Laborers-LIUNA's Chicago District Council Hearings July 18, 1997

563

1 OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER

2 LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

4 IN RE: )

5 TRUSTEESHIP PROCEEDINGS ) No. 97-30T

6 CHICAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL )

10 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the

11 above-entitled cause at the Midland Hotel, 172

12 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the 18th

13 day of July, A.D. 1997, at 9:06 a.m.

16 BEFORE: MR. PETER F. VAIRA, Hearing Officer

564

1 PRESENT:

3 COMEY, BOYD & LUSKIN,

4 (1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.,

5 Washington, D.C. 20007-5243), by:

6 MR. ROBERT M. THOMAS, JR.,

7 MR. DWIGHT P. BOSTWICK,

8 appeared on behalf of the GEB Attorney;

10 CARMELL, CHARONE, WIDMER, MATHEWS & MOSS,

11 LTD.,

12 (225 West Washington Street, Suite 1000,

13 Chicago, Illinois 60606), by:

14 MR. SHERMAN CARMELL,

15 MR. MARTIN P. BARR,

16 appeared on behalf of the Chicago

17 District Council of Laborers.

19 ALSO PRESENT:

20 MS. CHERYL MARQUARDT

22 REPORTED BY: MARY KAY BELCOLORE, CSR, RPR.

23 CORINNE T. MARUT, CSR, RPR.

565

1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Carmell, I believe

2 that you are going to cross-examine agent

3 O'Rourke.

4 MR. CARMELL: Yes, Mr. Vaira. The last item

5 we had was, you were going to consider our motions

6 for --

7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Subpoena duces tecum.

8 MR. CARMELL: Right.

9 THE HEARING OFFICER: And for all the

10 O'Rourke documents, that is in effect notes and

11 work papers.

12 And you also want to request

13 certain -- well, you didn't name them, but we

14 pretty much can figure out who they are -- all the

15 nonconfidential witnesses that he spoke to.

16 Nature of this proceeding is that this

17 is a trusteeship. And it's far less formal than

18 even the disciplinary matter. And the

19 disciplinary matters, the subpoenaing of the

20 records, is not, it just isn't permitted. To do

21 that would make this some sort of another

22 proceeding.

23 In reference to the Teamsters, I once

24 represented the Teamsters in the takeover of an

566

1 organization in Philadelphia. And the hearings

2 are very short. And this is almost the nature of

3 a probable cause type of a hearing.

4 And so the discovery, even though it

5 might be helpful, and even though it might be

6 desirable, is not generally found in these type of

7 proceedings. And I'll deny your motion.

8 JOHN J. O'ROURKE,

9 called as a witness herein, having been previously

10 duly sworn and having testified, was examined and

11 testified further as follows:

12 CROSS-EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. CARMELL:

14 Q. Mr. O'Rourke --

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. -- you remember Exhibits 44 and 45,

17 which are the Spingola information, and the

18 Spingola jury verdicts of guilty?

19 A. Yes, sir, I do.

20 Q. Are you, were you aware when you

21 testified that the conviction had been reversed by

22 the Seventh Circuit?

23 A. No, sir, I was not.

24 MR. CARMELL: Mr. Vaira, I would like to have

567

1 you take judicial notice of United States versus

2 Spingola, 464 Fed.2nd, 909, Seventh Circuit, 1972,

3 reversing the convictions.

4 THE HEARING OFFICER: The issue, underlying

5 issue in that case was the willful, willful

6 nonfiling of LM2 reports. There was no doubt, I

7 don't think the Circuit Court changed the fact

8 that the LM2s were not filed.

9 I remember that case, because they

10 attempted to file them after we brought the,

11 brought the charges. Yes, it was reversed. But

12 if the case can be held for anything, there is an

13 indication that that particular union hadn't filed

14 LM2s for something like twelve years. That didn't

15 change the reversal of the conviction.

16 MR. BOSTWICK: Mr. Vaira, we would stipulate

17 to the admission of that document. It basically

18 says what it says.

19 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll accept that. I

20 don't know on what grounds it was. I know it

21 didn't change the underlying -- it might have gone

22 into willfulness, some area. I think that was

23 tried in front of Judge Hoffman, Julius Hoffman.

24 Do you have a copy of that opinion?

568

1 MR. CARMELL: I do.

2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'd be curious to

3 glance at it.

4 MR. CARMELL: Sure. I saw no need to put it

5 in the record, since you can get it.

6 THE HEARING OFFICER: I can read it too. But

7 let me just read it, okay?

8 Anyway, we will move on, and I mean,

9 I'll note it. I'll take acceptance, and we note

10 that that case has been reversed.

11 MR. CARMELL: Will you also note that

12 Mr. Spignola was never retried on those charges?

13 There is nothing in the record to show that he was

14 ever retried.

15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Carmell, I think

16 that's probably right. I don't know. I am pretty

17 sure that he was not retried.

18 MR. CARMELL: In reference to what you were

19 saying concerning the case, Mr. Vaira, the fact

20 that one does not file is not a violation of the

21 statutes. It's required of willful violation.

22 What was introduced here was

23 information and a conviction and it was to show,

24 obviously, that Mr. Spignola had been indicted --

569

1 charged on an information and convicted of a

2 violation of Lanham-Griffin and that was

3 reversed. He hasn't been retried.

4 Everybody can draw whatever inferences

5 they want from that.

6 BY MR. CARMELL:

7 Q. Mr. O'Rourke, I want to begin with

8 Exhibit 49, which is the 302 from Gerald H.

9 Scarpelli.

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. I want to review with you so we'll know

12 the circumstances which gave rise to the 302 in

13 July of 1988.

14 Mr. Scarpelli was arrested by the FBI

15 for being a felon in possession of a firearm, is

16 that correct?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And Mr. Scarpelli had a very long

19 history of convictions and incarcerations, isn't

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And Mr. Scarpelli faced an

23 extraordinarily long sentence -- strike that --

24 faced a long sentence for conviction for being a

570

1 convicted felon in possession of a firearm, isn't

2 that correct?

3 A. He faced conviction and imprisonment,

4 yes, sir.

5 Q. And before that time Mr. Scarpelli had

6 been a partner of James Peter Basile, Duke Basile,

7 is that correct?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. And Basile had had a wire at that time

10 while they were running together as partners, is

11 that correct?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. And Scarpelli was unaware that Basile

14 had had a wire, is that correct?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And up to that point Scarpelli had not

17 been a cooperating witness with the Federal Bureau

18 of Investigation, is that correct?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. So, the information that came from the

21 302 was the first time, to your knowledge, sir,

22 that Mr. Scarpelli had given any information to

23 the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

24 A. Yes, sir.

571

1 Q. Now, under the FBI's criteria,

2 Mr. Scarpelli's statement would not give rise to

3 him being able to identify a made member of the

4 mob, is that correct?

5 A. No, sir, that's not correct.

6 Q. All right. Let me read to you and see

7 if this is a correct statement of your testimony

8 on page 232 of July 16.

9 They would have to be proven, reliable

10 informants and individuals, is that a criteria?

11 A. That's one of them, yes, sir.

12 Q. Who are in fact themselves involved in

13 organized crime, identifiable organized crime

14 activities that have inside information, is that

15 correct?

16 A. That would apply to Mr. Scarpelli, that

17 portion of it, yes, sir.

18 Q. A portion would apply to him?

19 A. Yes, sir. He is a member of organized

20 crime. He was an insider. He was a hit man and

21 he was an enforcer and he had talked with Peter

22 Basile, James Peter Basile, on a number of

23 occasions. There were recordings and then he

24 confirmed what we already knew from the recordings

572

1 and from Basile.

