|
|
|
In
the Matter of Bruno Caruso, et al. Laborers’
International Union of North America Independent
Hearing Officer Docket
No. 99-12D Decided
January 10, 2001 Order
and Memorandum PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
This matter comes before the Laborers’ International Union of North
America (LIUNA) Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) pursuant to the LIUNA
constitutions and the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure (EDP).
On March 3, 1999, disciplinary charges were filed by the LIUNA General
Executive Board Attorney (GEB Attorney) against Bruno Caruso, Frank Caruso,[1]
Leo Caruso (Respondents), and James DiForti.
The charges allege Respondents committed conduct proscribed in LIUNA
constitutions and the EDP by membership in and knowing association with the
Chicago Outfit of organized crime, violation of duty of loyalty, permitting
LCN influence in LIUNA, and violation of constitutional duties.
James DiForti died after the hearing in this matter was held, but
before the briefing and ruling; as a result, the GEB Attorney requested that
the IHO dismiss the charges against him.
The charges against DiForti will be dismissed, infra.
Bruno Caruso and Leo Caruso filed several pretrial motions to which the
GEB Attorney responded. The IHO
issued several orders addressing the pretrial motions.
See 99-12D, IHO Orders
(September 14 and 15, 1999). In
response to Bruno Caruso and Leo Caruso’s Motion for Full Disclosure, the
IHO ordered the GEB Attorney to provide additional specifics regarding the
charges. See
99-12D, IHO Order (September 15, 1999); 99-12D, GEB Attorney’s Responses to
IHO’s Orders (November 11, 1999). The
IHO rescheduled the hearing several times over several months to accommodate
the schedule of defense counsel and to permit one Respondent to hire new
counsel due to his former counsel’s involvement in complex litigation.
The IHO held a pre-hearing conference on December 6, 1999, for the GEB
Attorney and Respondents to preliminarily identify documents they intended to
introduce at the hearing. The GEB
Attorney provided a memorandum regarding his exhibits, their relevance, and
admissibility. See
99-12D, GEB Attorney’s Memorandum re: Exhibits
and Undisputed Facts (December 6, 1999).
The IHO held a hearing in Chicago, Illinois, on January 10-12, 20-21,
26-27 and February 8-10, 21, 2000. The
hearing testimony is contained in over 2000 pages of transcript and included
twenty-eight witnesses and over one hundred exhibits.
Bruno Caruso and Leo Caruso appeared at the conference and hearing and
were represented by counsel. Counsel
for Frank Caruso and James DiForti communicated to the IHO that neither they
nor their clients would attend the hearing, but wanted to continue receiving
copies of communications. Counsel
for Local Union 1001 was permitted to attend but not actively participate in
the hearing.
The IHO permitted Leo Caruso to reopen the record and allowed for
additional testimony, which was taken by telephone on May 1, 2000.
The GEB Attorney and Respondents Bruno Caruso and Leo Caruso submitted
post-hearing briefs. RECUSAL
OF THE IHO
Bruno Caruso and Leo Caruso repeatedly moved for recusal of the IHO
based upon the IHO having previously officiated at the trusteeship hearing for
the Construction & General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago &
Vicinity (Chicago District Council or CDC).
See In
the Matter of the Construction & General Laborers’ District Council of
Chicago & Vicinity (In Re Chicago District Council), IHO Order and
Memorandum, 97-30T (February 7, 1998). Prior
to the hearing, the IHO denied the motions.
See 99-12D, IHO Orders
(September 14, 1999) and (December 9, 1999).
The Respondents renewed their motion at the hearing and in their
post-hearing briefs. As discussed
fully under similar circumstances in In
the Matter of John A. Matassa Jr., the IHO denies the Motion for Recusal
for the reasons which follow. See
In the Matter of John A. Matassa Jr.,
IHO Order and Memorandum, 98-43D (May 12, 1999).
In the present matter, the IHO had previously heard testimony in
trusteeship proceedings and made findings regarding allegations about
Respondents and the Chicago Outfit based on the evidence presented.
There is no evidence that the IHO has any bias against Respondents;
findings in a prior factual matter do not evidence partiality.
Absent any other evidence of partiality, the fact that the IHO has made
factual findings in a previous matter regarding Respondents does not
demonstrate that the IHO is partial to one party or the other.
As stated under similar circumstances, when the IHO first hears a
trusteeship proceeding then subsequently hears a disciplinary proceeding, that
arises from the trusteeship hearing, “the IHO acts similarly to a judge who
conducts a hearing on a preliminary injunction and makes findings with regard
to granting the injunction, and then later hears a civil case arising from the
same facts.” In
the Matter of John Matassa, Jr., IHO Order and Memorandum, 98-43D (May 12,
1999). Both the LIUNA Appellate
Officer and the United States District Court have previously upheld the IHO in
his refusal to recuse himself from a disciplinary matter following a
trusteeship proceeding involving the same individuals.
See, e.g, In the Matter of John A. Matassa Jr., 99-009-IHO
(December 9, 1999); John A. Matassa Jr.
v. Laborers’ International Union of North America, No. 99C8158 (N.D.
Ill. Aug. 29, 2000)(applying to the LIUNA IHO the judicial rule that “a
judicial officer need not recuse himself because of knowledge gained under his
judicial capacity in another case, so long as he bases his decision on the
evidence presented in the case under consideration”) citing
United States v. Bond, 847 F.2d
1233, 1241 (7th Cir. 1988), overruled
on other grounds, and Ruthlege
v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996). STANDARD
OF REVIEW
In In Re Chicago District
Council, the IHO made numerous findings concerning Respondents and other
LIUNA members regarding organized crime association.
