his duties?

A. He’d be at the club to watch, see what I was doing, and watch to see that there was no problems at the club.

Q. How much was he paid?

A. That you’d have to check with the book­keeper. I don’t want to give you the right price because I may be wrong. Celebrity Showcase, they would have that.

Q. Can you give us an example of a problem that he handled for you?

A. Well, he made sure that nobody was cheating, you know.

Q. Such as who?

A. Well, he’d watch out, he’d say to me — let me give you an example. If a club is in my name, Jerry Blavat’s Memories, even though I don’t own it, it’s got my name, and I want to make sure that because it’s my name, the people who come there are not — somebody is not cheating them with drinks and things like that, so he was almost like a friend and manager type who watched — he traveled with me. It was that simple.

Degenhardt’s made no attempt to obtain back­ground information on Blavat’s employees, accord­ing to Inspector Schmidt.

DelGiorno verified Sam Scafidi’s membership in the Bruno/Scarfo LCN. However, according to DelGiorno, Scafidi’s employment with Blavat as a doorman was at Scarfo’s direction rather than as a result of any lifelong friendship with Blavat.

Q. Do you know whether Blavat ever em­ployed any family members at either Memo­ries or any of the lounges where he ap­peared?

A. He had Sam Scafidi working for him awhile.

Q. And Scafidi was a made member?

A. Yes, he was. I think he was from the Vineland area.

Q. How did it come about that Blavat empl­oyed Scafidi?

A. Scarfo told him to employ him, give him a job, you know.

Q. What was Scafidi’s function for Blavat?

A. I think he was a doorman more or less, you know, collecting money at the door and,you know — they had a lot of kids that went into that bar, you know. If there way any trouble he’d break the fights up and stuff like that.

The strength of the ABC Enforcement Bureau’s case against Degenhardt’s resulted in a non vultplea and a $1,000 fine, a penalty Inspector Schmid said he considered light.

Just as a comparative example, another es­tablishment in the area, that business was— I would say it was considerably smaller and did considerably less business that Degen­hardt, was charged with one count of em­ploying a disqualified person along with a couple of other minor charges and they were fined approximately $8,000 eventually.

During the public hearing, Commissioner Barry

H. Evenchick asked Agent Cuzzupe if action had been taken by any governmental agency to revoke Jerry Blavat’s liquor license.

Q. Agent Cuzzupe, are you aware of whether any governmental agencies of our State have made efforts to revoke Mr. Blavat’s license as a result of the information about which you have testified today?

A. There has not been an effort at the local level. There have been investigations of Mr. Blavat in the past that resulted in penalties; however, the complete — the complete affili­ation that he has had with organized crime had not been addressed by any agency.

Subsequent to the ABC investigation, Blavat and Degenhardt’s terminated their business relationship by mutual agreement. Blavat, however, continues to own and operate Memories in Margate and perform his oldies show throughout the region. In fact, although the Commission’s public hearing was in February and Margate officials were sent detailed information about the hearing, the city nevertheless renewed Blavat’s liquor license on July 1.


About | Buy Print Edition at Amazon | Contact | Great Jersey City Stories! | Live | Return to the Main Menu | Send this Page