2 Q. But with respect to what Mr. Scarpelli

3 was telling you concerning the organization of

4 organized crime, which is the first nine pages of

5 the 302, Mr. Scarpelli in July of 1988 had not

6 provided proven, reliable -- been a proven,

7 reliable informant, is that correct?

8 A. Prior to that, he had not, no, sir.

9 Q. All right.

10 A. But the information he provided was

11 already known in most part and had been confirmed

12 through recordings, had been confirmed through

13 debriefing of Mr. Basile. So --

14 Q. Sorry. I understand that,

15 Mr. O'Rourke. Mr. Scarpelli himself in July of

16 1988 had not then up to that time been a proven,

17 reliable informant; he had never been an

18 informant?

19 A. That's correct, he was not an

20 informant.

21 Q. He was not an informant. Now, is it

22 also true, as an example, that two informants, for

23 instance, who would be reporting on cartage thiefs

24 and would not have access would not be acceptable,

573

1 is that correct?

2 A. The weight would not be given to them

3 if it was just their word out of the blue unless

4 there was other information that in fact they had

5 been talking with a member of organized crime or a

6 relative or there were some other factors.

7 The fact that somebody is a bartender

8 in a tavern where mobsters go and so on, all of

9 those things are weighed and the information

10 provided is then weighted in that regard. That

11 was an example, yes, sir.

12 Q. That was an example. Mr. O'Rourke, the

13 testimony I am reading from you was in respect to

14 a question that the Hearing Officer asked you and

15 I am reading to you what you said.

16 MR. BOSTWICK: Can I have a page number on

17 this?

18 MR. CARMELL: 232, as I can see.

19 MR. BOSTWICK: On which day?

20 MR. CARMELL: July 16.

21 MR. BOSTWICK: 233?

22 MR. CARMELL: Yes.

23 BY MR. CARMELL:

24 Q. Now, let's go to your testimony of

574

1 yesterday. I'd like you to take a look at General

2 Executive Board Attorney Exhibits 97 and 98.

3 Now, Exhibit 97 is part of a

4 transcription of a tape. Do you know the date

5 that that was taken?

6 A. No, sir. It was not on the document.

7 So I do not know.

8 Q. I want you to look at Exhibit 98. The

9 earliest of those tabs is, says a date of

10 transcription of 2/19/83. Do you see that, sir,

11 up in the upper right --

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. -- first tab. And if you look through

14 it, I think we'll confirm that that's the earliest

15 of the dates of the transcriptions.

16 A. Well, that's the date of the typing of

17 the document.

18 Q. All right.

19 A. The date of the interview was on the

20 lower left, sir.

21 Q. Right. But if you will -- all right.

22 Using the lower left, I think you'll find, sir,

23 that that tab A has the earliest date dictated,

24 and the earliest investigation date. What I'm

575

1 just trying to do is just get the gist.

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Now, using a reference of tab A to

4 Exhibit 98, can you tell me whether tab A came

5 before Exhibit 97 or after Exhibit 97?

6 A. I do not know, sir. I was not present.

7 Q. From looking at it, and based on your

8 testimony, that 97 was what has been called I

9 think sometimes the deathbed, the deathbed tape.

10 Would it seem logical to you that 98 -- wait,

11 strike that.

12 Mr. Eto became a cooperating witness

13 only after he was shot, is that correct?

14 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

15 Q. And at the time that 97 was taken, he

16 was on what the FBI at least thought might be his

17 deathbed, correct? He had just been shot?

18 A. He had just been shot. And they, it

19 was explained to me that the reason that they

20 taped the interviews was that they were, there was

21 some concern that he might not survive. And so

22 that's why they did it.

23 Q. So it's fair to say that Exhibit 98,

24 which are 302s, came after 97?

576

1 A. I don't know when 97 was taken, sir.

2 But you're probably right. Again, I have no idea

3 on the dates. I'm sorry. I wasn't there.

4 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think that the logic

5 flows, Mr. O'Rourke, looking at that. We can be

6 wrong. But that is a logical conclusion you can

7 derive from that.

8 MR. CARMELL: I would think, sir, that it's

9 either contemporaneously, that is, they took the

10 tape and maybe in the same day or next day, but it

11 just seems logical if they thought he was dying

12 and did the tape, and then go to a 302

13 transcription, that it must have been subsequent.

14 All right.

15 BY MR. CARMELL:

16 Q. Now, I want to go through with you, Mr.

17 O'Rourke, matters which you testified to

18 concerning the named and confidential informants.

19 And I want to begin with Rich Mara.

20 Rich Mara was, according to your

21 testimony, a member of, a former member of the

22 26th Street crew, is that correct?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. And what was the last year in which

577

1 Mr. Mara had been a member of the 26th Street

2 crew?

3 A. He was interviewed in approximately

4 1980, and he had been arrested in Florida sometime

5 before that. So I'm not exactly sure.

6 It would have been sometime probably in

7 the late 1970s when he was still in the

8 neighborhood.

9 Q. So that Mr. Mara's firsthand knowledge

10 of the operation of the 26th Street crew would

11 have ended sometime, let's say, in the late '70s,

12 or possibly early 1980s?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. Now, Mr. Mara gave a 302, which is

15 Exhibit 46, dated 7/29/80, which is in evidence.

16 Do you recall that one?

17 A. Yes, sir, I do, Mr. Carmell.

18 Q. Now, in that 302 there is no mention of

19 Bruno Caruso, is there?

20 A. Not that I recall, no, sir.

21 Q. And there is no mention of Leo Caruso,

22 is there?

23 A. Not that I recall.

24 Q. And there is no mention of John

578

1 Matassa, is there?

2 A. No, sir.

3 Q. Now, looking at the 26th Street crew

4 listing which is on Exhibit 163, Bruno Caruso and

5 Leo Caruso are on there as members of the 26th

6 Street crew, is that correct?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 MR. BOSTWICK: I believe it reads "Select

9 Members and Associates" on there.

10 BY MR. CARMELL:

11 Q. I should say -- thank you. They are

12 under the rubric of 26th Street crew as being a

13 member or an associate of that crew?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Is that a fair statement, sir?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. All right. Now, in General Executive

18 Board Attorney Exhibit 73, those are the

19 applications and affidavits for the Title III

20 wiretaps?

21 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry.

22 Mr. Carmell, which one was that?

23 MR. CARMELL: 73, sir.

24 BY MR. CARMELL:

579

1 Q. Do you have that, sir?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Now, behind Tab 2 is this enormous

4 affidavit which begins with the name of Edwin C.

5 Barnett, special agent of the FBI. Are you

6 familiar with that?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. And within that enormous affidavit

9 is -- are references to statements by Rich Mara,

10 aren't there?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. And would you turn to those and tell me

13 what paragraph they begin on.

14 A. Can you tell me what page they are on,

15 sir?

16 Q. That's what I am going to find. I

17 thought I would get you into it first. It begins

18 on page 27, sir.

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. It's headed "Information Obtained from

21 Richard Mara."

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Now, isn't it correct that there is

24 nothing in that entire affidavit that relates to

580

1 information obtained from Richard Mara that

2 mentions Bruno Caruso?

3 A. Yes, sir, that's right.

4 Q. And nothing in that information

5 obtained from Richard Mara that mentions Leo

6 Caruso?

7 A. That's correct, sir.

8 Q. Sir, if you'd look at page 27, I think

9 maybe to come closer to the date on which Mr. Mara

10 ended his active association and that would be --

11 it says he began cooperating with federal

12 authorities in 1980 and on July 11 of 1980 entered

13 the witness security program. So that your memory

14 is quite good.

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And according to your testimony, the

17 first -- well, the first time -- strike that.

