WHAT AUTHORS ,RATS AND THE FBI WANT YOU TO BELIEVE.

In the last few years, I have sat back and watched like cringing when journalists and authors report on the mafia, and or write books.  While many articles and books are entertaining, as they should be, that's the whole point right?  The problem is, they are often riddled with inaccuracies, factual misgivings, and out right lies.  Yes. Lies.   While I am NOT a published author on any book tour, I think what bothers me most about these types is just the lack of research they actually do.

I have read many books, and I'm all for a spin. It's one thing to report information from second and 3rd hand sources, it's another to just out right lie.  I've always said it, if you're looking for factual information at least from the perspective of what was said at trial, and what evidence was used, you have to read court transcripts, but that's just a guideline for a trial.  It doesn't mean what your reading is absolute fact.   While I certainly understand for the sake of a creation you have to interview everyone, it seems like the direct route these people use are the word
s of informants, which while I completely understand that basis, your sorta asking the devil to write Christmas cards so you can make some scratch.

When you rely on men, who have no standards, I don't expect your book to have any either.  For the sake of argument, I totally understand why authors ask informants for details.  They need to fill gaps because they don't understand the streets.  All the reading and writing doesn't make you an expert or someone who has intimate knowledge.  While I get it, the one thing I cannot wrap my head around is when authors out right lie.  Perhaps the biggest author guilty of this is George Anastasia. He's not the only one, just the most recent one.

While I have read Anastasia's work over the years, the bulk of his context comes from informants.  While George, has somewhat of a pulse on the comings and going's of the mafia, he relies on unsavory imbeciles to fill his book with a certain flavor which give his narrative a push.  Now, I'm not singling out Anastasia, because others do this as well.

What if I told you, I could sit down and show you three hundred pages which refute one of his books? What if I told you he knew he was lying when he wrote his last book?   If you're going to be ballsy enough to say you did your research and your homework, and I can simply print out court transcripts which refute an entire story, then what would you think?  What if I told you he printed a fictitious 302 in his book, also while saying he actually saw a 302, yet didn't have the balls or where with all to print it?   If your an author and there is 100% certifiable proof to something why not include that?  The truth is, because this alleged 302 he's never ever seen.  He took the word of an informant who has zero credibility.

The basis for any story has to have a genesis of truth.  While I am not saying his last book was 100% a lie, the majority of it was, and he knows it.  He was challenged publicly by someone on printing those lies, and was challenged with facts on what he alleged, and he refused to acknowledge it.

The point I am making is, I don't think you can read any book where the "facts" included come from assertions and come from informants and take it seriously.  For instance.  How can you go from saying "I killed ten guys. I baseball batted 20 guys."  Then you look at the transcripts and you were convicted of two murders. Then months later you "killed 40 guys."   Which one is it?   That's the point I'm making, you have to consider the source, and Anastasia by allowing an informant to drop a narrative and he fully backs up lie after lie after lie, you sorta lose any credibility you have.

If your gonna tell a story and you don't want to have an opinion then play it both ways if you can.  Give the reader some sort of perspective, not 300 pages of absolutely bullshit to swallow and purge/ Your not being honest, that's the first problem.  Saying well "I took his word for it, " and then those lies can be blown to shreds by documents, then what you have is someone just wanting to sell a book.  It becomes about numbers and dollars and not about what's real.  The line gets blurred very quickly.   Average people don't know the streets, but they are willing to swallow your book because that's the closest they will ever get to that life, and sadly your not being honest whatsoever. Blaming the informant is as shallow as it gets.  Take some responsibility.

Salvatore "Sammy The Bull" Gravano is a character who totally made a lot of things up.  Did you know Sammy killed an innocent 17 year old kid?  That never gets reported by mainstream media, nor do your book writers or journalists.  This is a guy who admitted killed 19 people, ended up with a 5 year sentence only to go right back out and sell drugs.  In fact, many have asked why Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso's deal was thrown in the trash.   The fact is, the FBI will allege he was shaking people down in prison, and starting fights.  They will even at times and I've seen it, they will say Casso was lying.  Since when did lies bother the FBI?  What the truth is, Gravano couldn't get a great deal if it was found out he was selling a massive amount of drugs.   Casso was open about what Gravano did, and he found it funny that the FBI wasn't mentioning that.  It was so bad, and the credibility of the government was at stake.  If Gravano was caught lying then everyone he testified against would be able to file an appeal.  The FBI wanted Casso to essentially shut the fuck up. Casso knew Gravano was lying, and called him on it, but as I said, the FBI couldn't deal with it, so they tossed Casso in solitary and tore up his agreement.  It just came down to Gravano being a prize. I''m not validating Casso, because he's as desperate as Gravano, but the point is, these guys lie.  They lie about everything. How do we know that?