The issue in that trusteeship case was whether organized crime had
infiltrated the Chicago District Council and whether trusteeship was warranted
for the protection of the membership and LIUNA assets.
The instant matter involves Respondents as individuals, and the issue
is whether conduct alleged by the GEB Attorney warrants disciplinary action.
Although the IHO made findings in
In Re Chicago District Council regarding the Respondents, the IHO will
examine all the evidence regarding Respondents de
novo as it applies to each Respondent individually.
The GEB Attorney’s burden is, as in any LIUNA disciplinary matter,
proof by a preponderance of the evidence. MOTION
TO SEVER DIFORTI AND FRANK CARUSO
Due to DiForti and Frank Caruso’s lack of participation at the
hearing, Bruno Caruso and Leo Caruso made a Motion to Sever DiForti and Frank
Caruso. The IHO denied the Motion
to Sever, as he found no danger of spillover prejudice to Bruno and Leo
Caruso. The IHO is unaffected by
the knowledge that Frank Caruso is Bruno Caruso’s brother and Leo Caruso’s
cousin. The IHO does not give any
weight to familial relationship between an individual associated with
organized crime and a respondent solely based upon relation. EVIDENTIARY
CONSIDERATIONS
Robert Cooley’s Appearance Limited to
Counsel
Robert Cooley is a protected witness whose current facial features and
present identity have been modified and are closely guarded.
Hearing Transcript (Tr.) 608, 611.
The FBI made Robert Cooley available to testify in person during the
hearing on the condition that the persons allowed to view his appearance be
limited to the attorneys for the parties and the IHO.
Tr. 603. Respondents’
counsel objected to their clients not being permitted to view Robert Cooley in
person during his testimony. Tr.
601-616. The IHO determined that
all interests could be properly balanced by having the IHO, counsel for
Respondents, and the GEB Attorney present in the room with Robert Cooley
during his testimony. The
Respondents were permitted to hear the entire testimony via telephone and were
permitted to consult with their counsel at any time via telephone.
In addition, Respondents were given a recess to consult with their
attorneys in person prior to Robert Cooley’s cross-examination.
Tr. 618.
Michael Corbitt’s Testimony
Michael Corbitt is a protected witness who testified via telephone from
an undisclosed location for safety reasons.
With the possible exception of security personnel, Michael Corbitt
testified alone, without assistance from outside individuals.
Tr. 770. Bruno Caruso and
Leo Caruso objected to the testimony given by Michael Corbitt because he could
not be placed under oath, since the court reporter could not administer the
oath by telephone. The IHO
informed Michael Corbitt that he was still considered under oath from prior
testimony given in the CDC proceeding where Michael Corbitt had been sworn.[2]
Michael Corbitt was subject to cross-examination, as well as
questioning by the IHO.
During portions of Michael Corbitt’s cross-examination, Michael
Corbitt refused to answer questions regarding his contact with a former
Assistant United States Attorney in Florida and whether he had been rewarded
for testifying before the IHO in the CDC proceeding or would be rewarded in
the future for cooperation in this hearing.
The Respondents objected to and moved to strike his testimony.
The IHO required that the GEB Attorney put into the record Michael
Corbitt’s reward, if any, for testifying before the IHO in the CDC
Trusteeship Proceedings. The IHO
concludes that Michael Corbitt’s sentence was reduced for his prior
cooperation.
The
IHO denied the Motion to Strike in an Order dated April 14, 2000.
As explained fully in the April 14, 2000 Order, the IHO noted that a
full and fair hearing in LIUNA proceedings does not include the Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth Amendment; striking the entire testimony is a drastic
remedy within the discretion of the judge.
The IHO found that Michael Corbitt did respond to cross-examination on
material points. (For more
extensive findings and discussion, see
Order of April 14, 2000.) Charles
“Guy” Bills’ Testimony As Prior Testimony of an Unavailable Witness
Charles “Guy” Bills (Bills) was scheduled to testify at the
disciplinary hearing, but died of a heart attack before he was able to do so.
As a result, the GEB Attorney offered the transcript of Bills’
testimony from the CDC proceedings. Respondents
objected to the use of the prior testimony.
In the April 14, 2000 Order, the IHO admitted Bills’ testimony,
finding that there had been a predecessor in interest, motive, and opportunity
in the CDC proceedings making it appropriate to admit the testimony as prior
testimony of an unavailable witness. See
99-12D, IHO Order (April 14, 2000). WITNESSES
John J. O’Rourke
John J. O’Rourke (O’Rourke) has been an inspector with the LIUNA
Inspector General’s (IG) Office since May 1996.
Tr. 34-35. Prior to that
time, O’Rourke served as a special agent for the Office of Naval
Intelligence for six years and a special agent for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) for twenty-six years.
Tr. 35. O’Rourke retired
from the FBI in 1995 and spent over a year as an Inspector for the Cook County
Sheriff’s Office, assigned full-time to the FBI task force in Chicago.
Id.
Of the thirty-two years O’Rourke spent in law enforcement,
twenty-three years specifically involved investigating organized crime in the
Chicago area. Tr. 35-36.
O’Rourke worked in the FBI Chicago field office investigating Chicago
organized crime from approximately 1974 until May 1996.
Tr. 35. During that time,
O’Rourke participated in several hundred organized crime related
investigations in Chicago and played a role in seventy five to one hundred
organized crime convictions. Tr.