18 The first time that Richard Mara in any

19 way mentions Bruno Caruso is from your testimony

20 of your interview with him beginning in September

21 of 1996, is that correct?

22 A. Yes, sir, that's not correct.

23 Q. You have another 302?

24 A. No, sir, I do not.

581

1 Q. We have nothing else in this record

2 from Richard Mara, do we, other than Exhibit 46

3 and Exhibit 73?

4 A. That's what's in the record, sir.

5 But --

6 Q. I don't want a but. You can get that

7 later.

8 MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, I'd object to

9 that. If he asks a question, Mr. O'Rourke can

10 certainly answer if there is an explanation.

11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let me put it this

12 way. Just mark that and remember that and on

13 redirect you can go back and ask him to explain

14 his answer.

15 MR. BOSTWICK: Can I have the question and

16 the answer read back, please.

17 (WHEREUPON, the record was read

18 by the reporter as requested as

19 follows: Q. We have nothing

20 else in this record from Richard

21 Mara, do we, other than Exhibit 46

22 and Exhibit 73?

23 A. That's what's in the record,

24 sir. But --")

582

1 BY MR. CARMELL:

2 Q. Now, staying with Mr. Mara, I would

3 like to show you --

4 MR. CARMELL: Mr. Hearing Officer, I want to

5 show the witness a piece of his testimony so he

6 can have an opportunity to look at it. Is that

7 all right? I'd like to help him out so he can see

8 it.

9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure.

10 BY MR. CARMELL:

11 Q. What I am going to show you is the

12 mini-transcript of the proceedings yesterday, and

13 I am asking you to look at pages 506 through 507

14 and it begins with the question, "Why don't you

15 start with the first Mr. Mara and tell us when you

16 spoke to him and what he told you," and look for

17 your answer.

18 I will point it out to you if it's

19 okay.

20 A. That's fine.

21 Yes.

22 Q. Having looked at that, sir, does that

23 accurately reflect, as you sit here now, what

24 Mr. Mara told you, at least in part, concerning

583

1 Leo Caruso?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. And that Mr. Mara told you that Leo

4 Caruso was the son of Frank Skids Caruso, is that

5 correct?

6 A. No, sir. I corrected that, I believe.

7 He is not. He is the son of Skids Caruso's

8 brother. And he is the first cousin to Bruno and

9 Frank.

10 Q. Right. You corrected it. But did Mr.

11 Mara state that he was the son of --

12 A. No, sir. I misspoke.

13 Q. Is it correct that Rich Mara had been a

14 reliable, proven informant for the FBI, both at

15 the time that he gave his 302 in 1980, and when

16 information was given which became the wiretap?

17 A. No, sir. He was not an informant. He

18 was never an informant of the FBI. He was a

19 cooperating subject. He was under investigation.

20 He was charged, was sent to prison, and cooperated

21 with the government and testified.

22 Q. Were you satisfied that Rich Mara had

23 given the truth and the whole truth in the 302

24 which is Exhibit 47?

584

1 A. To the best of his knowledge, yes, sir,

2 at that time.

3 Q. And that the information contained in

4 Exhibit 73 would have been truth, the whole truth,

5 to the best of his knowledge in, when the wiretap

6 was requested?

7 A. I assume that it was, yes, sir. I

8 didn't do that interview.

9 Q. Did you have any reason to doubt it?

10 A. No, sir. I'm sure that's what he

11 believed to be the truth, yes, sir.

12 Q. Now, I want to go to Joseph Granata,

13 Junior.

14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are we going to

15 something? Are we going to a document, or are

16 you --

17 MR. CARMELL: I just asked him about Joseph

18 Granata.

19 THE HEARING OFFICER: I saw him rooting

20 around there. I thought he was looking for a

21 document.

22 BY MR. CARMELL:

23 Q. According to your testimony, Joseph

24 Granata, Junior gave you information that Bruno

585

1 Caruso was a made member of organized crime, is

2 that correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And did Joseph Granata meet the

5 criteria for the FBI's inventory of accepting

6 whether a person is a made member?

7 A. Joseph Granata was a, was not an

8 informant. He was wearing a wire. He was a

9 cooperating witness. He wore a wire, made

10 hand-to-hand purchase of narcotics, provided

11 information on crimes, which were confirmed

12 through investigation.

13 Actually, he didn't have to testify,

14 because everybody pled guilty that he was involved

15 in. But he was not, he was not a confidential

16 informant who was not going to testify. And

17 therefore, the criteria wouldn't apply to him.

18 Q. Okay. Now, I want to go to James

19 LaValley. I notice that there's a different

20 spelling in the transcript. Do we have an

21 accurate spelling of James LaValley?

22 A. It's LaValley, sir, L-A-V-A-L-L-E-Y.

23 Q. The transcript is right.

24 MR. BOSTWICK: Is the V capitalized?

586

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, correct.

2 BY MR. CARMELL:

3 Q. Now, let me have you look again at the

4 transcript at Page 421, which relates to Mr.

5 LaValley and John Matassa, Junior. You can keep

6 that, sir. Just pick up your head when you're

7 finished reading.

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 THE HEARING OFFICER: What page do you have

10 there?

11 THE WITNESS: It's Page --

12 MR. CARMELL: 421.

13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thanks.

14 BY THE WITNESS:

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 BY MR. CARMELL:

17 Q. According to that testimony, Mr.

18 LaValley had heard that John Matassa was the boss

19 of a crew, is that correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And one of the reasons that you had

22 placed John Matassa as a made member is the

23 testimony we are going over now regarding James

24 LaValley, is that correct?

587

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. And isn't it correct that you would,

3 the FBI would not accept in its inventory as made

4 members a statement by a person that another

5 person had told him, that that person was a made

6 member?

7 A. No, sir. That's not correct.

8 Q. So if witness 1 told you that witness 2

9 told him that he had heard that so-and-so was a

10 made member, would you have accepted that?

11 A. Mr. LaValley had discussions on a

12 regular basis with known members of organized

13 crime; Lenny Patrick, who was the boss, Mario

14 Ranone, John DiFronzo, and so on.

15 MR. CARMELL: Mr. Hearing Officer, I asked a

16 simple question.

17 THE HEARING OFFICER: You have to answer his

18 question. You may expand upon it. But you have

19 to answer his question.

20 BY THE WITNESS:

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 BY MR. CARMELL:

23 Q. If a witness had told you that he had

24 heard that another person was a made member, would

588

1 that fit the inventory of calling the person a

2 made member?

3 MR. BOSTWICK: Can I clarify? That and that

4 alone, is that --

5 BY MR. CARMELL:

6 Q. That and that alone.

7 A. It depends on, the weight would be put

8 on it as to who the person heard it from and who

9 he was known to be in contact with, sir.

10 Q. Now, in that testimony of James

11 LaValley, concerning James LaValley, you stated

12 that Mr. LaValley said he had seen John Matassa at

13 the Brookwood Country Club, its golf club. Is

14 that a private golf club?

15 A. I don't know what the status of it is,

16 sir. I was there once to arrest Marshall

17 Caifano. Other than that, I have no intimate

18 knowledge of whether it's public or private.

19 Q. Would you, from your experience in law

20 enforcement, would you agree that there are people

21 who are not either associates or members of

22 organized crime who would use the Brookwood

23 Country Club?

24 A. Absolutely, yes, sir.

589

1 Q. Do you know whether John Matassa was on

2 the Board of Directors of the country club at the

3 time that he was seen in the company of Jack

4 Cerone?

5 A. No, sir, I do not.

6 Q. Do you know how Jack Cerone -- whether

7 Jack Cerone was a member of the country club?

8 A. I understood that he was, but I don't

9 have any direct knowledge that he was. I know he

10 frequented it on a regular basis.

