Rubeo in Big Big Trouble????

[mafiastudent]

Why didn't Capeci report on this last week? Much more interesting that the delusional Pennisi....

Here is the result of Oct 16

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard J. Sullivan: Revocation of Supervised Release - Interim Hearing as to John Rubeo held on 10/16/2020. VOSR conference held remotely via Skype for Business. Defense counsel Louis Fasulo present (by video) on behalf of Supervisee. Supervisee present (by video). AUSAs Max Nicholas and Lauren Potter present on behalf of the government (both by video). U.S. Probation Officer Gabriella Mitchell present (by telephone). Court reporter present (by telephone). The Court confirmed that Supervisee willingly and voluntarily waived his right to be physically present. The Court ordered probation to formally prepare a report on the specifications of Supervisee's violation of supervised release by Tuesday, October 20, 2020. The Court directed defense counsel to submit a letter by Monday, October 26, 2020 indicating how Supervisee wishes to proceed, including whether Supervisee wishes to conduct a remote or in-person hearing on the specifications. The Court directed the government to submit a response by Friday, October 30, 2020 indicating how the government wishes to proceed, including the government's availability for an in-person or remote proceeding. (bw) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

[mafiastudent]

Remember he said he got permission when he went on the show???? When he went on his tirade against Canarsie??? Here's a refresher. So, it makes you wonder, if this idiot is blatantly lying...how many more are as well??? Making up delusional stories? Maybe Rubeo and Pennisi are smoking on the same pipe???? LOL.

[chin_gigante]

When you refer to Pennisi as delusional are you referring to his belief that he was going to be killed?

[mafiastudent]

When you refer to Pennisi as delusional are you referring to his belief that he was going to be killed?

Yes on that count. In addition to the fact that he tried to kill himself while serving 17 years after killing someone out of a jealous rage which wasn't mob related. The insistence that his girlfriend was sleeping around with multiple men and his constant tracking of her. Yes, he has serious mental issues.

[chin_gigante]

When you refer to Pennisi as delusional are you referring to his belief that he was going to be killed?

Yes on that count. In addition to the fact that he tried to kill himself while serving 17 years after killing someone out of a jealous rage which wasn't mob related. The insistence that his girlfriend was sleeping around with multiple men and his constant tracking of her. Yes, he has serious mental issues.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and I’ve looked at your posts on him, would it be accurate to summarise your stance on him as follows (if there’s anything I’ve left out or mischaracterized then absolutely feel free to correct me):

• Firstly, you take issue with his previous criminal record and his history of domestic abuse (for the record I personally agree with you on this stance)

• Secondly, you take issue with his testimony at the Madonna/ Crea/ Londonio/ Caldwell trial, interpreting his statements as contradictory and unreliable on the following subjects:
  -The way in which he met and was introduced to Madonna, Crea and Londonio
  -Testifying about things he was told about Madonna, Crea and Londonio by others, including about the dispute with Bonanno figures at a Luchese social club (which, to me, seems like more of an issue to take up with the prosecution – and the judge for allowing it – rather than Pennisi himself)
  -The relevance of his testimony to the charges against the above three, particularly Crea (which again, to me, seems like more of an issue with the prosecution and judge)
  -The truthfulness of his testimony about being proposed and inducted and the situations surrounding those events
  -Whether his well-being was legitimately in peril or whether it was a figment of his imagination (with the same going for his girlfriend and Eugene Castelle)
  -Whether in being prepped as a witness he was fed information to repeat on the stand by the prosecution

• Thirdly, you take issue with his subsequent statements on Cosa Nostra News, Gang Land News and Sit Down News, in the same way that others have stated their belief that he is exaggerating or changing his story

And, to be clear, I’m asking specifically about your thoughts on Pennisi in this instance (rather than your stance on the case against Crea as a whole). While conceding to you on the first point about his prior behaviour, having recently re-read Pennisi’s testimony (which I will again thank you for graciously uploading to the forum) I would have to respectfully disagree with you on your stance on the second and third points (if the way in which I have laid them out does in fact accurately capture your stance).

[mafiastudent]

When you refer to Pennisi as delusional are you referring to his belief that he was going to be killed?