36. O’Rourke has also served as
a field police instructor for the FBI, conducting seminars and classes in
organized crime and hostage negotiations for local and federal law enforcement
agencies. Tr. 37.
O’Rourke personally participated in investigations of the organized
crime 26th Street Crew from 1979 until 1984, and then continued assisting with
intelligence information until his retirement in 1995.
Tr. 98-99. As one specific
example, O’Rourke was the case agent on an investigation of extortion and
credit transactions, or loansharking, the subjects of which were Joseph
“Shorty” LaMantia, Frank Caruso, Aldo Pisceitelli, and Fred “Bruno”
Barbara. Tr. 148.
As part of that investigation, O’Rourke had the opportunity to
observe the interaction of those individuals.
Tr. 151-52. As part of
investigating and intelligence gathering, O’Rourke personally spoke with
associates and members of the Chicago Outfit, who provided information about
the 26th Street Crew. Tr. 99.
The GEB Attorney called O’Rourke as an expert witness.
The use of expert witnesses has been accepted previously in labor
litigation resulting from the consent decree between the Department of Justice
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT).
In United States v. Int’l Bhd.
of Teamsters, an FBI agent gave, and the court accepted, expert testimony
relating to organized crime membership based upon his reading of FBI crime
reports, his own notes from attending FBI debriefings, depositions, testimony
of unnamed cooperating witnesses, and FBI physical surveillance.
See United States v. Int’l
Bhd. of Teamsters (Senese and Talerico), 745 F. Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
The IHO has adopted this procedure.
See, e.g., In
the Matter of Charles Miceli, IHO Order and Memorandum 98-11D (May 27,
1999); In the Matter of Salvatore
Franco, IHO Order and Memorandum 98-04D (October 6, 1998); In
the Matter of John Matassa Jr., IHO Order and Memorandum 98-43D (May 12,
1999); In the Matter of Construction
& General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago & Vicinity, IHO
Order and Memorandum 97-30T (February 7, 1998).
Under this procedure, O’Rourke has previously been qualified to
testify before the IHO as an expert in organized crime in the Chicago area.
Tr. 37; see also
In the Matter of John Matassa Jr.,
IHO Order and Memorandum 98-43D (May 12, 1999); In
the Matter of Construction & General Laborers’ District Council of
Chicago & Vicinity, IHO Order and Memorandum 97-30T (February 7,
1998). The IHO finds that
O’Rourke is a qualified expert witness in criminal investigations and the
structure of organized crime in Chicago; his testimony, which is in
conformance with accepted investigative techniques, is reliable.
In order to facilitate the proceedings, O’Rourke submitted an
affidavit prior to the hearing indicating support for the opinion he rendered.
Tr. 212; see also
GEB Ex. 105 (Affidavit of John J. O’Rourke).
O’Rourke prepared his affidavit based upon the results of interviews
of cooperating witnesses and informants.
Tr. 210. The practice of
an expert witness submitting an affidavit, based upon his conclusions and
delineating the basis for those conclusions, has been accepted in disciplinary
cases arising under the IBT consent decree by former federal judge Fredrick
Lacey, acting as the hearing officer. See,
e.g., Senese and Talerico, 745 F. Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
The affidavit did not completely substitute O’Rourke’s testimony.
The affidavit was provided to Respondents’ counsel before the
hearing; in addition to the affidavit, O’Rourke appeared and testified
extensively at the hearing. See
Tr. 34-176, 189-525.
O’Rourke’s affidavit discussed the use of cooperating witnesses and
confidential informants. A
cooperating witness is a publicly identified individual who provides
information about organized crime and agrees to testify in court.
See GEB Ex. 105 (Affidavit
of John J. O’Rourke). A
confidential informant is an individual with information, or in a position to
obtain information, who is not willing to be named publicly or testify.
Tr. 44. Confidential
informants are statistically tracked in various aspects of information
supplied, such as search warrants, Title III affidavits, and arrests.
Tr. 44-45. The IHO’s
evaluation of the confidential informants are discussed, infra.
O’Rourke testified that he had personally interviewed six identified
cooperating witnesses and eight confidential informants who provided
information regarding Frank Caruso, Bruno Caruso, Leo Caruso, or James DiForti
and organized crime. Tr. 105-07,
222-23, 234, 241; see also
GEB Ex. 105 (Affidavit of John J. O’Rourke).
The cooperating witnesses O’Rourke relied upon are discussed in
detail as follows:
Richard
Mara
Richard John Mara (Mara) was a member of the 26th Street/Chinatown crew
who later cooperated with the FBI; he was interviewed and debriefed
extensively by O’Rourke. Tr.
105. Mara testified for the
federal government in several federal criminal cases and is currently in the
Witness Security Program. Tr.
105, 106, 215. Mara was a
burglar, armed robber, and cartage thief[3]
who worked for Ron Jarrett and Frank Calabrese collecting juice loans.
Tr. 105, 215. O’Rourke
interviewed Mara on September 1996 and May 1997, specifically concerning the
influence of organized crime on LIUNA in the Chicago area.
Tr. 216; see also GEB Ex.
105 (Affidavit of John J. O’Rourke ¶ 22).
O’Rourke testified that the information Mara provided was
corroborated in part by Joseph LaMantia’s plea agreement.
Tr. 116-17; see
also GEB Ex. 48 (Plea Agreement, United
States v. Joseph Frank LaMantia, No. 93CR523-1 (N.D. Ill. September 26,
1996)).