11 Q. And did Mr. LaValley tell you what he

12 meant by in the company of Jack Cerone at the

13 Brookwood Country Club?

14 A. Talking with Jack Cerone.

15 Q. Where was he talking with him?

16 A. This came up over several interviews

17 back when we were originally debriefing him. We

18 were more interested in Jackie Cerone at that

19 point. But they would -- I don't recall. Golfing

20 together, talking together in the club.

21 Q. You are saying they golfed together?

22 A. I don't recall, sir. He said that he

23 would see him in the company of Jackie Cerone. I

24 don't recall specifically what they were doing at

590

1 the exact moment. That was his recollection.

2 Q. With respect to the Brookwood Country

3 Club, can you fix the time period in which this

4 was to have occurred?

5 A. No, sir. Best I can recall, it would

6 have been in the early 1980s but no more than

7 that.

8 Q. Sir, James LaValley, when did he first

9 become -- when did he cease having any connection

10 with organized crime?

11 A. After he was arrested by myself and

12 other agents of the FBI.

13 Q. When was that, sir?

14 A. I don't recall the exact date, but I

15 believe it was like approximately 1989, possibly

16 1990. He was then incarcerated at the MCC and he

17 continued to deal with the mobsters there who were

18 locked up, Rocky Infelise and so on, until he

19 decided to cooperate.

20 Q. But it's fair to say that the statement

21 that you attribute to Mr. LaValley concerning the

22 Brookwood Country Club had to occur before, say,

23 1989?

24 A. Yes, sir, absolutely.

591

1 Q. Now, I want you to look at the ninth

2 line. They are marked, sir, beginning there. It

3 says, "And had him identify and knew him as a

4 member of organized crime, a made member."

5 Is that what Mr. LaValley told you?

6 A. Yes, sir. That was his statement.

7 Knew him as a member of organized crime, a made

8 member.

9 Q. Were the statements of Mr. LaValley

10 that are the subject of this page 421 of this

11 transcript, were they reduced to a 302?

12 A. I don't recall, sir. He was debriefed

13 days and days and days at a time and generally the

14 302s concerned specific extortions and beatings

15 and specific crimes that he was under

16 investigation for that were going to be utilized

17 in Federal Court.

18 So, I don't recall -- he was also

19 debriefed by other agents of the FBI. So, I don't

20 specifically recall if every single person that he

21 ever mentioned was documented in a 302.

22 Q. Before coming to testify here, did you

23 review any of the 302s of James LaValley?

24 A. No, sir, I did not. I don't have

592

1 access to them.

2 Q. The statement that is attributed by you

3 to James LaValley were made in your September,

4 1996 interview with him, is that correct?

5 A. Both, sir.

6 Q. Well, you talked to him in 1989 when

7 you were special agent of the Federal Bureau?

8 A. Yes, sir, and the most recent --

9 Q. Just a moment. Let me break it down,

10 sir.

11 And at that time you -- there was a

12 302, at least one 302 created concerning your

13 debriefing or the debriefing in which you

14 participated with Mr. LaValley in 1989, is that

15 correct?

16 A. There were probably 30 or 40, possibly

17 more 302s created, each on a different subject

18 matter.

19 Q. And it's your testimony that in the

20 debriefings in 1989 James LaValley made the

21 statements that are attributed to him by you at

22 page 421 of the transcript?

23 A. That was my recollection, yes, sir, and

24 then I reinterviewed him, directed his attention

593

1 to Mr. Matassa at the time I talked to him in

2 September.

3 Q. In September of '96 when you met with

4 James LaValley, as you say, you directed his

5 attention to James Matassa, didn't you?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. And you had told Mr. LaValley what your

8 position was at the time, that is, you were with

9 the Inspector General's office, is that correct?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. You told him that the Inspector General

12 was investigating the Chicago District Council of

13 Laborers?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. You told him you were going -- you were

16 trying to build a case against them, didn't you?

17 A. No, sir, I just asked him -- reminded

18 him of our previous conversations and said did he

19 recall John Matassa. He said yes, I recall him

20 being with Jackie Cerone at the Brookwood Country

21 Club. I recall him being in organized crime and I

22 believe he is a made member. That's what he said.

23 Q. You were the one that first raised Mr.

24 Matassa, quote, "reminding" Mr. LaValley of what

594

1 he had said in 1989?

2 A. That was the purpose of the interview,

3 yes, sir.

4 Q. And your reminding Mr. LaValley was

5 based solely on your recollection of debriefings

6 you had had with Mr. LaValley in 1989, is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. And how many debriefings have you

10 participated in while you were with the Federal

11 Bureau of Investigation between 1989 and your

12 retirement?

13 A. Of Mr. LaValley?

14 Q. Of everyone.

15 A. Quite a few, sir. I don't recall.

16 Q. 100?

17 A. Sure. At least 100, maybe more.

18 Q. Probably more, wouldn't it have been?

19 Some of them very extensive, too, weren't they?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And you had a specific recollection in

22 September of 1996 what Mr. LaValley supposedly had

23 told you in 1989, is that correct?

24 A. Yes, sir. It's not very complicated.

595

1 Q. Well, that's correct, it's not very

2 complicated and apparently it didn't seem enough

3 to appear in a 302 of Mr. LaValley before. So how

4 significant was it?

5 MR. BOSTWICK: I think that is a

6 mischaracterization of the testimony.

7 MR. CARMELL: It's cross-examination, sir.

8 THE HEARING OFFICER: You may ask him that

9 and he may answer if he understands your question.

10 BY THE WITNESS:

11 A. I don't recall if it was in a 302 or

12 not, sir. We don't -- when you're talking to

13 someone for eight hours a day, day upon day upon

14 day, you don't take down every single word that he

15 says because it would be incredibly voluminous,

16 particularly if the individual mentioned is one

17 of, say, dozens and that individual is not the

18 target of your investigation or not involved in

19 any specific crime that's going to be coming up in

20 a future court date.

21 Q. Do you in fact have notes of your --

22 MR. CARMELL: I understand your ruling,

23 Mr. Hearing Officer, but I want to ask him.

24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

596

1 BY MR. CARMELL:

2 Q. Do you have notes of your interview

3 with -- interview or interviews with Mr. LaValley

4 in September, 1996 or any time thereafter?

5 A. I have rough notes, yes, sir.

6 Q. Were those notes shown to Mr. LaValley

7 at any time?

8 A. No, sir.

9 Q. Did you go over your notes with

10 Mr. LaValley?

11 A. The notes were taken as we discussed

12 the matter.

13 Q. And I want to make it clear that you

14 still do have those notes?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's not your

17 procedure -- you followed the procedure as the --

18 as you did when you were in the Bureau to take the

19 rough notes and then transcribe them into polished

20 notes, you follow that procedure or just keep them

21 for your own investigation?

22 THE WITNESS: I keep the notes as I have it

23 from when I was an FBI agent.

24 THE HEARING OFFICER: In rough form.

597

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

2 THE HEARING OFFICER: There is no requirement

3 of your Inspector General's department to -- there

4 is no formal protocol as to preserving notes like

5 that.

6 THE WITNESS: No, sir, not to my knowledge.

7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Like all investigators

8 or detectives, they seem to keep a file of old

9 notes.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, that's correct.

11 BY MR. CARMELL:

12 Q. Did you review those rough notes before

13 you came to testify?

14 A. Yes, sir, last week I did.

15 Q. How many pages of notes do you have

16 concerning Mr. LaValley, sir?

17 A. Several pages. I can't recall exact

18 number.

19 Q. I hate the game we play, more than

20 five, more than six. Do you have any reasonable

21 opinion as to how many pages it is?