Yes on that count. In addition to the fact that he tried to kill himself while serving 17 years after killing someone out of a jealous rage which wasn't mob related. The insistence that his girlfriend was sleeping around with multiple men and his constant tracking of her. Yes, he has serious mental issues.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and I’ve looked at your posts on him, would it be accurate to summarise your stance on him as follows (if there’s anything I’ve left out or mischaracterized then absolutely feel free to correct me):

• Firstly, you take issue with his previous criminal record and his history of domestic abuse (for the record I personally agree with you on this stance)

• Secondly, you take issue with his testimony at the Madonna/ Crea/ Londonio/ Caldwell trial, interpreting his statements as contradictory and unreliable on the following subjects:
  -The way in which he met and was introduced to Madonna, Crea and Londonio
  -Testifying about things he was told about Madonna, Crea and Londonio by others, including about the dispute with Bonanno figures at a Luchese social club (which, to me, seems like more of an issue to take up with the prosecution – and the judge for allowing it – rather than Pennisi himself)
  -The relevance of his testimony to the charges against the above three, particularly Crea (which again, to me, seems like more of an issue with the prosecution and judge)
  -The truthfulness of his testimony about being proposed and inducted and the situations surrounding those events
  -Whether his well-being was legitimately in peril or whether it was a figment of his imagination (with the same going for his girlfriend and Eugene Castelle)
  -Whether in being prepped as a witness he was fed information to repeat on the stand by the prosecution

• Thirdly, you take issue with his subsequent statements on Cosa Nostra News, Gang Land News and Sit Down News, in the same way that others have stated their belief that he is exaggerating or changing his story

And, to be clear, I’m asking specifically about your thoughts on Pennisi in this instance (rather than your stance on the case against Crea as a whole). While conceding to you on the first point about his prior behaviour, having recently re-read Pennisi’s testimony (which I will again thank you for graciously uploading to the forum) I would have to respectfully disagree with you on your stance on the second and third points (if the way in which I have laid them out does in fact accurately capture your stance).

I don't believe his testimony or most of it at Crea's trial. Yes. It's just too convenient is the best word I can use especially with his detailed recollection of his making ceremony. He remembers the streets plus the fact that how he described it is the exact same description the cop who testified on the first day (I forget his name) described it.

And yes I believe, he like most informants, is grossly exaggerating his stories.

People can believe whatever they want. The purpose of the post was to share information about Rubeo. Another upstanding government informant. Pennisi is just an aside.

[Amershire_Ed]

Rubeo said he did a bunch of business with Crea during his interview with Gene and John. He didn’t specify but I’m guessing it was coke.

[chin_gigante]

[...]

I don’t want to distract from the thread further, so I’ll make what I have to say as concise as possible when it comes to why I disagree with your analysis of Pennisi’s testimony. (For the sake of reference, I’ll be referring to the points you make here: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=6207&p=151988&hili ... si#p151988)

Whether or not Pennisi lying in his testimony in 1990 affects his truthfulness in the 2019 trial

Obviously, Pennisi was a defendant in 1990 and lied to protect his own interest. As a witness with a cooperation deal in 2019, it would be in his best interest to tell the truth. This alone therefore cannot evaluate Pennisi’s truthfulness, so I have to address the other points.

Meetings and introductions

Pennisi testifies that he first meets Madonna, Crea and DiNapoli at the social club after he had been put on record with DiBenedetto. He says that this first meeting was informal as he was not a member of the family:

Q. And you said you were introduced to people. Who do you remember meeting that day?
A. I met, I met -- like I said, I met the administration and whoever else was, was there.
Q. No. I'm asking you if you met them. You weren't introduced in the sense you talked about before, were you?
A. No.
Q. And why, why is that?
A. I wasn't, I wasn't a member of the Family.
Q. And after you met, in the informal sense, everyone there, what did you do?
A. What did I do?
Q. What did you do? Did you stand around? Did you get something to eat? What did you do?
A. We were just talking, and then eventually I think we ate.
Q. Where did you sit?
A. At, at the table that they were sitting at.
Q. And can you describe the conversation in general terms?
A. It was just friendly talk. It was, you know, not -- talk about prison or whatever.

When he was inducted, he was formally introduced to Madonna and DiNapoli and told their ranks. Crea was not at this ceremony so, instead, Pennisi was formally introduced to Crea later at the club:

Q. Were you also introduced to Stevie Crea?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall who it was who introduced you to Stevie Crea?
A. It could have been one of two people. I don't, I don't exactly remember which one.
Q. Do you remember where you were introduced to Stevie Crea?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you introduced to him?
A. At the club in the Bronx.
Q. And I'll ask you more about the club in the Bronx in a minute. What was said when you were introduced to Stevie Crea? What was said?
A. How did –
Q. Yeah.
A. Like I said, I don't know -- it was one of two people who, who, who introduced us. They said, "This is Stevie. He's the official Underboss of the Family. And this is John. Amica nostra."