James Peter Basile
O’Rourke testified that James Peter “Duke” or “Dukey” Basile
(Basile) was known to the FBI as a lifelong associate of organized crime both
through his own admission and through investigation by the FBI.
Tr. 233. Basile agreed to
cooperate with the FBI in approximately 1986 and did so until he surfaced in
1988, due to the arrest of Scarpelli. Id.
While cooperating with the FBI, Basile conducted: numerous telephone
conversations; personal meetings with members of organized crime, such as
Gerald H. Scarpelli, James Inendino, Rocky Infelise, and Michael Sarno; and
furnished money to these individuals during meetings that were recorded on a
body recorder and monitored by FBI agents.
Id.
Basile testified in trials that resulted in convictions, including the
trials of Rocky Infelise and his crew, and of Albert C. Tocco, boss of the
Chicago Heights crew. Tr. 233-34.
O’Rourke has personally spoken with Basile over one hundred times and
the FBI has spoken with and debriefed Basile almost daily over a two-year
period. Tr. 234.
Gerald
H. Scarpelli
Gerald H. Scarpelli (Scarpelli) was the boss of Basile, ran an
enforcement crew, and was a hit man for the Ferriola crew.
Tr. 106. O’Rourke and
other agents arrested Scarpelli in July 1998 after an extensive year-long
investigation, including consensual recordings made by Basile of meetings with
Scarpelli and other members of the Ferriola crew.
Id.
The night of Scarpelli’s arrest, O’Rourke debriefed him extensively
and Scarpelli agreed to cooperate with the FBI.
Tr. 106-07; see also GEB Ex.
37 (FBI FD-302 of Gerald Scarpelli by SAs John J. O’Rourke and Thomas B.
Noble of July 18, 1988). In the
present matter, the information provided by O’Rourke regarding Scarpelli was
offered mainly as corroboration and organized crime background.
Joseph Granata
O’Rourke testified that Joseph Granata (Granata) was a member of
organized crime and a participant in the Ferriola crew with contacts in other
crews. Tr. 221.
Granata’s father and brother, Frank, were also members of organized
crime. Id.
O’Rourke spoke with Granata on many occasions while O’Rourke was in
the FBI. Tr. 222.
Granata made undercover drug buys from organized crime figures on
behalf of the FBI, which later resulted in convictions.
Tr. 223. After Granata
entered the Witness Security Program, O’Rourke continued to speak with him
on a regular basis. Tr. 222.
Since working for LIUNA, O’Rourke has spoken with Granata
approximately twenty to thirty times, the most recent being in the same month
as this hearing [January 2000]. Tr.
223.
William Jahoda
O’Rourke gave testimony regarding William Jahoda (Jahoda).
O’Rourke testified that Jahoda had stated that he did not know the
Respondents and that he had only heard some comments regarding allegations of
organized crime and the Respondents. Since
Jahoda’s information was vague and too removed from the Respondents, the IHO
did not credit any of the testimony regarding Jahoda.
Umberto Filippi
Umberto Filippi (Filippi), an Italian immigrant residing in Chicago who
held many jobs as a waiter and maître d'hôtel, provided information to the
FBI. Tr. 244.
Filippi eventually became the caretaker, chauffeur, cook, and valet to
Salvatore Termini, a member of organized crime also known as Sal Mango
(Mango). Id.
Mango operated National Consolidated Industries (NCI), which supplied
eyeglass services to the City of Chicago and labor unions.
Id.
Due to his position as chauffeur and caretaker, Filippi was able to
observe Mango’s meetings with others. Id.
Confidential
Informants
In addition to the named cooperating individuals, O’Rourke stated
that he had received information regarding the Respondents from eleven
confidential informants. O’Rourke
utilized these statements to support his opinion that the Respondents are
associated with organized crime.
The IHO will accept hearsay statements of informants under very limited
and closely monitored circumstances. See,
e.g., In the Matter of John Matassa
Jr., IHO 98-43D; In re Chicago
District Council, IHO 97-30T. A
professional law enforcement officer may relate informant testimony as part of
his opinion that an individual is a member or associate of organized crime.
See In
re Chicago District Council, IHO 97-30T.
This information must be supplied by an organization with a defined,
qualified informant program and there must be a demonstration that the
informants have been qualified and classified by that organization.
Not all law enforcement organizations will be accepted by the IHO as
sources of informant information.
In this matter, O’Rourke’s informants were all qualified and
classified by the FBI. They had a
demonstrated history of reliability. This
informant testimony related by O’Rourke varied from being very specific to
very general. The informant
information, combined with other facts relied upon by O’Rourke, was
sufficient to satisfy the IHO that O’Rourke’s opinion should be given
substantial weight.
Law Enforcement Testimony
In addition to O’Rourke’s testimony, the GEB Attorney presented
evidence from other law enforcement personnel concerning surveillances in
which they had participated: Ellwood
Egan, Peter Dignan, John Dineen, and Brian Murphy.
Their background and experience are discussed as follows:
Ellwood
Egan
Ellwood Egan (Egan) is a detective with the Chicago Police Department
assigned to the FBI task force. Tr.
533. Egan has been involved in
law enforcement for thirty-seven years; he began as a patrolman and was
promoted to detective in the homicide division in approximately 1967.
Id.
Egan worked in the homicide division for ten years and then transferred
to the Intelligence Division of the Chicago Police Department in the
mid-1970s, where he continued for approximately seventeen years.