22 A. Possibly ten pages.

23 Q. With respect to Leo Caruso, sir, and

24 Mr. LaValley, Mr. LaValley told you he did not

598

1 know Leo Caruso personally, is that correct? That

2 would be on Page 508.

3 No one can say I'm trying to sandbag

4 you, sir.

5 A. What part of it is it?

6 Just a second. I think I have it.

7 Yes, sir.

8 Q. Do you recall the question, that

9 LaValley told you that he did not know Leo Caruso

10 personally?

11 A. Yes, sir. That's correct.

12 Q. He told you that whatever information

13 he had concerning Leo Caruso had, quote, "come

14 from other O.C. figures," is that correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. And based upon what these other O.C.

17 figures had told him, LaValley considered Leo

18 Caruso to be a mob associate?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. If I may borrow it back, sir.

21 A. Sure. There you go.

22 Q. Now, with respect to James Basile?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Mr. Basile, according to your

599

1 testimony, was a, worked for the Cicero crew, is

2 that correct?

3 A. Yes, sir, he did.

4 Q. And that's a separate crew from the

5 26th Street crew, is that correct?

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. Or at the time, it was?

8 A. Yes, it was, at the time.

9 Q. Now, Umberto Fillippi, is it "Fillippi"

10 or "Fillippi," as you recall?

11 A. I really don't know, sir. He, Umberto

12 Fillippi, I think is the way he pronounced it.

13 Q. Did you -- when did you first come in

14 contact with Umberto Fillippi?

15 A. Let me check my notes. In 1996, sir.

16 Q. Were you aware, or did you become aware

17 at that time or before that time that Umberto

18 Fillippi was an alcoholic?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Were you aware at that time or became

21 aware that Umberto Fillippi was a heavy drug

22 abuser?

23 A. Yes, sir. He informed me that he had,

24 had had a problem with cocaine, yes, sir.

600

1 Q. And were you aware that Mr. Fillippi

2 had been in a, I don't know what the word is now,

3 but mental institution?

4 A. He -- yes, sir, I was. He had been

5 hospitalized, I think in Europe, for his cocaine

6 addiction for a period of time.

7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that the mental

8 institution you are referring to? Or is that

9 something else?

10 MR. CARMELL: I thought I'm asking whether --

11 no, I would not consider being in for detox, in a

12 substance abuse program, to be a mental

13 institution.

14 BY MR. CARMELL:

15 Q. Separating that, did you ever become

16 aware that he had been in an institution for

17 emotional problems, distinct from being in a

18 substance rehab program?

19 A. I believe he had been in hospitals, as

20 a result of, resulting from his cocaine addiction,

21 yes.

22 Q. Okay. Now, you identified the person

23 by name of Sal Mango, M-A-N-G-O. Do you recall

24 that?

601

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. And who was Sal Mango in 1989?

3 A. Sal Mango in 1989 was involved in a

4 business called NCI -- I don't know the full name

5 of it now -- and that later was involved in a

6 business called Health Marketing, Incorporated,

7 HMI, as I understand it. He died I think in 1994

8 of cancer.

9 Q. Was Sal Mango, to your knowledge, in

10 1989 a made member of organized crime?

11 A. I don't know if he was a made member.

12 But he was definitely a member of organized crime,

13 and met with John DiFronzo, and was known to the

14 FBI and police intelligence as an organized crime

15 figure.

16 Q. Was he an organized crime figure

17 because he had a business which dealt with

18 organized crime?

19 A. No, sir.

20 Q. In your testimony, you never identified

21 Mr. Mango as being a member of organized crime.

22 You only identified him as having a company called

23 NCI. Do you recall that?

24 A. I don't believe I was asked if he was a

602

1 member of organized crime. But he was.

2 Q. What crew, what group, was Sal Mango a

3 member of?

4 A. He was not the object of my

5 investigation. So I really don't know, sir.

6 Q. Well, you're saying that, you're coming

7 out and saying that this dead man was a member of

8 organized crime. And I'm asking you, where did

9 he -- where? Where in the organized crime

10 structure?

11 A. I don't know, sir. I could guess, but

12 I don't know for a fact.

13 Q. In your testimony concerning what Mr.

14 Fillippi told you, that on weekends John Matassa,

15 Tom Matassa and John Serpico went to Sal Mango's

16 apartment, do you remember that testimony?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. And Fillippi's position at that time

19 was to cook breakfast?

20 A. Yes, sir. He was living with Mr.

21 Termini in the apartment, taking care of him,

22 cooking his food, and acting as an associate,

23 secretary, driver, whatever.

24 Q. And what, in what year did these

603

1 weekend meetings occur, according to Mr. Fillippi?

2 A. Starting in 1993.

3 Q. And through what period of time?

4 A. Until sometime before Mr. Mango or Mr.

5 Termini became too ill from cancer, and then

6 eventually died. So early '94, I believe it would

7 have been.

8 Q. Has Mr. Fillippi's statement to you as

9 you recounted it been referred to the United

10 States Attorney's office?

11 A. Well, it has been provided to them.

12 And I believe he has also been interviewed by FBI

13 agents prior to me talking to him.

14 Q. To your knowledge, has Mr. Matassa been

15 indicted on any, arrested or indicted for any of

16 the matters that are the subject of these weekend

17 episodes?

18 A. Not as of this date, no, sir.

19 Q. And would the same be true of John

20 Serpico and Tom Matassa?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. According to Mr. Fillippi, as you

23 recount it, Mr. Fillippi initially met John

24 Matassa through Salvatore Termini, Termini, or Sal

604

1 Mango. Mr. Fillippi wasn't sure, was he?

2 A. Oh, yes, sir. He indicated that

3 Salvatore Termini and Sal Mango were one and the

4 same person. And apparently he used the name Sal

5 Mango, but as I believe his real name was

6 Salvatore Termini.

7 Q. According to your testimony on 4/22, it

8 says, initially met John Matassa, quote, "through

9 Salvatore Termini or Sal Mango." Did you mean

10 that those were one and the same person?

11 A. Yes, sir, I did.

12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Again, my notes are

13 confused on that line too. So that I know that

14 Sal Mango was used -- is the name of a fellow with

15 an Italian background; it was Termini, right?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Termini or Terminini?

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. They are one and the

19 same person.

20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Who was cooking for

21 whom? Who was dying of cancer? Who was cooking

22 for whom?

23 THE WITNESS: Mr., call him Sal Mango --

24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's call him Sal

605

1 Mango.

2 THE WITNESS: That is the name he apparently

3 utilized mostly, as I understand it -- was dying

4 of cancer, and did die of cancer.

5 And Mr. Fillippi was his, was taking

6 care of him, right up until the end, and cooking

7 for him and so on.

8 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.

9 BY MR. CARMELL:

10 Q. Was Mr. Fillippi at that time an

11 associate of organized crime?

12 A. No, sir. He, other than his

13 relationship with Sal Mango, he was not, no, sir.

14 Q. Well, the relationship was he was his

15 caregiver, is that correct?

16 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

17 Q. And by being a caregiver you don't

18 automatically become a member or associate of

19 organized crime, is that fair?

20 A. That's correct, sir.

21 Q. So, according to Mr. Fillippi's

22 testimony -- according to what you say

23 Mr. Fillippi told you, Mr. Fillippi is not only in

24 earshot but sometimes present when these three

606

1 individuals are cutting up money from HMI, is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And this happened in 1993, '94, is that

5 correct?

6 A. That's what he said, yes, sir.

7 Q. At that time he did have a drug and

8 alcohol problem, is that correct?

9 A. I don't know when he had the drug and

10 alcohol problem. It probably is correct. I'm not

11 sure.

