FEDS CONTINUE TO GRASP AT STRAWS, RELYING ON INFORMANTS

This is one thing I know for certain, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has always relied on informants for the bulk of their cases.  It's not to say all accused are innocent.  I've never been one to be boxed into a corner believing the Government fully lies in every single case.  The problem really is that, they go off what informants say, and more often then not, these informants lie.  Non stop. 

First of all, I understand most informants at some point were fringe players.  Some were made men.  The problem is that they inflate stories and put themselves into storylines and events that just don't add up.  I've seen it first hand, especially in the USA VS. MERLINO case.  You'll find it in the USA VS. GOTTI case.

The FEDS job is to arrest those breaking laws.  It's the criminals job to break laws and get away with it.  It's not nearly as complex as people think it is. The deck is always stacked in the Government's favor.  I'm going to make some arguments to dumb it down for you, but hopefully you can understand the perspective I'm trying to lay out here.

1. The FEDS have a blank check, criminals don't, and the FEDS know that.

Take the situation of Joey Merlino.  First of the the FEDS knew the case was weak from day one, but they were willing to take Joey to court based on the words of two piles of garbage.  For starters JR RUBEO was the most laughable witness I've ever seen in my life.  From one sentence to the next he couldn't keep the story straight, and even made it a point to exclaim that he "hated Joey Merlino, and hoped the cocksucker got 60 years."  Keep in mind this is the same guy who admitted to breaking laws while under witsec obligations.  This is the creep who lied under oath, was called on it, and had nothing to say about it.  This is also the guy who beat on women, used drugs, and threatened the FBI supervisor and more. 

This is why Joey walked on the Fraud charges.  The problem is, Joey is not some Al Capone who has money flowing out of his ass, actually the contrary.  It doesn't matter, because a solid defense is not cheap by any stretch.  In many cases, most mob guys don't have that much cash laying around.  So it's expensive.  Furthering that, the GOVT can come right back at you because they have a blank check. They can do it as many times as they want.  Who can compete with that?  You can't.  It's rigged and always has been. 

Also in Joey's particular case, there were tapes, which totally refuted most if not all of what Rubeo alleged, however Judge Sullivan would not allow them to be admissible.  Why?  That's anyone's guess but it's his prerogative to allow certain things and disallow others.   The issue becomes if you have evidence that exonerates you, it should be allowed bottom line.  The bigger issue is, if Joey cannot afford another long trial, then he essentially had to plead out, which is what he did, and why he did it.  You cannot beat the Government, and if you somehow do, they will haunt you like the plague just like they have done to John Gotti Jr, and now it seems Philip Narducci. 

In the case of John Gotti Jr, they kept going after him, five times.  Why? I've made it clear.  The names like  MERLINO buy you credibility and stature in the world of the FEDS.  If it was Carlo Doosherino and he was a lowly associate, they don't get press clippings, nor would they dump funds into three trials.  Rudy Giuliani made his entire career on the commission case.  Take away that, forget it.  He doesn't become Mayor, he doesn't become Trumps mouthpiece either.

If you think the FEDS are going to let Joey Merlino go, your nuts.  They refused to retry his case.  They were willing to take it on the asscheek.  Why?  For a minor stupid gambling charge? There is two reasons for this.  For starters they want to pad their stats.  They want a high conviction rate.  Prosecutors want a high conviction rate.  Without that guess what, they aren't worth a fuck.  So they will accept that conviction, but the second part of that, is because they know likely another case will come along that is deeper and filled with more sewage than the first trial.  It's how they operate.

Judge Sullivan admonished them in court.  He was dumbfounded that the Government spent the time and money to prosecute, then turned around and gave up.  Watching the Government attempt to come up with a verifiable reason was pretty cringe worthy.  They had no reason.  They argued the points a high schooler might argue.  Well, you know, another trial, and we don't want risk losing, and etc etc. The fact is, they knew they couldn't beat Merlino in the fraud case and were not willing to risk it.  It's also my belief that they already knew that the New Jersey would break and they knew that somewhere down the pike Merlino could be indicted again.

They rely on sewage and innuendo to win cases.  Sometimes they have great evidence, but it's always something very circumspect and filled with maybe's.  Also in the Merlino case looking back there were agents who were reprimanded for their actions.  This isn't the only case we have seen that.  The Bulger shit show, Greg Scarpa, John Gotti Jr, we have seen this sort of thing in hundreds of cases.  The problem is, it seems like the FEDS get a break on these sort of things and federal judges cloak and dagger it like "need to know information only, " or they suppress it. 

The Bulger case was atrocious when it came to FBI misconduct.  Scarpa same thing.  The FEDS didn't want information pouring out, and for good reason.  All the people Scarpa helped convict and send away would automatically get retrials based on the misconduct on the agents involved.  This is not so much an indictment of the FBI, as it is the Judges who let this walk on by without acknowledging that defendants cannot really mount a defense if evidence us suppressed because the judge feels like it's passed the spectrum of evidence they will allow or not.

The FEDS at times have had strong cases, not denying that, but at some point the system has to change.  It seems like in the federal system it's become guilty until found innocent.  We see the same crap at the state level, where the trade off a say a guy who murders 12 people but gets a pass morally because he rats on someone. The system is inept, stacked, and corrupt.  I'm not saying that on behalf of Joey Merlino, but rather people who have rotted in prison on the words of others for no reason, only to be released 30 years later with a half assed apology from the court.  Yet they still have a conviction on their record.

Look at the case of the West Memphis Three. Accused of the Robin Hood Hills murders.  They were convicted of murdering three kids, because of how they looked.  Zero evidence connected them.  They spent 20 years in prison, one one death row, only to be fully exonerated, but only if they plead guilty to murder, which they didn't commit.   The state of Arkansas refused to let them out, knowing they were innocent, unless they plead out.  It's beyond fucked up.  So what did they do?  The plead out to a crime they didn't commit, one the state knew they didn't commit, just because they didn't want to lose that conviction even though it was proven they were innocent, but DNA, bite marks, and more.

In final, it's the system that's weighted to one side.  We can argue the morals of criminals and more, that's not the point.  It should be fair going in, and going out.  You should have the same chance as the prosecution, but you don't.  The system needs reformation.    Joey Merlino, who hurt nobody got 24 months for winning $2,5000.  Because he didn't pay tax on it, he went to federal prison.  It's okay that the corner stores do it, it's okay bars do it, it's okay to play the 50/50 at the hockey game, but God forbid you win a dollar and not pay tax......it has to change.