Frank Locascio Evidentiary Hearing.

[Confederate]

RICO definition if you google it:
"Under RICO, A person who has committed at least two acts of Racketeering activity drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal & 8 state) within a 10 year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specific ways to an "Enterprise". Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 & sentenced to 20 years in prison PER racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill gotten gains & interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity".

Very powerful tool for the Prosecution & covers a large range of circumstances.

The RICO law is a very questionable law where many issues have been raised because it can also be used in other cases other than OC. There is much documented evidence of the government abusing the RICO in civil cases and elsewhere. And it has been written about by judges and lawyers alike about the constitutionality of it.

And as you stated, the fact that the law gives them solo much leeway to basically try to convict on whatever they feel like, is obviously something that should be looked at as a matter of Constitutionality.

1). Where is the documented evidence that RICO was abused in a Civil Case? A Liberal "Soft On Crime Judge" can write about a lot of stuff that won't change anything.

2). The RICO Act is used to convict a pattern of Racketeering, not anything else. It has a broad range because Racketeering Enterprises are complicated Conspiracies that involve several elements. if you eliminated the Rico Act & you eliminated Informants from testifying who can be rigorously cross examined by tough Defense Lawyers anyway, then you might as well just make Organized Crime legal & nobody would ever get convicted of anything according to your philosophy. Organized Crime would run the whole Country untouched.

All you have to do is a google search on RICO civil cases abuse and there will be a ton of scholarly articles. And before you start characterizing any judge that speaks out about RICO as liberal, perhaps you should check your facts first. You're basing thing on assumptions without facts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavl ... 7b361f2421

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/busi ... -rico.html

I did a little legwork for you using the terms I suggested...these are the first two articles that popped up...but dig a little deeper and you can the find the scholarly articles I mentioned.

I don't have an opinion about RICO being used in Civil Case. I would have to research it more. I just was asking a question since you mentioned it.

RICO should CERTAINLY be used in Criminal Cases. That's really all you're talking about anyway. Correct? All the Mafia Guys that you think were wrongfully convicted are CRIMINAL Cases. So, for the sake of argument, let's stick to CRIMINAL Cases.

Are you saying that the Rico Act in Criminal Cases should be eliminated? Yes or No.
Are you saying that no Informants should be allowed to testify under Oath in any Criminal Case? Yes or No.

[mafiastudent]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what you said:

1). Where is the documented evidence that RICO was abused in a Civil Case? A Liberal "Soft On Crime Judge" can write about a lot of stuff that won't change anything.

I answered your question. Now, you want to twist things. I don't have time for that kind of BS.

[Confederate]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what you said:

1). Where is the documented evidence that RICO was abused in a Civil Case? A Liberal "Soft On Crime Judge" can write about a lot of stuff that won't change anything.

I answered your question. Now, you want to twist things. I don't have time for that kind of BS.

Okay, you gave your opinion about RICO in Civil. Fine, I said I have no opinion on it right now. I have to research it more.

Let's talk about RICO in Criminal cases. Everything you talk about is a Criminal Case, correct? There is no need to get angry about it.
So, I'm asking you a very simple question, What the problem??
1). Do you think RICO should be eliminated in CRIMINAL cases? Yes or No?
2). Do you think Informants should be allowed to testify under oath in a Criminal Case? Yes or No?

[mafiastudent]

I do believe that this statement could be considered an opinion:

A Liberal "Soft On Crime Judge" can write about a lot of stuff that won't change anything.

Secondly, if you "have to research it more" then why make the assumptions you did in that original post? Wouldn't you want to have your facts straight first before speaking on something for which you have no knowledge?

[Confederate]

I do believe that this statement could be considered an opinion:

A Liberal "Soft On Crime Judge" can write about a lot of stuff that won't change anything.

Secondly, if you "have to research it more" then why make the assumptions you did in that original post? Wouldn't you want to have your facts straight first before speaking on something for which you have no knowledge?

I don't care about the Civil part of RICO right now. It has NOTHING to do with the Criminal part. My statement was made IN GENERAL about liberal judges giving their opinion about laws all the time. They did it to Trump on his Executive Orders. LOL

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just asking those two questions about the RICO ACT in "Criminal Cases" & about "Informants testifying".
I just want to know what your opinion is about those two questions I asked you. That's all.