12 Q. Now, Sam Louis, Sam Louis did not meet

13 the criteria for a person who could establish for

14 the FBI inventory a made member, isn't that

15 correct?

16 A. Sam Louis is not a confidential

17 informant.

18 Q. He wasn't anything. He was a former

19 Chicago police officer and a business agent for

20 H.E.R.E.? You know what H.E.R.E. is?

21 A. Yes, sir, absolutely.

22 MR. CARMELL: Hotel Employees Restaurant

23 Employees, hotel and restaurant employees union.

24 THE HEARING OFFICER: We called it the old

607

1 bartenders union.

2 MR. CARMELL: You called it the old

3 bartenders. Okay, sir.

4 BY MR. CARMELL:

5 Q. That was his position?

6 A. Yes, sir. That was his previous

7 position.

8 Q. What was his -- what did he do -- he

9 had been -- according to your testimony,

10 Mr. Hanley had fired him as a business agent for

11 H.E.R.E.?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. When did that occur?

14 A. July -- I believe it was July of 1996.

15 Q. And when did you interview Mr. Louis?

16 A. There were a number of interviews. Let

17 me see. In 1996 and thereafter in 1997.

18 Q. Sir, I'm going to try and not bore you

19 to death and so I am going to ask you with respect

20 to -- you have already talked about it with one of

21 them.

22 With respect to Mr. Granata, we have

23 already established Mr. LaValley, Mr. Basile, Sam

24 Louis, do you have what we call rough notes of

608

1 your interviews with those persons?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. And would that be true of William

4 Wemette, William Jahoda and Leonard Patrick?

5 A. It would be true with William Jahoda.

6 I no longer have access to them with the other

7 two, sir.

8 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's because those

9 are the FBI's notes.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

11 BY MR. CARMELL:

12 Q. Now, I want to turn to what you have

13 termed as confidential and we are going to be

14 using the numbers that are attributed here which

15 caused us all -- you confusion. So, we are going

16 to use the 1 through 11 numbers.

17 Will that work for you?

18 A. Sure, that's fine, sir.

19 Q. Confidential No. 2 was a former

20 burglar/jewel thief, according to your testimony,

21 is that correct?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. You said that he also was a mob

24 associate, is that correct?

609

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. With respect to Confidential No. 2,

3 when did he end his active association with the

4 mob?

5 A. As far as I know he still has an

6 association with the mob, sir.

7 Q. And what is his position within the mob

8 according to Confidential No. 2?

9 A. I wouldn't want to characterize it,

10 sir, for -- he is fearful of his safety.

11 Q. So, what we know now is that you

12 characterize him as a mob associate but we do know

13 that he was a burglar and jewel thief, is that

14 right?

15 A. In the past, yes, sir.

16 Q. Now, Confidential No. 4 was a person

17 who had a relationship with the 26th Street crew,

18 is that correct?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Does he have a present relationship?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. When did the relationship end?

23 A. Several years ago, sir, but I don't

24 recall the exact time frame.

610

1 Q. Would it be fair to say that it's no

2 more than five years ago, if you can, sir?

3 A. It was several years ago.

4 Q. All right. Now, confidential --

5 THE HEARING OFFICER: He is out of the crew

6 now.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. He was never an

8 insider. He did some work for them. He also was

9 associated with the Cicero crew as well and that

10 has also ended.

11 BY MR. CARMELL:

12 Q. Confidential No. 4 is not one of the

13 persons who you identified as having given you any

14 information concerning Bruno Caruso, is that

15 correct?

16 A. I believe that's correct, yes, sir.

17 Q. Confidential No. 6 had had a

18 relationship with the 26th Street crew, is that

19 correct?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Has that relationship ended?

22 A. No, sir.

23 Q. And that is one of the persons who did

24 not give you any information concerning Bruno

611

1 Caruso, is that correct?

2 A. No, sir, I believe that he did although

3 he was not --

4 Q. He is not one that you testified to, is

5 that correct?

6 A. I can't recall, sir, if I did or not.

7 If I omitted him, it was a mistake. He basically

8 indicated that he knew Bruno Caruso, knew all the

9 Carusos, knew they were organized crime-related.

10 Q. The question is whether he testified --

11 MR. CARMELL: Number one, if he wants to come

12 back at some other time, he can do it.

13 THE HEARING OFFICER: He may ask him to

14 explain it. Since you are the one asking the

15 questions, you have the right to ask to have it

16 stricken.

17 MR. CARMELL: Thank you. You got me again

18 for the last time.

19 THE HEARING OFFICER: I agree with you.

20 MR. CARMELL: No, you got me from what I had

21 done the last time when I said something wasn't

22 responsive.

23 Can I have just a moment?

24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Take your time. If you

612

1 need a short break or something --

2 MR. CARMELL: Can we take a break, and let me

3 review the notes?

4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

5 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)

6 MR. CARMELL: No further questions.

7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. That was short.

8 All right. No further questions, Mr. O'Rourke.

9 You have a couple questions?

10 MR. BOSTWICK: Yeah, I have a couple.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

12 BY MR. BOSTWICK:

13 Q. Mr. O'Rourke, one of the questions I

14 believe that Mr. Carmell asked was something to

15 the effect of Exhibit 8 -- Exhibit 73, affidavit

16 for wiretaps, and Exhibit 46, Richie Mara. He

17 asked the question, questions, were these the

18 truth and the whole truth, etcetera. And you

19 answered yes.

20 Do you recall that testimony?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Did you mean to indicate that those

23 documents compose the sum total of those

24 individuals' knowledge about all the activities of

613

1 the 26th Street crew, and all the members of the

2 26th Street crew?

3 A. No, sir. Those documents were

4 primarily aimed at the targets of the proposed

5 wiretaps.

6 Q. So there's information that he told you

7 in addition to these, what, the information

8 contained in the documents?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. Source No. 6, Mr. Carmell asked you a

11 few questions about source No. 6, and his

12 understanding, or her understanding, for that

13 matter, of the Carusos.

14 Can you expand on your understanding of

15 that?

16 A. Yes, sir. Source No. 6 indicated

17 that --

18 THE HEARING OFFICER: What was that question

19 again now?

20 BY MR. BOSTWICK:

21 Q. Mr. Carmell asked you about source

22 No. 6, and that individual's understanding of the

23 Carusos.

24 Do you have a, can you clarify what

614

1 that individual's understanding of the Carusos

2 was?

3 A. The quote was --

4 MR. CARMELL: I object to the form of the

5 question. I didn't ask him what his understanding

6 was. I said that nothing had been said in his

7 testimony. If he wants to clarify now, you know,

8 that is what you would offer him for.

9 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's right.

10 MR. CARMELL: It's only the form of his

11 question.

12 THE HEARING OFFICER: The form of his

13 question, I understand. He said there was nothing

14 in his testimony, or something like that, or the

15 last question.

16 MR. CARMELL: Correct.

17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Correct. I think your

18 question is, is there something else.

19 MR. BOSTWICK: That's correct.

20 BY MR. BOSTWICK:

21 Q. Is there something else to add to your

22 direct testimony relating to source No. 6 and

23 their knowledge of the Carusos and their

24 relationship to the outfit?

615

1 A. Just that the source indicated that

2 they run the neighborhood, the Carusos run the

3 neighborhood, that they're mob associates, that

4 the father was the boss, and that Frank is a made

5 guy, in the source's opinion; Bruno is an

6 associate, as is Leo.

7 That was basically the sum of the

8 source's information.

9 MR. BOSTWICK: No further questions.

10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All right,

11 Mr. O'Rourke, thank you.

12 (Witness Excused.)

13 MR. THOMAS: At this time, the GEB Attorney

14 calls Robert Pecoraro to the stand.

