GOTTI JR WAS A RAT? NOT ACCORDING TO CICALE, MASSINO AND BASCIANO.

The 302 the 302. It seems these days, that's all people can still bring up to attempt and castigate John Gotti Jr. It's only gotten more attention because an active mob boss on YouTube of all things says so. The problem is, there is a gray area here, in which nobody talks about. It's not about arguing whether that decision was good, or bad. It's about the core meat of the situation.

For those that know, John Gotti Jr sat down with the feds according to a 4th generation 302, which was dated 1/16/2006, in which John Gotti Jr allegedly sat down with the federal government and began a proffer session. What we know is this.  What he said, led to no indictments, no convictions, no plea deals. In fact, it was as Gotti dubbed it "a ruse."  The fact that Gotti told the FBI lies, knowingly lied, led to a dead end.  Why Gotti chose that, likely goes back to the witch hunt the FBI was performing on the Gotti family.

Regardless of where you stand, what you believe, because people will have their opinions, as will the streets, but the reality is, this was a plan, green-lit by the mafia, on all levels. People have no problem with upper echelon mobsters saying "okay go ahead," rather they want to castigate John Gotti Jr.  As I said, I want people to prove to me, there was an indictment for this information, I want the original 302 out, not some 4th rate version of a 302, obviously written by George Anastasia and an informant in that case. I am not saying a 302 doesn't exist, because it does, but I think people taking what Anastasia's reproduction is, is like those Bigfoot videos on YouTube.  You think you see something, but is it actually Bigfoot?

What is astonishing among the genre, is that people tend to disbelieve the FBI and informants, but in this case, more traditional skeptics refuse to acknowledge that a 302 by it's very design, is flawed, because it is in effect a 3rd person narrative on events.  It's someone writing down in their own words, what someone else is saying. It's not to say that it's totally untruthful, but you have to raise a few concerns when looking at a 4th generation document, obviously written on a computer by Anastasia.  Nevermind, that this 302 matches or albeit closely resembles that 302 of Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso's. 

THE RULES

My video regarding this entire matter has been miscued, misrepresented in many ways.  I am perfectly okay with debate on the issue, but not when people hear what they want, and distort the reality of the situation.  Number one, The Rules.  By the mob's rules, you cannot talk to police, you cannot sit down with the feds, you cannot be on YouTube, you cannot allocute.  These rules, have been bypassed a million times by a million different men.  The reality is, rules don't exist.  However, my main argument was this.  You cannot hold the rules and try to apply them to one man, and not everyone else.  It applies to all or it doesn't apply to any. Why that was lost in translation I will never understand.  I think sometimes people don't objectively listen, and hear the distortion that values their viewpoints. That's fair, we've all done that before.  

If John Gotti Jr, got Massino, then the boss of the Bonanno crime family to okay that, and Vincent Basciano himself agreed, and was also ready to do the exact same thing, then why is it, John Gotti is frowned upon, yet nobody mentions Basciano and Massino?  Dominic Cicale and Joseph D'Angelo both testified in federal court, that Vinny Basciano and John Gotti told them,  there was a plan in place to placate the feds.  The plan was exactly as John has stated.   In a taped 2004 jail house conversation, Gotti alludes to this plan when he says "We need to come up with a new way of defending."  D'Angelo would testify that Gotti was referring to the idea that both Basciano and Gotti had formulated together. In another taped call, Basciano says to Cicale, "Don't worry about it I've discussed this with John Gotti Junior, and Junior is going to have Joey D'Angelo do the same type of thing." However this also as well can be related to false testimony too.

This goes back to the summer of 2005. Both Basicano and Gotti were housed in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. Cicale, would tell investigators that Gotti would need the support of Basciano, because mob rules forbid mobsters from sitting down with the feds or taking the stand."  According to Cicale, Basciano filled him in about the prison meeting between Basciano and Gotti, and that word stretched back from Joey Massino, has already signed off on the idea earlier.  According to Cicale, Basciano relayed that he wanted a favor from Gotti, because they were going to allow John to take the stand or sit with the feds, Basciano wanted Cicale, to be called as a witness, to give false testimony. Basciano had originally planned to do the same exact thing as Gotti, however, Cicale turned government witness and Basciano couldn't do as he planned.  Gotti formed this idea, before 2005, because he spoke to Massino about it, who green lit the idea.  

What people are quick to say is, well Massino got arrested in 2003, and was held without bail.  During that time, Vincent Basciano was named acting boss of the family.  Massino would then be hit with another superseding indictment.  He would go to trial on May 24, 2004.  Massino would be found guilty on all counts on July 30, 2004.  As we know Gotti was hammered with an 11 count indictment in 2004 just a few months shy of his release from prison.  We also know Massino would flip in October of 2005, officially. Where the issue is, is the timing.  I honestly don't have those answers, however the testimony alone of Cicale, and Massino proves on thing every clear, they knew that Gotti was playing the feds, and agreed it was okay.  Those are undeniable facts.

Now, the beliefs many seem to have is that Gotti even talking to the feds was a rat move. Fine, I understand your viewpoint. However, the question that I think is much bigger one is this.  You can claim Gotti is an informant, yet, substantially speaking, nobody got arrested, nobody was charged, and nobody got indicted. It was a dead end. The side dish to this is that Basciano and Massino signed off on it.  So if your issue is, well John shouldn't have talked to the feds, fine. Point taken.  However, when bosses do sign off on such an idea, doesn't that make them complicit to an extent as well?  What John's father would have thought was irrelevant, because his father's thoughts are his thoughts. Using that against his son, really is dismissing the facts about the issue.  His thoughts about it, sure, he would have loathed it, hated it, but he also said to his son in a prison discussion taped in 1999, "take care of you and your family, do what YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO DO."  Now, that's not Gotti Senior signing off on what takes place in 2006. The elder Gotti not being okay with that, I think I'd agree with, but it's a moot point. That's like asking me if I like pizza. Some do, some don't. Universally speaking, yes, in the streets, they saw what John did as a rat move.  However, once again, it goes back to the very foundation of the rules, which are thrown aside depending on who's doing the throwing.

Whether or not, I believe he is, or he isn't, doesn't matter.  The reality is, the facts you cannot ignore.  The question thrust to me was "What would his dad think?"  Okay back at you, what would John Gotti think about an active boss on YouTube? What would Gambino think about that? They would, call him a rat. This is why that argument has no value.  So therefore, the twisting of the narrative begins.  With all do respect, and I like a good debate, I encourage it, however you cannot pick and choose which parts of the life, or which parts of the rules you think exist for one person, and not another.  I get it, how can you can say John Gotti is not a rat, and call someone else a rat?  I understand it. 

My answer will always be the same, in MY OPINION, nothing came of it, he hurt nobody but himself, however that same standard being thrust at John Gotti Jr, is not being thrust at others.  Is there a difference? Yes. Sure. However, the point many of you fail to see, or to understand, is that by all accounts, what many are doing, have done, in accordance to their core beliefs, makes many of them "rats."  Is there a difference between giving information versus being on YouTube? In my opinion no. It's the same thing in terms of what their core beliefs are. about what's acceptable and what isn't. Once again, their beliefs not mine.  You cannot argue semantics about this, because that doesn't exist on the streets. It's you are, or you aren't.  All for one, one for all.