However, you write this: “So, the first time he meets ‘Stevie,’ this nobody is told Crea’s supposed position in the Family?”

In effect, you argue that Pennisi has told an unreliable story that, as an associate, he was formally introduced to Crea and told he was the official underboss of the family. However, from reading the testimony it’s clear that Pennisi is referring not to the first time he met him but to the time he was formally introduced to him as a member at the club following his induction.

Looking at the introduction to Londonio, here’s what’s in the testimony:

Q. And then, finally, when you were introduced to Chris, was anything said about Chris's position? Was he introduced as a boss or an underboss or anything like that?
A. He was not.
Q. So, what does that mean?
A. He was a soldier.
Q. What was your rank at the time?
A. Soldier.

Now this comes literally right after he discusses his formal introduction as an LCN member to Crea and clearly means that he was told Londonio was either “a friend of ours” or “amica nostra” but without a specific rank mentioned. However, you ignore that context to mischaracterise the testimony this way: “Pennisi never says he was introduced to ‘Chris’ as a ‘soldier’ but he could infer that was Londonio’s position because he wasn’t identified ‘as a boss or underboss or anything like that.’ How does he know he wasn’t an ‘associate’?”

You then repeat this misinterpretation of the testimony and the order of events quite explicitly:

“The problem with his testimony is that he says he met all of the administration and a whole bunch of other people at the club, but wasn’t introduced to them formally, because he wasn’t yet a made member. But, yet, he still met all of the supposed important people anyway, complete with full names and alleged titles. Also, he testified when he met Madonna, he had been inducted, but then said it wasn’t the first time he had met him because he met him initially at the Coddington Club. He was also introduced to Londonio, but apparently that wasn’t at the Coddington Club, either, but at a wake.”

Pennisi is put on record with DiBenedetto. DiBenedetto and Castellucci take him to the club where he informally meets Madonna, DiNapoli and Crea. Later, he is inducted and formally introduced to Madonna and DiNapoli at the ceremony. Then, he is formally introduced to Crea at the club. That is what comes across quite clearly in the testimony, not your misinterpretation of the timeline.

This is the first example of several I will cite in which you misinterpret the testimony and, as a result, create artificial inconsistencies that damage Pennisi’s reliability. Is it unbelievable for a newly minted associate to be introduced to Crea as the underboss? Yes. Is it unbelievable for a newly inducted soldier to be introduced to Crea as the underboss? Not at all.

Discussing criminal activity at the club

Pennisi testifies that he did not discuss criminal activity and did "not really" hear others discussing it at the club because they were leary of recording devices. You quote this section of the testimony and then write this:

“Pennisi was at the club quite often, knew everything about it, and why people were there, but isn’t it strange that in all that time, he never talked or heard anyone else ever discuss any criminal activities? So, was he just a hanger-on who had some special magical quality that all the supposed important people always wanted him around?”

You acknowledge Pennisi’s reasons for not discussing or really hearing any discussions about criminal activity the club but then ignore it, mischaracterising the lack of criminal discussion as evidence that he was not an active member of the enterprise in order to undermine the rest of his testimony.

Pennisi then expands on his statements in cross examination:

Q. And you’ve also testified that, as a result of that, when people want to discuss business, they walk outside and talk outside and then they come back?
A. Usually.
Q. That’s what I’m referring to.
A. Usually. Sometimes there were conversations that were — that went on, and sometimes there wasn’t. Sometimes people went outside.
Q. Did you speak with other people in the Family generally about where to talk about things and where not to talk about things?
A. Um, not, not really. We used to kid around about it. Don’t talk too loud in here, or whatever.
Q. And did you ever discuss why not to talk in there?
A. I mean, it was common knowledge why we wouldn’t talk in there.
Q. Is the reason why you didn’t talk in there because you were worried about law enforcement listening?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Did you have a solution for that if you wanted to talk business?
A. We would go outside if we had to talk.

This backs up his previous statement but instead you interpreted it as an inconsistency. When he was first asked whether people spoke in the club he said, “Not really”, and on cross he says, “Sometimes”. Different, yes, but inconsistency is a bit of a stretch. “Not really” is not a definitive no.