Tr. 533-34. While with the
Intelligence Division, Egan worked on organized crime related matters.
Tr. 534. In 1988 or 1989,
Egan was detailed to the FBI Task Force from the Chicago Police Department, a
position he currently holds. Tr.
535.
Peter F. Dignan
Peter F. Dignan (Dignan) is a Chicago Police Department Lieutenant
currently assigned to the 21st District.
Tr. 1015. Dignan began his
law enforcement career on March 31, 1969, as a patrol officer for three years
and was promoted to detective in the homicide unit, where he worked for
thirteen years. Tr. 1016.
Thereafter, Dignan served as a detective in the narcotics section for
three years; was promoted to sergeant in 1988; went to the patrol division for
eighteen months; and, returned to the narcotics section as a sergeant for four
years. Id.
Dignan next served in the gambling unit for approximately seven or
eight months, where he investigated illegal gambling, syndicated gambling,
organized crime, and related matters. Tr.
1016-17. After the gambling unit,
Dignan was transferred to the intelligence section where his responsibilities
included investigating crimes of a sensitive nature, mostly concerning
organized crime. Tr. 1017-18.
In 1998, Dignan was promoted to lieutenant and returned to the patrol
division. Id.
During the course of his career, Dignan has conducted approximately one
thousand surveillances. Tr. 1018.
Dignan has surveiled members of organized crime including Frank Sweis,
John Monteleone, Alfonse Tournabene, and John Matassa Jr. (Matassa)
Tr. 1021.
John Dineen and Brian Murphy
The GEB Attorney and counsel for Respondents agreed that the CDC
proceeding testimony of John Dineen (Dineen) and Brian Murphy (Murphy) would
be admitted into evidence in this matter case as if they had testified live on
direct. Both witnesses were
available to be fully cross-examined at the hearing.
Tr. 188.
Dineen is a staff inspector for the LIUNA Inspector General.
Tr. 288-89. Prior to
working for LIUNA, Dineen spent thirty-eight years on the Chicago Police
Department. Tr. 289. Cooperating
Former Organized Crime Associates
Three individuals, Robert J. Cooley, Michael Corbitt, and Bills, were
formerly heavily involved with organized crime activities and socializing with
organized crime associates and members. The
three individuals all cooperated with law enforcement, became protected
witnesses and testified at different trials.
Their backgrounds are discussed as follows.
Robert
J. Cooley
Robert J. Cooley (Cooley) was an attorney in Chicago for approximately
eighteen (18) years, from 1970 to 1989. Tr.
622-623. During that time, he
represented many individuals in organized crime and spent ten years
socializing with organized crime individuals approximately four to five times
a week. Id.
Cooley gambled heavily with organized crime bookmakers in Chicago during
approximately eighteen years spanning 1970s and 1980s.
Tr. 623, 647. Cooley
testified that, during some portions of his gambling period, he placed weekly
bets worth over a million dollars with dozens of different bookmakers at the
same time. Tr. 623-24.
Cooley represented members of the Chicago Outfit, fixing cases for them
by bribing judges to assure an outcome in a case, and by making connections
between them and some of the politicians in the city for different matters.
Tr. 624. During a
three-year period of time, from 1977 until almost 1981, Cooley testified that
he was law partners with former state senator John D’Arco, and was involved
in illegal activity nearly every day. Tr.
624-25. Cooley broke away from
John D’Arco in 1981 and opened a legitimate law office, only occasionally
getting involved with illegal activities when requested to do so by Pasquale
(Pat) Marcy (Marcy)[4]
or others. Tr. 625.
Cooley became involved with bookmaking through an individual named
Roland Borelli (Borelli) and then met Marco D’Amico, with whom he placed
bets and began betting on sporting events with Chicago Outfit bookmakers.
Tr. 628-29. Cooley’s
statements regarding his participation in the Chicago Outfit’s illegal
gambling operations are corroborated by the information provided in the guilty
pleas of Robert M. Abbinanti (Abbinanti) and Borelli.
Both Abbinanti and Borelli described their participation in the illegal
gambling and their knowledge of Cooley’s participation as follows: ·
In 1995, Abbinanti pled guilty to
racketeering charges, including illegal gambling and the collection of
unlawful debt while carrying a firearm with silencer.
See GEB Ex. 4 (Plea
Agreement, United States v. Robert M.
Abbinanti, No. 94 CR 723-3 (N.D. Ill. filed April 28, 1995); see
also GEB Ex. 5 (Judgment in a Criminal Case, United
States v. Robert M. Abbinanti, No. 94 CR 723-3 (N.D. Ill. filed September
15, 1995)). ·
As part of his plea agreement,
Abbinanti admitted to participating in the D’Amico enterprise, which was a
group of individuals associated for the purpose of illegal racketeering,
bookmaking, high stakes poker, juice loans, extortion, and robbery.
Id.
Abbinanti also pled guilty to illegal gambling business and
specifically acknowledged that, between October and November 1989, he had
repeatedly caused the wager line to be relayed to Cooley, and received and
accepted wagers on sporting events from Cooley totaling $775,500.
Id. ·
Abbinanti stated that he gave
Cooley an identifying code number to use with the bookmaking clerk who
recorded and reported Cooley’s wagers to a clearman employed by or
associated with D’Amico. Id.
In addition, Abbinanti specifically stated that he had conspired with
others in the D’Amico enterprise to rob a card game; he discussed the
participants and location with Cooley and asked Cooley if anyone would bring
pistols to the game where the players were to be robbed.