[mafiastudent]

RICO is a draconian law that should be eliminated in every case. If you have evidence use the evidence without having to use RICO as a way to convict a defendant or bring charges against that defendant. I'm sure you know this, but it was a law that was dusted off by Rudy Giuliani during the Commission Trial of the 80s. Before that, I believe (not completely positive), it was rarely used.

Informants can testify but their honesty and reliability as has been documented time and again is suspect. Perhaps a change in paying informants to testify whether in cash, incentives, or a reduction in sentencing is a way to combat this. Not sure on how that can work. But when prosecutors use informants such as Spinelli (in the Crea case) who has an obvious vendetta - he became an informant to "get back at Matty) - that's a serious issue. And with everything he was paid and the crimes he committed while he was an informant and while he was prepping to testify in Crea's trial and while he was on the stand - lying - and for the government to turn the other cheek and lie themselves - it lends to the credibility of government informants overall. Zoccolillo is another prime example.

[mafiastudent]

*lack of credibility

[Confederate]

RICO is a draconian law that should be eliminated in every case. If you have evidence use the evidence without having to use RICO as a way to convict a defendant or bring charges against that defendant. I'm sure you know this, but it was a law that was dusted off by Rudy Giuliani during the Commission Trial of the 80s. Before that, I believe (not completely positive), it was rarely used.

Informants can testify but their honesty and reliability as has been documented time and again is suspect. Perhaps a change in paying informants to testify whether in cash, incentives, or a reduction in sentencing is a way to combat this. Not sure on how that can work. But when prosecutors use informants such as Spinelli (in the Crea case) who has an obvious vendetta - he became an informant to "get back at Matty) - that's a serious issue. And with everything he was paid and the crimes he committed while he was an informant and while he was prepping to testify in Crea's trial and while he was on the stand - lying - and for the government to turn the other cheek and lie themselves - it lends to the credibility of government informants overall. Zoccolillo is another prime example.

1). RICO is a great statute to use in Criminal cases. It should absolutely never be eliminated.
2). Informants should absolutely be used to testify in Criminal Cases. Without them, hardly anyone would ever be convicted. The Informant can also be cross examined by the defense. The Informant is told that if he lies about anything, his deal is null & void. The Informant testifies under oath & penalty of perjury. The Informant is vigorously cross examined by the tough Defense Attorneys. After all of that, if the defenddant is still found guilty in Court by 12 jurors of his peers, then that's all you can do. End of Story.

If you were to eliminate everything stated, you might as well just make O.C. Legal.

We will agree to disagree & that's the end of it. Good luck with your crusade for justice. However, don't forget all the victims & their families who suffered because of the crimes committed against them by your criminals.

[Pete]

So this seems to be heating up some....After Gleeson and the government filed their opposition...Locascio's attorneys shot back last week Wednesday....and say.......that Gravano is willing to come in and testify about all of this....This was a declaration attached to the 32-page motion in response to the government on 5/20.

So at the end of the document is Locascio's conclusion:

CONCLUSION
Mr. LoCascio is innocent of murdering Louis DiBono in order to maintain his
role in the Gambino family, a crime for which Mr. LoCascio is serving a life
sentence. The Court should hold an evidentiary hearing at which Gravano, the
government’s star witness in the case, can testify about new evidence that the jury
never heard. That record would permit this Court to evaluate Mr. LoCascio’s claims,
which if proven, would clearly entitle him to habeas relief.


The FBI is about to be EXPOSED....So it makes me wonder, if Gravano didn't testify truthfully about all he did to put all those 32+ guys away like he did....does that mean that alllll of those cases should be reopened, even the ones for the guys who already served their time?

I'm sure that the judge's response will come this week....interesting indeed.

I think that’s what the government is worried about opening a can of worms where sammys cases will try to be reopened. But according to Sammy he never testified locascio was guilty of that crime from the get go. I think he said the feds didn’t ask him about that on the stand because they knew he would say locascio had nothing to do with it. The feds used the tapes saying locascio was discussing the hit so he was guilty and the jury bought it. Of course the feds left out the other parts of the tape that showed he was not guilty of that particular crime. I think the vast majority of the mobsters convicted are guilty but I agree with you on this one and Crea/Madonna.