15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Where is Pecoraro?

16 MR. THOMAS: He is out in the hall, I'm

17 sure.

18 (WHEREUPON, there was a short

19 interruption.)

20 MR. THOMAS: Can you administer the oath?

21 (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly

22 sworn.)

23 ROBERT C. PECORARO,

24 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

616

1 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

2 DIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. THOMAS:

4 Q. Could you state your full name for the

5 record, please, and spell your last name?

6 A. Robert C. Pecoraro; P, as in poppa,

7 E-C-O-R-A-R-O.

8 Q. Where are you employed, sir?

9 A. I'm in the special investigations unit

10 with a major insurance carrier.

11 Q. How long have you been so employed?

12 A. Two years.

13 MR. CARMELL: Excuse me. This goes -- the

14 witness was here all day yesterday.

15 MR. THOMAS: No. He came in late in the

16 afternoon, by a late afternoon flight.

17 MR. CARMELL: He has been here for

18 testimony. There is a sequestering order except

19 with respect to, as I understand it, staff of the

20 IG, or GEB, and some representatives and

21 delegates.

22 Let me finish. He is a witness. So he

23 has violated your order, as far as we are

24 concerned.

617

1 MR. THOMAS: May I be heard?

2 I have heard no -- I've been here the

3 entire time, your Honor. I haven't heard any

4 request for the rule.

5 We would be happy to abide by that.

6 But there has been no request for it.

7 I would also like to point out that the

8 subject matter of Mr. Pecoraro's testimony will

9 not in any way relate to the previous testimony.

10 It is a whole new topic.

11 He came in late in the afternoon

12 yesterday, from an out-of-town flight, came into

13 the room for perhaps the last half hour or so of

14 testimony.

15 But unless I was out of the room when

16 it was discussed, I have not heard any specific

17 requests for sequestration.

18 MR. CARMELL: I recall in our telephone

19 conversation that you had said -- I'll get the

20 record -- that you had said that, that

21 sequestering of witnesses, and there would be a

22 reasonable number of representatives on either

23 side who would be permitted, but there was a

24 sequestering, there was going to be sequestering

618

1 of witnesses.

2 I didn't raise it, because I understood

3 that was the ruling that had already been made in

4 the prehearing conference.

5 MR. BOSTWICK: I think we better clarify it

6 from this point forward. We understood that there

7 is no specific limitation on it.

8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Gentlemen, I have a

9 vague recollection that the subject was raised. I

10 mean, this was in our telephone conference. And I

11 just have a recollection that -- all right. Let's

12 assume that there is an order.

13 Mr. Pecoraro, what time did you come

14 here yesterday afternoon?

15 THE WITNESS: It was approximately 4:30. I

16 was here for the last question, I believe it was.

17 I didn't even hear the question that was posed to

18 Mr. O'Rourke.

19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Did you hear testimony

20 at all?

21 THE WITNESS: I think Mr. O'Rourke was on the

22 stand for about a minute. I think there was one

23 question posed to him. I don't even recall the

24 question. But I was told I was allowed in here so

619

1 I came in.

2 THE HEARING OFFICER: So forget that. You

3 came in. Nobody places any blame on you.

4 So he heard the last part of O'Rourke's

5 testimony having to do probably with Caruso or

6 someone like this. Is his testimony relating to

7 anything concerning that?

8 MR. THOMAS: No, I would proffer that his

9 testimony relates to the Al Tocco organization and

10 the U.S. vs. Tocco conviction and the U.S. vs.

11 Guzzino and Palermo convictions.

12 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't think there is

13 going to be overlap here. We could agree that he

14 wasn't in here for any great extensive time. All

15 right.

16 MR. THOMAS: Is it our understanding that

17 counsel wishes the rule to be invoked from this

18 point on?

19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Obviously he does. He

20 obviously does. Let's do it.

21 MR. CARMELL: No, no, I didn't say that. I

22 didn't mean that. I understood that that was the

23 order.

24 MR. THOMAS: We did not understand that.

620

1 MR. CARMELL: And I don't care --

2 MR. THOMAS: What I am asking --

3 MR. CARMELL: I am not asking you to invoke

4 the rule.

5 MR. THOMAS: Oh, okay.

6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Then gentlemen.

7 MR. THOMAS: The reason I ask, your Honor, is

8 that we need to know whether to instruct future

9 witnesses whether they can come in the room or

10 not.

11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Since the rule has not

12 been invoked, we will proceed and forget what we

13 asked you, Mr. Pecoraro. Here we go.

14 MR. CARMELL: Okay, as long as we

15 understand. The only reason I raised it I thought

16 there was an order in effect. That's the reason.

17 THE HEARING OFFICER: I remember some

18 vague -- just a vague recollection of it in our

19 discussion, but I don't actually -- well, it's

20 irrelevant.

21 MR. BOSTWICK: If it's not going to be

22 invoked, one of the reasons I didn't raise it at

23 the start was because I saw a lot of the officers

24 in here who are on our witness list and I just

621

1 thought that if they were going to be in here, our

2 witnesses could be in here and it didn't make any

3 difference because there was no order.

4 If we are not going to deal with it at

5 all, then anybody can come in and go as they

6 please and that's fine with us. If we are, we

7 should talk about which officers can stay.

8 MR. CARMELL: I'm not. All I am saying is

9 that I understood that there was an order. I am

10 not asking for it. If there hadn't been an order,

11 I wouldn't have asked for an order.

12 MR. BOSTWICK: Let's go on.

13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go.

14 BY MR. THOMAS:

15 Q. You were talking about your current

16 employment.

17 A. Yes. I am a special investigator with

18 a major insurance carrier.

19 Q. I think you said that's been for the

20 last two years?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. How were you previously employed?

23 A. I was special agent with the FBI for --

24 Q. When did you first start with the FBI?

622

1 A. November of 1970.

2 Q. In what jurisdiction? Where was it?

3 A. The first 18 months I have spent in the

4 Louisville, Kentucky and Oklahoma City divisions.

5 I was transferred to New York City in

6 approximately March of 1972.

7 Q. After you were transferred to New York

8 City in March of 1972 did there come a time that

9 you began to work on the organized crime matters?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. Have you worked on organized crime

12 matters more or less continuously from 1972 until

13 you retired from the Bureau?

14 A. I worked on organized crime matters

15 from approximately May of 1972 until I left the

16 Chicago division, which was December of 1993.

17 Q. When did you start working organized

18 crime cases in Chicago?

19 A. Upon my arrival in January of '78.

20 Q. And then continuously through the time

21 of your retirement?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Were you assigned to any particular

24 squad or any particular geographic area?

623

1 A. When I first arrived in Chicago I was

2 assigned to a downtown Chicago organized crime

3 squad and in 1980 or '81 I was assigned to what

4 they call the south resident agency, which covered

5 the south suburbs and I was an organized crime

6 agent in that office.

7 Q. Sir, during your tenure with the FBI in

8 Chicago how many convictions -- how many cases

9 leading to convictions do you think you were

10 involved in involving organized crime? And I am

11 not asking for a specific figure here.

12 A. Numerous cases. I don't recall -- I

13 have no idea how many cases, but they were

14 certainly I would say numerous.

15 Q. Have you received any law enforcement

16 awards during the course of your career?

17 A. I have received numerous awards and

18 letters of commendation. The last award I

19 received was the year after I retired from the

20 FBI. I was called back to Chicago and I was given

21 an award from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce

22 for excellence in law enforcement.

23 Q. Can you describe for us, please, the

24 nature of the organized crime activity that you

624

1 investigated during your two decades here in

2 Chicago?

3 A. Cases involving extortion, murder,

4 racketeering.