Id. ·
On May 9, 1995, Borelli pled
guilty to illegal gambling operations, specifically sports bookmaking in the
Chicago area. See
GEB Ex. 15 (Plea Agreement, and Ex. 16, Judgment in a Criminal Case, United
States v. Borelli, 94 CR 723-4 (N.D. Ill. 1994)).
In his plea agreement, Borelli stated that D’Amico and Abbinanti were
involved in the illegal gambling business.
See id. at 3. ·
Borelli acknowledged that, between
October 29, 1989 and November 26, 1989, he had given Cooley an identifying
code number to use with the bookmaking clerk and had received and accepted
wagers on gambling events from Cooley totaling $141,000.
See id.
Borelli also stated that he paid the D’Amico enterprise a street tax
in order to operate his bookmaking office.
See GEB Ex. 15 (Plea
Agreement, and Ex. 16, Judgment in a Criminal Case, United
States v. Borelli, 94 CR 723-4 (N.D. Ill. 1994)). Cooley
opened a restaurant with an individual named Arty Greco that became a popular
meeting location for organized crime figures and politicians.
Tr. 639. As a result,
Cooley began meeting many more individuals from different factions of the
Chicago Outfit. Id.
In addition to legitimate patrons, Greco’s clientele included Angelo
LaPietra, John “Jackie” Cerone (Cerone),[5]
Joe Lombardo, hit men, auto thieves, and members from every crime family
faction in the area. Tr. 640. In
approximately 1977, Cooley began to practice law in the First Ward with John
D’Arco. Tr. 638, 641.
During the period between 1977 to 1981 when he began practicing law
with John D’Arco, Cooley was involved with Marcy, John D’Arco Sr., and
Fred Roti. Tr. 641.
Cooley stated that “it became almost like I was one of them at that
time.” Id.
Cooley also stated that he was gambling almost every day during this
time period and that his gambling continued during the 1970s and 1980s.
Tr. 642, 647. In
1977, Marcy and John D’Arco Sr. asked Cooley to defend and fix a state case
for Harry Aleman, one of the main hit men of the Chicago mob.
Tr. 642-43. Cooley
complied and Aleman was found not guilty.
Tr. 643. Cooley testified
that he paid Judge Frank Wilson $10,000, which was later reimbursed by Marcy.
Id.
Years later, Cooley gave federal authorities information regarding his
activities in fixing the Aleman case, the case was reopened, and Harry Aleman
was subsequently convicted.[6]
Tr. 644. Cooley stated
that fixing the Aleman case had heightened his stature among individuals
associated with organized crime, such as D’Amico, and he began receiving
more business from all the different crime family factions.
Tr. 645-46. In
the late 1980s, Cooley began cooperating with the FBI.
Over a period of three and a half years, from approximately March 1986
until November 1989, Cooley wore a body wire and recorded hundreds of
conversations with organized crime individuals in the Chicago area.
Tr. 621-22. Cooley
testified in seven federal trials and the information he provided also led in
part to another seven plea agreements. Tr.
620. Cooley testified in cases
concerning corruption in the court system, and the interconnection between
organized crime in Chicago and its involvement with either the court system or
other racketeering activities. Tr.
621. Cooley’s
gambling in the organized crime syndicate, fixing cases, legal work for the
mob, ownership of Greco’s,[7]
and heavy socializing with organized crime members enabled him a close view of
the mob and familiarity with many of the mob’s members and associates.
Tr. 650-51. During the
late 1970s, Cooley constantly socialized publicly with organized crime
individuals he identified as Marcy, Cerone, D’Amico, Harry Aleman, Butchie
Petrocelli, Tony Boresellino (Boresellino),[8]
and individuals from the 26th Street crew, including Pusiteri and Richie
Catazone. Tr. 652-54. Cooley
testified that he gained his knowledge of organized crime hierarchy from daily
conversations over the years with a series of different people from different
mob factions. He said that it was
important for him to know the hierarchy of the mob for his personal safety and
security because insulting somebody at a top level of organized crime was
dangerous. Tr. 655-56, 723. The
IHO finds that Cooley had been heavily involved with organized crime and in a
position to know the participants of organized crime and their relative
positions within the organization. Cooley
cooperated in several federal trials at a danger to himself.
His information has been verified independently and has been found
credible. The IHO finds
Cooley’s hearing testimony credible.
Michael Corbitt Michael
Corbitt (Corbitt) was involved with organized crime in Chicago for
approximately thirty years, from the time he was seventeen years old until he
was convicted and incarcerated in October 1987, and sentenced to twenty years
imprisonment. Tr. 772-73.
From approximately 1960, when Corbitt was eighteen years old until to
1964 or 1965, he worked at a gas station in Summit, Illinois, where several
different crews of organized crime used his storage facility for storing
stolen material that had been hijacked from trucks.
Tr. 774. Corbitt provided
the space in return for payment. Id.
The individuals using Corbitt’s storage were acting under the
authority of Sam Giancana (Giancana)[9]
and Marshall Caifano, leaders of the Chicago Outfit.
Id.
When Corbitt was about to become unemployed because the owners were
selling the gas station, Giancana approached him[10]
and asked if he wanted a new job as a police officer.
Tr. 775. Giancana told
Corbitt to meet with the Mayor of Willow Springs, John Rust; after one meeting
with Rust, Corbitt was appointed to the police department in approximately
late 1964 or early 1965. Tr. 776.