We have to look at the process of proffering.  The first problem is, most of these proffering sessions are half ass recorded and memorialized on paper.  The FBI is looking for X,Y and Z.  They could give a fuck about A, B, or C.   The problem with that, is the entire context of what is said, is lost.  We get tiny parts here and there.  The other issue is, informants realize from the beginning they have to have a huge fish story or they can't get what they want, which is a lifetime pay check, a new home, and a get out of jail free card.   I cannot tell you how many informants have been on record via Youtube, the radio or in books saying they had to inflate things because that's what the government wants.  So if they are admitting to adding a little pepper to the stew, then how can we believe anything they fucking say?

Ron Previte, after trying to bury Joey Merlino, and he failed miserably at that, went on record as saying "I'm a liar, the best one you'll ever see."  He went on further to admit to bookmaking and loan sharking after getting a great deal by the government.  He's another one who lied at every turn to fulfill his own need to be recognized as someone of stature, rather than a petty ass thief and bookmaker, which is all he was.

JR Rubeo, who testified against Joey Merlino in the East Coast Enterprise Case, failed at every level to prove anything he said.  He was the least credible witness I have ever seen.  Another one who lied at every turn to try and get himself the fuck outta jail.  He was caught on prison tapes whining and bemoaning Joey, but it was Rubeo who got himself arrested to begin with, and then was asked by the FBI to go after Merlino.  This is after Patsy Parello warned him to stay the "fuck away from Joey Merlino."  It was Rubeo who got caught selling drugs and didn't want to do a day in jail, when he offered himself to the FBI.  Also on tapes he was caught trying to blackmail the FBI, a judge, and even was in discussions with George Anastasia to write a book, according to Rubeo on the stand.   Rubeo alleged so many things it was almost laughable.  The problem is, Rubeo was lying and he knew it.  If that information was so solid, then why is it the government refused to retry Merlino for the fraud part of the indictment?  Rubeo couldn't pass the sniff test if his life depended on it.

What authors and informants want you to believe is that they are telling you the truth.  They aren't.  Authors specifically blend facts with lies and try to push it off as the complete truth, and it's not.  I'm not in any way saying anyone ever accused of crimes is 100% innocent.  That's not the point.  The point is, "you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers."  Most of the time these guys are guilty in the court of public opinion before the case ever gets started and while opinions are like assholes, the problem is, they are taking the words of informants as facts.

Look at the current case of Philip Narducci.  On it's face value, it looks bad.  It looks bad because not what's been reported but how it's been reported.  First of all, Philip is a success story.  He did a huge bid in prison.  He gets out and puts his life together.   He becomes a success, and the FBI can't have that.  What makes this even more suspect is this.  If Philip has a hugely successful and profitable business, why on fucks earth would this guy throw a loan on the street for $20,000?  It makes zero sense.

Yet the informant they have allegedly asked for a loan, then welshed on the payment, began ratting on others, and then mentions to the FBI that "Narducci, loaned him money, and their were problems."  Why would a co-defendant in that case go to see the informant using Philip's name?  It makes zero sense all the way around.  The mere fact that this informant was already snitching, and then went further to drop Philip's name speaks volumes to me.  The point is the fish he was talking about wasn't big enough, so let's add someone else's name to the mix.

Tony Salerno?  The FBI knew he was not the boss of the Genovese crime family.   Yet, they charged Salerno with being the boss in the Commission trial.   They had wiretaps where Salerno says openly "I don't know who any of these guys are, just pass the list to the boss."  He was referring to Vincent Gigante.  The FBI fully knew that, authors who have written books should know that, but they don't report that.  Salerno gets a life sentence for being something he wasn't.  Why did the FBI hold that back?