[Pete]

RICO is a draconian law that should be eliminated in every case. If you have evidence use the evidence without having to use RICO as a way to convict a defendant or bring charges against that defendant. I'm sure you know this, but it was a law that was dusted off by Rudy Giuliani during the Commission Trial of the 80s. Before that, I believe (not completely positive), it was rarely used.

Informants can testify but their honesty and reliability as has been documented time and again is suspect. Perhaps a change in paying informants to testify whether in cash, incentives, or a reduction in sentencing is a way to combat this. Not sure on how that can work. But when prosecutors use informants such as Spinelli (in the Crea case) who has an obvious vendetta - he became an informant to "get back at Matty) - that's a serious issue. And with everything he was paid and the crimes he committed while he was an informant and while he was prepping to testify in Crea's trial and while he was on the stand - lying - and for the government to turn the other cheek and lie themselves - it lends to the credibility of government informants overall. Zoccolillo is another prime example.

1). RICO is a great statute to use in Criminal cases. It should absolutely never be eliminated.
2). Informants should absolutely be used to testify in Criminal Cases. Without them, hardly anyone would ever be convicted. The Informant can also be cross examined by the defense. The Informant is told that if he lies about anything, his deal is null & void. The Informant testifies under oath & penalty of perjury. The Informant is vigorously cross examined by the tough Defense Attorneys. After all of that, if the defenddant is still found guilty in Court by 12 jurors of his peers, then that's all you can do. End of Story.

If you were to eliminate everything stated, you might as well just make O.C. Legal.

We will agree to disagree & that's the end of it. Good luck with your crusade for justice. However, don't forget all the victims & their families who suffered because of the crimes committed against them by your criminals.

Agreed about very few cases would be made without informants. As John gotti said himself without rats and pleas the prisons would
Be empty

[Pogo The Clown]

LoCascio is guilty as hell. It's a laugh riot trying to portray him as some wrongly convicted innocent man but I guess it par for the course now.


Pogo

[mafiastudent]

LoCascio is guilty as hell. It's a laugh riot trying to portray him as some wrongly convicted innocent man but I guess it par for the course now.


Pogo

Thanks for your quality contribution. Gold star.

[Pogo The Clown]

Yeah sorry to burst your fantasy bubble. But here is my contribution.


The Gambino family is a wholly criminal organization that regularly commits murder as part of its very existence. When the head of that criminal organization is talking to his number 2 man about the criminal activities of their organization including a murder that their criminal organization is going to commit than LoCascio is just as guilty of that murder as Gotti. It is irrelevant that said number 2 may not have uttered a word at that very moment. His guilt is implicit by his membership and position of authority in said criminal organization and his presence when the murder plot is being formulated.


And this is not even getting into all the other murders LoCascio has no doubt taken part in his 40 years of LCN involvement. Including his 3 years in the administration of the Gambino family when, what, at least half a dozen murders were committed by the organization he was a leader in. But yeah poor baby that he is in prison. It is an injustice.


Pogo

[bert]

Yeah sorry to burst your fantasy bubble. But here is my contribution.


The Gambino family is a wholly criminal organization that regularly commits murder as part of its very existence. When the head of that criminal organization is talking to his number 2 man about the criminal activities of their organization including a murder that their criminal organization is going to commit than LoCascio is just as guilty of that murder as Gotti. It is irrelevant that said number 2 may not have uttered a word at that very moment. His guilt is implicit by his membership and position of authority in said criminal organization and his presence when the murder plot is being formulated.


And this is not even getting into all the other murders LoCascio has no doubt taken part in his 40 years of LCN involvement. Including his 3 years in the administration of the Gambino family when, what, at least half a dozen murders were committed by the organization he was a leader in. But yeah poor baby that he is in prison. It is an injustice.


Pogo

MS writes in her own words, you sound like you copy and pasted direct from an indictment. You're a sheep.

[Pogo The Clown]

Hey Dan, do you still have your Free John Gotti poster hanging up?


Pogo