Once Corbitt had become a police officer, Giancana arranged to meet
Corbitt at a restaurant and told him to “remember who [his] friends are.”
Tr. 777. In
1973, Corbitt was named Willow Springs Chief of Police and remained in that
position until 1981 when he became a full-time member of an organized crime
crew from the north side. Id.
Corbitt continued as a sworn Sheriff’s police officer, carrying a
badge and gun until his indictment in 1986.
Tr. 778. Corbitt stated
that he was able to continue as a police officer from 1981 to 1986, despite
his full time activities as an organized crime member, because he was given a
no-show investigator’s job. Id.
Corbitt testified that he engaged in organized crime activity during
his entire time as a police officer. Tr.
778-79. As
one of his organized crime activities, Corbitt acted as a courier of organized
crime money. Tr. 782, 789-90.
Corbitt stated that he had received payment from Al Pilotto, Joe
Ferriola, John Monteleone, and Scarpelli, among others.
Tr. 782. Corbitt also stated that, between 1976 and approximately 1985,
he delivered money to Tony Accardo, Joey Aiuppa, Vincent Solano, Gus Alex, and
Marcy. Tr. 790. Corbitt
was positioned to be familiar with the individuals and their rank within
organized crime because he dealt with them on a daily basis and facilitated
their activities such as picking up money for bribing government officials
from individuals involved in illegal activities in the community, running
record checks on suspected surveillance vehicles, and performing electronic
wiretaps and surveillances. Tr.
780-81. Corbitt testified that,
because he had dealt with and was around members of organized crime on a daily
basis from the time he was seventeen years old, he needed to know the
structure and identity of people within the Chicago Outfit for both his legal
protection and personal safety. Tr.
783-85, 788-89. The
IHO finds that Corbitt had been heavily involved with organized crime and had
been in a position to know the participants of organized crime and their
positions within the organization. Corbitt’s
information was detailed and corroborated by other witnesses and evidence of
record. The IHO found Corbitt’s
hearing testimony to be credible.
Charles
Francis “Guy” Bills As
discussed supra, and in the IHO’s
April 14 Order, Bills was scheduled to testify in this matter, but died of a
heart attack before the hearing. The
IHO accepted Bills’ July 22, 1997 Chicago
District Council testimony as the prior testimony of an unavailable
witness. Bills
was involved with the 26th Street Crew of the Chicago Outfit with
Angelo LaPietra from approximately 1977 to the early 1980s.
See CDC Transcript of July
22, 1997 (CDC Tr.) 1110. Bills
testified that his organized crime activities included:
loaning money on the street on behalf of Angelo LaPietra’s crew;
collecting street tax for both Angelo LaPietra and Albert Tocco’s crews;
stealing vehicles, operating his own chop shop and owning a junk yard to
process the stolen vehicles; cartage theft; and working in his father’s
bookmaking office. CDC Tr.
1112-19, 1172. Bills
cooperated with the FBI and met with organized crime individuals for recorded
meetings. CDC Tr. 1109.
Bills testified in two federal criminal trials regarding organized
crime in Chicago, specifically street taxes and juice loans.
CDC Tr. 1107-09. Bills was
placed in the witness protection program.
CDC Tr. 1107. Bills
testified that, as someone involved in illegal activity, it was very important
for him to be aware of the leadership and hierarchy of organized crime for his
own protection. CDC Tr.
1132-1135. Bills’ testimony was
detailed, consistent, and corroborated by other witnesses and evidence.
Bills’ information has been verified independently and has been found
to be reliable. The IHO finds
Bills to be a credible witness. HEARSAY
EVIDENCE The
IHO must base his decisions on reliable evidence through a review of what is
probative and reliable. Reliable
hearsay evidence is admissible in labor arbitrations.
See, e.g., Associated Cleaning
Consultants and International Brotherhood of Printing and Allied Trades Local
327, 94 LA 1246 (1990); In the
Matter of Joseph P. Crincoli, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-04D (Oct. 27,
1997); In
Re Chicago District Council, IHO 97-30T;
Elkouri and Elkouri, How
Arbitration Works (4th ed. 1994).
Hearsay evidence has been regularly admitted in union disciplinary
proceedings arising under the Teamsters Consent Decree.
See, e.g., United
States v. IBT (Cimino), 964 F.2d 1308, 1312 (2d Cir. 1992), aff’g
United States v. IBT (Cimino), 777
F. Supp. 1130 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); United
States v. IBT (Senese & Talerico), 941 F.2d 1292, 1297 (2d Cir. 1991),
aff’g United
States v. Senese & Talerico, 745 F. Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
The test is whether the evidence is reliable.
See Senese
& Talerico, 941 F.2d at 1298, citing,
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 402 (1971). FINDINGS
OF FACT
Organized Crime 1.
The FBI defines organized crime[11]
as a formally structured group whose objective is to obtain money through
illegal activities and by the use of fear, violence, extortion, and graft.
Tr. 47-48. Organized crime
is in the business of crime for a profit.
Tr. 48. 2.
La Cosa Nostra (LCN) is also known as the “mob” or the “Mafia”
and is one of the major organized crime groups in the United States.
Id. 3.
Organized crime activities include:
illegal gambling: sports betting, crap games, and card games;
activities which support loansharking or “juice loans”[12]
at high rates of interest. Tr.
54. 4.
Bookmakers either work directly for certain organized crime figures,
are independent bookmakers who pay a street tax, and/or are fifty percent
(50%) partners with organized crime individuals.