The incident with the Bonannos and hearsay

Pennisi testifies about what he was told by others about the incident with the Bonannos at the club. Pennisi describes these people as inducted members of the Luchese family but he is never asked who they specifically are. You and the defence argue this is hearsay. What I’m interested in isn’t whether or not it is hearsay but whether it reflects on his reliability. He was an inducted member of the family and was told things by other members of the family. The fact that they were not named in court seems to me to be more of an issue with the prosecutors and the judge rather than with Pennisi. You also argue the relevance of this testimony and, again, I’d say this is more an issue with the prosecutors and the judge than with Pennisi.

How Pennisi became straightened out

This is what Pennisi says about the meeting he had with the Lucheses after the dispute with Ralph Balsamo:

A. I believe it was the next day I was told I had to go to the Bronx, to the club.
Q. By who? Who told you?
A. Little Joey.
Q. And what did Joe DiBenedetto do at that time? Did he go too?
A. Yeah, he took me there.
Q. And what happened when you and DiBenedetto got to the club in the Bronx?
A. He, he told me that we had to explain what happened, and he wanted me to explain what happened.
Q. Did, did DiBenedetto say why he wanted you to explain?
A. He said he wasn't a good talker, and he just -- he -- and he -- Little Joey was inside the club at the time that all of this took place outside. He wasn't there. And he didn't know what I just told you. He wasn't part of that. So, he wanted me to explain that.
Q. And who did you end up explaining to at the club?
A. There was a group of -- the administration was at the club. A group of guys also with them.
Q. Well, go ahead and give the names, as best you remember.
A. Matty, Stevie, Joe DiNapoli, Richie. Big John was there, myself, Freddy Boy –
[…]
Q. Okay. Did you, in fact, explain what had happened to this group?
A. I did.
Q. And did the group say anything to you?
A. Occasionally, they would ask a question.
Q. Other than that, did you receive any information from the group?
A. Yes.
Q. Who told you what?
A. Stevie said who Ralphie and the other guy was.
[…]
Q. What did he say when he said who Ralphie and the other guy was?
A. They were with the West Side.
Q. And did Stevie say anything further?
A. He said that Ralphie said I misrepresented myself.
Q. What did you understand misrepresented to mean?
A. That he was trying to say that I was talking like I was a wise guy when I was not.
[…]
Q. Did Crea say anything about whether this would be a problem? Did Stevie say anything about whether this would be a problem?
A. They, they didn't feel that I misrepresented myself. And they -- he said that he also told Ralphie that my name was on a list to be straightened out, so I could talk to him any way I wanted to talk to him.
Q. So, couple things there. What does straightened out mean?
A. Inducted into the Family.
Q. And what does on the list mean?
A. When a person is gonna be inducted into the Family, his name is put on the list, and it's passed around within that Family and then to the other Families.
Q. And, so, what did you understand him to mean when Stevie said you could speak to Balsamo however you wanted because you were on the list to get inducted?
A. That's not the way he said it. He, he said, even if this Ralphie was, was, was telling the truth, that I spoke like that, I could speak like that. But he didn't believe that I spoke like that either, from what I, what I explained happened.
Q. And was there going to be -- did he say anything about future interactions with the Genovese Family?
A. We were told we couldn't retaliate.
Q. Did Stevie say why?
A. He says it was settled.

You characterise that testimony like so:

“So, wait a minute? First, Pennisi was admonished for misrepresenting himself but then, at the same time, it was okay what he did because he was on a list to be ‘straightened out?’ And why wasn’t there a ‘sit-down?’ Isn’t that part of ‘Mafia legend’ when there’s a problem between two Families?”

First of all, Pennisi was not admonished by the Lucheses for misrepresenting himself, so that’s another fabricated inconsistency to make him look unreliable. Secondly, it seems clear from his final comment that the situation "was settled" that the Lucheses and Genoveses had resolved the situation at a sit down or some other meeting, but Pennisi himself was simply not at that meeting and not informed about the result of it until after the fact.

In the lead up to Pennisi being inducted he was phoned by Anthony Guzzo to ask his mother’s maiden name to ensure that he was fully Italian. You characterise this testimony in this way:

“If his name was already on a list, why would Guzzo need to call him to ask for his mother’s maiden name? Wouldn’t ‘the administration’ have wanted to know that before he was put on that special ‘list?’ And if Pennisi was ‘on record’ with Joey DiBenedetto, why was Guzzo calling him for that information? Why not his ‘sponsor’ or Crea or Madonna, for that matter, since he had such a great relationship with everyone already?”