5 Q. What do you mean by racketeering?

6 A. Racketeering enterprise, RICO cases,

7 cases where there is a criminal enterprise.

8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cases based upon the

9 RICO statute.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 THE HEARING OFFICER: And all the predicate

12 acts.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

14 BY MR. THOMAS:

15 Q. Anything else?

16 A. That's enough for now.

17 Q. Beginning in the mid-'70s, who were the

18 major mob players in the area that you were

19 working? Who were the major bosses?

20 A. In the mid-'70s?

21 Q. Right. Let's take it from the past and

22 work forward.

23 A. In the mid-'70s I was in the New York

24 office.

625

1 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. So the early '80s

2 you arrived in Chicago?

3 THE HEARING OFFICER: '78.

4 BY MR. THOMAS:

5 Q. Late '70s, then. When you arrived in

6 Chicago, started working organized crime in the

7 south side, south suburbs, who were the major

8 bosses that you were investigating?

9 A. The major bosses that I -- in the south

10 suburbs at that time were known as Al Pilotto and

11 Albert Tocco.

12 Q. And Al Pilotto was a member of LIUNA?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The Laborers union?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And also specifically a member of the

17 District Council and an officer of the District

18 Council?

19 A. Yes, and he was the head of Local 5.

20 Q. And what relationship did Tocco, Albert

21 Tocco, have to Mr. Pilotto?

22 A. Albert Tocco was a very close associate

23 of Al Pilotto. He was his chauffeur and

24 bodyguard.

626

1 Q. And did the names Nicholas Guzzino and

2 Dominick Palermo come up at all during that time

3 period?

4 A. Yes, they did eventually.

5 Q. Who were they?

6 A. They were members of the Laborers

7 Local 5 in Chicago Heights.

8 Q. And with respect to the mob, did they

9 have any relationship to Mr. Pilotto or Mr. Tocco?

10 A. Yes, they did.

11 Q. What was that?

12 A. They had a relationship. They knew

13 each other and it became known to me later on that

14 they were involved together criminally.

15 Q. How about with respect to rank, who was

16 above whom?

17 A. Well, Al Pilotto was active prior to

18 his conviction in Florida, Al Pilotto was the

19 known boss of organized crime out of Chicago

20 Heights. Upon Al's conviction and incarceration,

21 Al Tocco more or less became the acting boss in

22 Chicago Heights.

23 Q. And where did Mr. Guzzino and

24 Mr. Palermo, the LIUNA Local 5 representatives,

627

1 fit into the Tocco organization at that point?

2 A. Well, later learned or as best we could

3 ascertain that actually Dominick Palermo, who

4 lived in Chicago Heights, and Al Tocco, who lived

5 in Chicago Heights, kind of had different

6 jurisdictions.

7 Albert Tocco was the main guy in the

8 south suburbs of Chicago and Dominick Palermo

9 controlled criminal activities in northern

10 Indiana.

11 Q. Prior to Mr. Pilotto's conviction in

12 1982 -- by the way, was that the Mob 11 case down

13 in Florida?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. All right. Prior to that conviction

16 had the Indiana --

17 MR. CARMELL: Excuse me. I didn't get your

18 question.

19 THE HEARING OFFICER: What was that, the Mob

20 11?

21 MR. THOMAS: It's a case that in the law

22 enforcement circles is referred to as the Mob 11

23 case. It's the Accardo, Pilotto, Caporale group

24 of Defendants who were convicted of defrauding the

628

1 LIUNA health and welfare funds.

2 MR. CARMELL: CSA, is that what we are

3 talking about? Consulting.

4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Consultants and

5 administrators. I thought you were talking about

6 that. But there were only about two convictions

7 in that case, am I right?

8 MR. THOMAS: Eleven Defendants and it's also

9 been referred to as the Mob 11 case.

10 BY MR. THOMAS:

11 Q. The question -- let me repeat it or

12 paraphrase it.

13 Prior to Mr. Pilotto's conviction in

14 that Florida case, had the area that you described

15 as eventually coming under Mr. Palermo's control,

16 had that been under Mr. Pilotto's control?

17 A. I believe so. Mr. Pilotto and others

18 in northern Indiana.

19 Q. So, are you saying then that after

20 Pilotto's conviction essentially there was a

21 splitting up of his territory?

22 A. As best we could ascertain, yes, sir.

23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Pecoraro, you

24 testified to conclusions. We are getting certain

629

1 editorial summary. How do you know this? How do

2 we know that Al Pilotto fell out of favor or

3 stepped aside and these other gentlemen moved in?

4 THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't know it in

5 1982. It became apparent later on in the late

6 '80s and early '90s through investigations that I

7 was involved in and the eventual convictions of

8 both Albert Tocco and Dominick Palermo and

9 Nicholas Guzzino.

10 MR. THOMAS: Just for the record, Mr. Vaira,

11 that is eventually where we are heading is to talk

12 about those two cases.

13 THE WITNESS: This actually evolved over a

14 number of years.

15 BY MR. THOMAS:

16 Q. Mr. Pecoraro, you have before you a

17 stack of exhibits which I have distributed to

18 counsel and to the Hearing Officer beginning with

19 GEB Attorney Exhibit 109. Do you see that?

20 Putting 107 and 108 aside for the

21 moment and go to 109.

22 A. I have 109, sir.

23 Q. Could you describe that for us?

24 A. This is an indictment of Albert Tocco

630

1 and Clarence Crockett that came out of the

2 Northern District of Illinois.

3 Q. Were you the co-case agent on this

4 matter?

5 A. Yes, sir, I was.

6 Q. How much time and effort did you put

7 into this investigation that led to this

8 indictment?

9 A. This actual investigation that I look

10 at before me started approximately 1987. There

11 were a number of investigations before this where

12 sources were identified and schemes were

13 identified. This indictment came down in

14 September of 1988.

15 Q. Could you describe the kinds of law

16 enforcement investigative techniques that you had

17 used in the course of your investigation which led

18 up to this indictment?

19 A. Well, the interviews, development of

20 sources and confidential informants, numerous

21 interviews and surveillances.

22 Q. We are not going to read this

23 verbatim. It's a very lengthy document.

24 Can you describe what this indictment

631

1 was about?

2 A. This is a 49 count indictment, over

3 170-some-odd acts of racketeering, describing the

4 Tocco organization as a criminal enterprise, which

5 existed to extort money from car thieves, chop

6 shop operators, who ran businesses, and dealt in

7 stolen auto parts, houses of prostitution, that

8 type of thing.

9 They extorted the street tax from

10 them. The people that I described, and have been

11 in business, I described, were involved in

12 criminal activities themselves. So they

13 ordinarily would not go to local authorities or

14 seek help.

15 They were told to pay the street tax.

16 If they didn't pay it, they would be, there were

17 implied threats that they would be hurt or killed

18 or be out of business. And in fact, in this

19 indictment, there were three murders alleged that

20 were directed by Albert Tocco.

21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are these Hobbs Act

22 indictments here? Many of these racketeering acts

23 here are Hobbs Act --

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

632

1 THE HEARING OFFICER: 1951?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

3 BY MR. THOMAS:

4 Q. Mr. Pecoraro, when you use the term

5 street tax, we have heard that before, but if you

6 could put in your own words what that term of art

7 means.

8 A. Well, street tax was a way that

9 organized crime had of exacting monies from people

10 who were involved in illegitimate businesses.

11 They had to pay a street tax to members of

12 organized crime, or they would be threatened with,

13 you know, bodily harm, or being put out of

14 business, or as I said before, or being murdered.

15 Q. Based on your experience in this case

16 as well as your overall experience dealing with

17 organized crime in Chicago, what happened to

18 people who either refused to be part of an