Tr. 629. 5.
Other organized crime activities include extortion from illegal
businesses, known as “street tax,”[13]
and labor racketeering. Tr. 54. 6.
Cooley described street tax as the payment of money required by persons
operating any illegal activity in the city, such as stealing cars, bookmaking,
burglary, or fencing, as required by organized crime figures to keep from
being beaten or killed. Tr. 649. 7.
The LCN utilizes its control of labor unions to neutralize competitive
bidding and extort employers for labor peace.
See generally
GEB Exs. 1-2. Sometimes
control arises from members of La Cosa Nostra who are also labor officials.
Control includes the ability to direct the day-to-day affairs of a
labor organization--such things as…who runs for office and who does not, who
gets elected to union office…and the use of union power for corrupt
purposes. GEB
Ex. 2 at 6 (The Edge: Organized Crime,
Business and the Labor Unions, President’s
Commission on Organized Crime, Report to the President and the Attorney
General). 8.
The LCN is organized into groups known as families.
The head of the family is known as the boss.
Tr. 58. An underboss and
by an advisor, known as the consigliere, assist the boss.
Id.
Individuals within the family are divided into smaller groups of
soldiers, called crews, each headed by a lieutenant.
Tr. 58-59. 9.
A made member is an individual who has undergone a secret ceremony[14]
and can share in the profits of organized crime.
Tr. 51. An associate of
organized crime is an individual who falls into one of two categories.
The first type of associate is known as a soldier, who performs the
daily functions of organized crime, such as collecting gambling debts,
enforcing threats, collecting street tax, delivering money up the chain to the
bosses, conducting surveillance, and engaging in murder on orders of organized
crime. Id.
The other type of associate assists organized crime by doing favors,
such as corrupt police officers, attorneys, business owners, and labor
leaders. Id.
Associates work for, or in conjunction with, made members to provide
income for the organized crime family. Tr.
298. 10.
When an individual becomes a made member, that fact spreads quickly in
the organized crime community because a made member is entitled to a certain
amount of respect. Tr. 53. 11.
The FBI maintains an inventory of organized crime members and
associates. See
GEB Ex. 105 (Affidavit of John J. O’Rourke).
In order for the FBI to qualify an individual as a made member of
organized crime, one of the following scenarios must be verified:
either two known members must talk about a third individual as a made
member on an FBI wiretap or in front of an undercover agent, or two qualified
organized confidential informants must independently identify an individual as
a made member. Tr. 53. 12.
The LCN follows a code of conduct which includes: following the orders
of superiors without question, refusing information or assistance to law
enforcement, paying assessments imposed by superiors, respecting other members
regardless of personal feelings, and not disclosing anything about the
organization to outsiders. Tr.
49-50; see also
GEB Ex. 105 (Affidavit of John J. O’Rourke).
The Chicago Outfit 13.
The GEB Attorney introduced several exhibits to demonstrate the
existence and structure of organized crime in Chicago.
See, e.g., GEB Exs. 1-3.
The IHO has previously discussed a detailed history of organized crime
in general, its background in Chicago, and its structure.
See, e.g., In
Re Chicago District Council,
IHO 97-30T; Fallacara, IHO 96-65D. 14.
The Chicago area faction of the LCN is known as the Chicago Outfit.
Tr. 48. The Chicago Outfit
is comprised of operating crews. Tr.
64. The crew structure in Chicago
is based on geography, different areas of the city are operated by different
crews. Id.
Examples of different geographical crews include the Cicero crew, the
26th Street/Chinatown crew, the Elmwood Park crew, the North Side/Rush Street
crew, the Grand Avenue crew, the Chicago Heights crew, and the Melrose Park
crew. See
GEB Ex. 37 (FBI FD-302 of Gerald Scarpelli by SAs John J. O’Rourke and
Thomas B. Noble of July 18, 1988). 15.
The 26th Street Crew, also known as the Chinatown crew, was centered
around the old Italian neighborhood at 26th Street and Princeton Avenue in
Chicago. Id.
Cooley testified that the 26th Street crew was involved in hijacking,
loan-sharking, gambling, and many killings that took place in the Chicago
area. Tr. 659. 16.
Cooley testified that the Hungry Hound was a hot dog stand on 26th
Street, a few blocks west of Wentworth, and was a convenient meeting place for
the main organized crime family in the area.
Tr. 657-58. 17.
Respondents were alleged to have associated with several individuals
connected to the 26th Street crew. In
order to facilitate an understanding of the significance of these allegations,
and to provide a better frame of reference, the following is a brief summary
of some relevant Chicago Outfit individuals.
Marco
D’Amico 18.
O’Rourke testified that Marco D’Amico was a principal member of the
Elmwood Park crew, a long-time member of the Chicago Outfit, and owned several
hot dog stands throughout the north side of Chicago.
Tr. 132; see also GEB Ex. 37
(FBI FD-302 of Gerald Scarpelli by SAs John J. O’Rourke and Thomas B. Noble
of July 18, 1988). O’Rourke
further testified that D’Amico had been the object of an investigation by
the FBI, was indicted, pled guilty, and is currently in federal prison.
Tr. 132. 19. Cooley testified that, during his last three years of night school for law and while working as a policeman during the day, he became involved with D’Amico. Tr. 633. They became very friendly and went out socially together two or three nights a week. Id. Cooley testified that when he originally met D’Amico in 1967 or 1968, he thought D’Amico was merely a bookmaker. Tr. 629-30. However, over time, Cooley l |