Matassa order

Laborers for JUSTICE � 1999. Not for rebroadcasting on any other web site without express permission of Laborers for JUSTICE. Contact Jim McGough at 773-878-1002. First draft. Provided as a service to the public and LIUNA members in an effort to raise money to finance LMRDA lawsuits against corrupt union officials. Republishing this on laborers.org will sabotage our efforts to raise money and will constitute a violation of copyright law which will be vigorously prosecuted.








This matter comes before the Laborers’ International Union of North America (“LIUNA”) Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) pursuant to the LIUNA Constitution and the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure (“EDP”),

On June 15, 1998, Disciplinary Charges were filed by the LIUNA General Executive Board Attorney (“GEB Attorney”) against John Matassa (“Matassa”). The charges allege Matassa committed barred conduct proscribed by the EDP by being a member of the organized crime syndicate known as the La Cosa Nostra (“LCN”), knowingly associating with LCN members or associates, which membership and association affected the affairs of LIUNA, penrnitting LCN influence to continue in the Chicago District Council, and violating his duty of loyalty to LIUNA.

The IHO held hearings in Chicago, Illinois on December 7-10, 1998. An additional hearing was conducted by telephone on December 22, 1998, for the purpose of permitting crossexamination of GEB Attorney witness John O’Rourke (“O’Rourke”) on a post-hearing affidavit of O’Rourke submitted by the GEB Attorney on request of the 1110. Post-hearing briefs were filed by both parties on January 28, 1999. The GEB Attorney filed a reply brief on February 5, 1999. Matassa’s attorneys were also afforded the opportunity to file a reply brief but chose not to do so. Matassa’s attorneys supplemented their post-hearing brief on March 24, 1999.


Matassa sought the IHO’s recusal from hearing this matter. See Respondent’s Motion to Recuse (August 10, 1998). Matassa argued that the IHO was not an impartial hearing officer because he had previously made findings in a trusteeship hearing that Matassa was a member of the Chicago Outfit. The IHO denied the motion. In the Matter of John Matassa, IHO Order and Memorandum, 98-43D (September 16,1998) (“September 16 Order”).

Matassa again raised the issue during the hearing and in his post-hearing brief. In support of his position, Matassa offered a recent case concerning the motion for recusal of Fredrick Lacey, a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Independent Review Board. United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”) (Giacumbo), 1999 WL 104887 (2nd Cir. March 2,1999),160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2587.

The Giacumbo case arises from the court authorized reform process of the IBT. Lacey, the Independent Administrator of the IBT, is one member of a three member Independent Review Board, which hears internal disciplinary cases against Teamster officers and employees. Giacumbo, an IBT official was a source of information about alleged Mafia ties of the then IBT General President, Ron Carey. Giacumbo had been publiCIy quoted in Time Magazine stating that Carey had Mafia ties. A court appointed monitor of an IBT local had threatened to publicize Carey’s Mafia ties. Lacey wrote a private letter to the trustee warning him to consider the ramifications of such a disCIosure. Lacey intimated that old guard teamsters wanted to remove Carey from the union because he was in favor of the reform process. He stated that Carey’s removal would severely hamper the reform process. Lacey’s letter was published by Time Magazine.


Giacumbo was charged with disciplinary violations by the IBT Investigation Officer. Lacey was a member of the Independent Review Board which heard Giacumbo’s case. Giacumbo filed a motion to recuse Lacey from the Independent Review Board on the basis of bias against him. The opinion does not articulate the exact reason for Lacey’s alleged bias. It appears that Giacumbo argued that because Lacey exhibited a preference to keep Carey as General President, and did not want any public allegations about Carey’s Mafia ties, he would be biased against Giacumbo who publiCIy criticized Carey for having Mafia ties. Giacumbo’s motion was denied. Giacumbo was found guilty of the charges by the Independent Review Board and the Board’s decision was upheld by the district court. Giacumbo appealed to the Second Circuit and the case was remanded to district court to examine the recusal motion under the “evident partiality test.”

This matter is factually distinguishable from Giacumbo. In Giacumbo, Lacey’s statements concerned his support of the IBT General President who was in favor of reform, which might indicate a bias against Giacumbo, who had made public statements about the General President’s Mafia ties. In the present matter, the IHO has previously heard testimony in trusteeship proceedings and made findings regarding Matassa’s allegations with the Chicago outfit based upon evidence he heard. There is no evidence that the IHO has any bias against Matassa, as that term has been defined. See September 16 Order.