The entire point of being proposed for membership is that the family can do a background check to make sure the guys are eligible and that no-one has a problem with them. Personally, arguing whether they should have checked his mother’s maiden name beforehand comes across as clutching at straws in another attempt to discredit him. Considering that Guzzo was also a proposed member from the Castellucci crew it is not beyond the realm of imagination that Guzzo was checking on behalf of DiBenedetto and Castellucci. Also, I know the point about Crea or Madonna checking with him is a facetious remark, but it is not difficult to understand why the underboss and acting boss of a family did not personally talk to Pennisi over the phone to discuss his mother’s maiden name.

You then proceed to say that the amount of detail Pennisi provided about his induction ceremony makes you suspicious and that there are details that sound too close to previous testimony from an FBI agent and general understandings of LCN ceremonies in popular culture. As I do not have access to the testimony of the FBI agent, I cannot attest to its similarity to Pennisi’s story, though I will say that similarity is not plagiarism. The fact that Pennisi’s ceremony is in line with what we’ve heard before makes it more credible rather than less credible (also, add all of the unique details he provided, e.g., the route, and it makes it clear he’s not just copying something he saw on television).

Pennisi also testifies that "John Brody" was at the ceremony, and the prosecutor asks if that was a nickname (as it has previously been established that one needs to be Italian to be inducted). You then say, “Scotten was a bit confused about John Brody and asked for clarification. He wanted to know if that was ‘his nickname’ and whether ‘John Brody was, in fact, Italian.’ He was – have to keep that ‘Mafia’ image going.”

What Scotten did was ask Pennisi to clarify Brody’s heritage. This cleared up a potential inconsistency. On the subject of inconsistencies, you then talk about who introduced Pennisi to Crea, alleging that he initially said he could not remember who introduced them but then suddenly could:

“If you recall, Pennisi couldn’t remember who had first introduced him to Crea. But now we know. And isn’t it strange that he previously testified that he had already been told ‘Stevie’s’ alleged position? I get that it’s a ‘making ceremony’ and that’s a different kind of introduction, but nothing like the government hammering it home for the jury.

I have already debunked the point about introductions and Crea’s position, but here is what Pennisi says in the testimony about who formally introduced him to Crea:

Q. Were you also introduced to Stevie Crea?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall who it was who introduced you to Stevie 22 Crea?
A. It could have been one of two people. I don't, I don't exactly remember which one.

He later says:

Q. And you said earlier, when you were introduced to him in the formal sense, it was either one of two people. Who was it who introduced you to Stevie Crea?
A. It was either Big John or Johnny Side Burns. I don’t remember which one.
Q. And when they did introduce you, did they state his position?
A. Yes.
Q. And what position did they state?
A. Underboss.

Once again, there is no inconsistency here. He first said he could not remember which of the two introduced him. He did not say that he could not remember who the two were.

Pennisi’s belief that there was a contract on his life

You write:

“In October 2018, Pennisi’s shining star started to dim – at least that’s what he thought. When he was at a wake, everyone he had previously been chummy with was ignoring him. He got paranoid and thought he might be in some trouble. Why? He wasn’t sure but thought maybe people were suspicious of him because some guy had lifted up his shirt to signify he had ‘no wire’ which gave Pennisi the impression people were thinking he was a rat. So, he took off to Georgia and went into hiding for a bit before going back to New York to walk up the stairs into the FBI’s big building in the Manhattan sky. And since Pennisi had all of this knowledge about the Lucchese Family and because all of these people he knew so much about were recently indicted, the FBI scooped up their new prize. On May 14, 2019, he signed a cooperation agreement, and soon after testified in another trial associated with alleged ‘members’ of the Lucchese Family. That particular trial might have had more to do with him visiting the FBI than his paranoia about people thinking he was a rat. He also believed his girlfriend at the time was seeing another guy – Eugene Castelle – but it was just another Pennisi delusion.”

You have no way of knowing whether or not there was a contract on Pennisi’s life. You have no way of knowing whether his girlfriend was seeing Eugene Castelle. I have no way of knowing. But writing them off as “delusions” without a shred of proof is incredible hasty, especially when considering how the above attempts to discredit Pennisi’s testimony have been extreme misinterpretations and mischaracterisations.