FBI Special Agent Joe Pistone, AKA DONNIE BRASCO, lied repeatedly about his involvement in crimes he took part in while undercover in the Bonanno crime family.   He took part in beatings, theft, drug dealing and more.  He was told never to "do violent acts."  Yet he did.  He admits in several interviews that he broke the law while undercover, but it didn't matter now because he was out of the FBI.  A direct result of Pistone's action led the the death of Sonny Black.  They knew Sonny was gonna likely get hit, and it makes me sick when Pistone laments that he liked Sonny a lot and it's a shame.  The FBI pulled Lefty Ruggiero off the streets to keep him from getting killed, but not Sonny.   However if you watch "Donnie Brasco," it's filled with joke after joke about the reality of what Pistone did.

People ask me why I defend people like Joey, Philip, Crea, Maddonna and others.  It's simple.  It's not a moral issue I struggle with.  I do it because I have seen the FBI lie at a lot of turns, and I have seen informants destroy lives with lie after lie after lie.  I never make it morally accepted for one person to kill another.  However, the streets are the streets.  Whether you agree with that code or not, or whether I do or don't isn't the point.   The point is, that we have to stop believing the garbage spewed by authors, informants and the FBI.   Some guys are guilty.  I'm not saying everyone is innocent. I just think journalists should have some scruples, and I think authors should have some sort of respect for themselves.  I don't mean I need to see fluff pieces about gangsters.  I just think some levity and honesty and integrity is what's missing.  Nobody seems to want to call the FBI out, nobody wants to call these journalists and authors out.  This is exactly why I do.  If you think my life is more enjoyable for doing that, you're nuts.

STOP WITH THE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS

Why help the FBI?  If your an author write fucking books.  If your a journalist write articles.  It's okay to suggest, but never put it out as a cold hard fact unless it is.   I have never ever in my life posted a photo of myself with any street guy.  I have never ever video taped a guy minding his own business and putting a name and title on them.  For starters it's a rat move, and a piece of shit thing to do to someone.  The mere fact that two shit bags from Philadelphia do this, makes me physically ill.  If you think the FBI isn't watching your wrong.  If you think these two aren't talking to the FBI your nuts.  They are.  That's their source.   I really want someone to explain to me, how them sitting outside an alleged social club, dropping a name and title is right in any stretch of the imagination?

It makes me sick.  It's one thing if you wanna do your show, and contemplate what's been alleged, but the fact that your bringing up murders that are thirty years old, attaching Joey Merlino to it, when he was in prison at the time is about as reckless as it gets.  Someone told me "You do the same thing they do."  I don't.  While I have speculated about indictments and etc, that's where the comparison ends.  I don't sit out of someones house or place of business recording them, then using their name and rank.  I will never do that, ever.

The mere fact that they allege street guys are talking to them, disgusts me.   Why anyone would talk to them after they do what they do just dumbfounds me.  I talked to someone  who will remain nameless, but they are a member of the Philadelphia mafia.  "I don't get it, that fucking guy Rattweiser, it's like he get's a fucking hard on for this shit. What the fuck is wrong with that guy?"  Keep in mind both Rattweiser and Anastasia both said "Narducci is retired", multiple times then would double back and say he was a "capo"  You cannot tell me they didn't know Philip was gonna get arrested.  They were outside his home when he was arrested.  They knew. The FBI don't send out arrest memos before hand.

My final point, is stop believing everything you hear.  I cannot tell you how far off some of the these guys are. It's one thing if you attend a trial and you see evidence that buries a guy.  It's another to believe what these guys spew online.  Think about it, I have been named as a member of the Gambino crime family, the Bonanno crime family, and Philadelphia.  I'm none of those things.  The audacity of rumors that aren't based on facts is astounding.  Just the other day, someone was spewing my father was a leg breaker for the Patriarca's.   He was in the navy his entire life.  That's my point.  There are websites devoted to the most ludicrous shit I have ever seen, and authors while better informed do the same thing.  The exact same thing.   So my advice is, do research, read court transcripts.  Don't think your getting the "hot breaking info," from two guys who essentially stake out alleged mob haunts and take videos naming names and titles.   Believe me neither one is a man, but a coward on every level.