In Giacumbo, the Court articulated the standard for recusal to be used in labor arbitrations in the Second Circuit stating:

In labor arbitration hearings, the “evident partiality” standard applies … The “evident partiality” standard is less strict than the “appearance of partiality” standard applicable to judges … Before recusal is required under the “evident partiality” test, a party must demonstrate that a “reasonable person would have to conCIude that the arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration”… Partiality need not be actually proven to be the basis for a reasonable conCIusion of partiality, but it may not be based simply on


speculation either … An integral part of the reasonable person test is an assessment of the facts established by the party alleging bias.

Giacumbo, 1999 WL, at *9. The IHO does not adopt the evident partiality standard; whether it should be applied in LIUNA matters is an issue to be resolved by the Appellate Officer. The IHO finds, however, that applying this standard does not require recusal of the IHO. Matassa has mistaken the IHO’s findings in a prior factual matter as evidencing partiality. Absent any other evidence of partiality, the fact that the IHO has made factual findings in a previous matter regarding Matassa does not demonstrate that the IHO was partial to one party or the other.

In this matter, 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 out of the same facts.

The Motion for recusal is DENIED.

Standard of Review by the IHO

In In Re: Chicago District Council, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-30T (February 7 1998), the IHO made numerous findings concerning Matassa and other LIUNA members regarding their organized crime association. The issue in that matter was whether organized crime had infiltrated the operation and organization of the Chicago District Council.

The instant matter involves Matassa individually. Although there were findings made in Chicago District Council regarding Matassa, the IHO will examine all the evidence regarding Matassa de novo as it applies to him individually. The GEB Attorney’s burden will be, as in any LIUNA procedural matter, proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Testimony or Former Law Enforcement Officers

Thomas Bohling (“Bohling”) is the commanding officer of the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department. Transcript of IHO Matassa hearing, December 7-10, 1998 (“Tr”) 285. Bohling was a member of the Chicago Police Department from 1968 to 1994. Id. Bohling


joined the vice unit of the Chicago Police in 1974, and spent the main part of his career assigned to the prostitution unit and investigating the pornography industry. Tr. 286. In the course of his police officer work, Bohling became familiar with Matassa through surveillance reports, informant information, being introduced to Matassa, observing Matassa on a face to face basis, and historical documents. Tr. 3 02.

John Dineen (‘Dineen”) is a retired police officer, currently serving as an inspector on the staff of the LIUNA Inspector General. Tr. 372. Dineen firstjoined the Chicago Police Department in March 1959. Tr, 373. In February 1967, Dineen was assigned to the intelligence division of the Chicago Police Department, and specifically worked in the organized crime section. Tr. 373-74. From 1980 to 1993, Dineen served as the president of the Fraternal Order of Police. Tr. 375. In 1993, Dineen returned to full-time active police duty and was assigned to the intelligence section where he was assigned to a special project of compiling and updating information on crime figures in the Chicago area. Tr. 376-76. ,

Brian Murphy (‘Murphy”) is a retired police officer, having served in the Chicago Police Department for 32 1/2years. Tr. 324. During that time, Murphy spent approximately fifteen years in the organized crime unit, inCIuding the period from 1987 to 1998. Tr. 325-26.

Expert Witness Testimony

The GEB Attorney called O’Rourke as an expert witness. This technique has been accepted in litigation concerning the IBT consent decree. In United States v. Intemational Brotherhood of Teamsters (Sensese and Talerico , 745 F.Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 199), FBI Agent Peter Wacks gave, and the court accepted, expert testimony regarding organized crime membership based upon reading FBI reports, his own notes from being present at FBI debriefings, depositions, testimony of unnamed cooperating witnesses, and FBI physical


surveillance. The IHO finds that O’Rourke is an expert in organized crime matters andas discussed below, has solid information upon which to base his expert opinion.

O’Rourke has been employed as an Inspector with the LIUNA Inspector General’s (“IG”) Office since May 1996. Tr. 24. O’Rourke previously served as a special agent with the Office of Naval Intelligence in Chicago and at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. for approximately six years. Id. O’Rourke then joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) as a Special Agent and served in Washington, D.C.; Atlanta, Georgia; Alexandria, Virginia; and Chicago, Illinois from 1973 until 1995. Id. Thereafter, O’Rourke became an inspector with the Cook County Sheriff’s office where he was assigned to the FBI major theft task force for approximately one and a half years. Id.

O’Rourke spent approximately 23 years of his 32 year career in the investigation of organized crime in Chicago. Tr. 24-25. In that time he has participated in several hundred organized crime investigations and played a role in approximately 75 convictions. Tr. 25.