You imply Pennisi testified that Vic Amuso had the ability to take Bonanno member John Spirito off the shelf, writing, “So, the alleged ‘boss’ of one Family can put an alleged ‘soldier’ of another Family on the shelf? That’s something new.”

Pennisi in fact does not say that and when asked about it clearly states that he does not know:

Q. Well, did he take Johnny Joe Spirito off the shelf?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did Amuso take Johnny Joe Spirito off the shelf?
A. I don’t know if he took him off the shelf. I don’t know.
Q. And he didn’t — you didn’t — withdrawn. He didn’t send a note to take Johnny Joe Spirito off the shelf?
A. I just said I didn’t know that he did that.

You point out that Pennisi admitted he had been in preparation sessions before taking the stand. It is incredibly common for witnesses to be prepared before taking the stand. But preparation is not the same as being coached.

You write about a woman who worked at the social club being called by the defence and testifying that she did not recognise a photograph of Pennisi. This is the word of one defence against another. This is the only piece of actual evidence that contradicts anything Pennisi testified about. It’s also not hard to imagine why she might not be telling the truth.

Additional details in later interviews

As far as I can tell nothing Pennisi has said since his testimony has contradicted anything he said in it. Does he big himself up somewhat with the “the guys around me weren’t really tough guys” schtick? Yes. Does that make him an unreliable witness? No. On the subject of more details coming out, I think Pogo said it best, “A lot of thing are brought it in 302s or subsequent interviews that never come up in trial testimony. It is nothing new.”

Until we get those 302s or subsequent interviews, I won’t say one way or the other. So far, I see no reason to discredit him.

[mafiastudent]

I don't know exactly what your fascination is with Pennisi and why you're writing novel-sized analysis of my viewpoints, but have at it. Is he a friend of yours?

[Flushing]

Question: what "club" was the Luchesse club?

The Coddington Club was a Bonanno joint which once refused entry to Steve Crea.

[JohnnyS]

Question: what "club" was the Luchesse club?

The Coddington Club was a Bonanno joint which once refused entry to Steve Crea.

Coddington was a Lucchese club and where the confrontation with the Bonannos took place.

[chin_gigante]

I don't know exactly what your fascination is with Pennisi and why you're writing novel-sized analysis of my viewpoints, but have at it. Is he a friend of yours?

As much as I want to ignore that last remark I will say I have no relationship with Pennisi, any other wiseguy or for that matter anyone who has a relationship with a wiseguy. I have no personal stake in whether John Pennisi is credible. My issue comes from my frustration with your quite wild and obtuse misinterpretations of the testimony to force it to fit with your wider narrative about the Crea case. If your aim was to illustrate that Pennisi was an unreliable witness, I would argue you simply did a very poor job of it

[mafiastudent]

I don't know exactly what your fascination is with Pennisi and why you're writing novel-sized analysis of my viewpoints, but have at it. Is he a friend of yours?

As much as I want to ignore that last remark I will say I have no relationship with Pennisi, any other wiseguy or for that matter anyone who has a relationship with a wiseguy. I have no personal stake in whether John Pennisi is credible. My issue comes from my frustration with your quite wild and obtuse misinterpretations of the testimony to force it to fit with your wider narrative about the Crea case. If your aim was to illustrate that Pennisi was an unreliable witness, I would argue you simply did a very poor job of it

Well, Chin, when I get a chance to devote some time to your quite lengthy analysis of my Pennisi "interpretation"...I will do so. There was nothing that I wrote to "fit" any narrative. However, at the moment, I have a website to run and a new podcast to record/edit. Plus, the fact that I'm kind of digging into Rubeo and his lies right now....but I'll get back to you and Pennisi and who knows maybe I'll find some more background on the delusional Pennisi to share.

[SonnyBlackstein]

I don't know exactly what your fascination is with Pennisi and why you're writing novel-sized analysis of my viewpoints, but have at it. Is he a friend of yours?

Are you serious?
HIS fascination with Pennisi? CHIN writing ‘novel-sized analysis’?
Are you even remotely aware of your ridiculous hypocrisy?


Owned.

[mafiastudent]

I don't know exactly what your fascination is with Pennisi and why you're writing novel-sized analysis of my viewpoints, but have at it. Is he a friend of yours?

Are you serious?
HIS fascination with Pennisi? CHIN writing ‘novel-sized analysis’?
Are you even remotely aware of your ridiculous hypocrisy?


Owned.

I love when you boys stick together. It makes me feel special.