During his twenty-three years with the FBI, O’Rourke testified before numerous federal grand juries, in numerous trials in federal district court, in special offender hearings, in bail hearings, and in preliminary hearings. Tr. 241. He has testified on the subject of organized crime in the Chicago area in excess of 100 times, inCIuding the structure, individuals involved, and the activities of organized crime in the Chicago area. Tr. 242,

While with the FBI, O’Rourke was a field police instructor and taught CIasses and seminars in organized crime, informant development, and hostage and crisis negotiations. Tr. 26. Over the course of twenty years, O’Rourke also conducted CIasses for the Cook County State Attorney’s Office, the IRS, and the United States Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Illinois. Tr. 241.


The IHO finds that O’Rourke is qualified to testify as an expert witness in organized crime mattersparticularly with regard to the Chicago area. As described below, O’Rourke based his opinion on substantial interviews and personal investigation.

O’Rourke related the procedures used by the FBI in CIassifying organized crime figures. In order for the FBI to CIassify and place an individual as a member or associate of organized crime, one of several requirements must be met. two organized crime confidential informants with known reliability must independently identify an individual known to them and their associates as a made member; Title III electronic surveillance taped conversations between two known organized crime members discussing a third individual in a manner that identifies the individual as a member; statements by a member of organized crime identifying someone as a made member overheard by an FBI undercover agent; or a combination of these instances. Tr, 145.

O’Rourke related information provided to him by eight named cooperating witnesses and ten confidential informants. O’Rourke also related information he had teamed from a cooperating witness who he had not interviewed but who had provided information to the FBI and specifically to O’Rourke’s partner. The individuals are discussed as follows,

Umberto Fillippe


Umberto Fillippe (“Fillippe”) was a native of Italy living in Chicago and working as a professional maltre d’ho^tel and waiter. Tr. 150. In approximately 1979, Fillippe became friends with Salvatore Termini (“Termini”), also known as Sal Mango. Tr. 154. O’Rourke interviewed Fillippe in 1996 and early 1997 on approximately six occasions. Tr. 151.

James LaValley


James LaValley (“LaValley”) was an enforcer and collector for twenty years, involved in extortion and gambling debt collections, who worked for Leonard Patrick (“Patrick”), Gus Alex


(“Alex”), and Mario Rainone (“Rainone”). Tr. 156. LaValley cooperated with the FBI, provided information, and testified for the government in 1989 and 1990. Id. LaValley was debriefed by both O’Rourke and O’Rourke’s partner, Special Agent Tom Noble, during the 1989-1991 time period. Tr. 156-57.

LaValley testified in several federal criminal trials inCIuding those of James Bollman, Alex, Rainone, and Nick Gio (“Gio”) all of whom were found guilty and convicted, Tr. 158. O’Rourke interviewed LaValley on several occasions and LaValley provided information concerniu-specific crimes and organized crime in Chicago. Tr. 159-160. O’Rourke testified that LaValley provided correct and accurate information regarding organized crime information in Chicago, inCIuding crimes not previously known to the FBI, but later verified through independent investigations. Tr. 160. After O’Rourke left the FBI and became a LIUNA inspector, he again interviewed LaValley in 1996 while LaValley was in the Witness Protection Program. Tr. 161.

William Wemette

Wemette operated a pornographic bookstore on Wells Street, in the near Northside area of Chicago for over ten years, starting in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Tr. 162. Wernette was a long time associate member of the Northside Crew headed by Vince Solano. Tr. 162-63. Before he became a witness in a federal criminal trial, Wernette was also a long time informant for the FBI. Id. Wemette began to pay street tax on his bookstore to Frank Schweihs (“Schweihs”), a mob collector and enforcer, also known as “the German.” Id.After Weinette began paying the street tax, he agreed to cooperate with law enforcement officials and testify in court. Tr. 163. The FBI then made numerous consensual recordings and videotapes of Wemette’s conversations with Schwiehs during meetings in which the street tax payments were made. Id. O’Rourke has viewed the recordings and utilized them on a regular


basis in police training seminars on organized crime. Id. Wemette testified against Schweths in an extortion case in federal court where Schweihs was found guilty and sentenced to prison. Tr. 164. O’Rourke had numerous telephone conversations with Wemette from December 1992 until June 1993, while he was in the Witness Protection Program. Id.

Joseph Granata

Joseph Granata (“Granata”) was part of the Cicero Crew under Joseph Ferriola. Granata’s father, Frank Granata Sr., had been deeply involved with organized crime for many years, and Granta’s brother, Frank Granata, Jr. was associated with the Elmwood Park Crew. GEB Attorney Exhibit (“GEB Ex.”) 34. Granata’s father was also a relative by marriage of Paul DeLucia, a major figure in the Chicago Outfit during the 1940s. Granata entered the Witness Protection Program in the early 1990s. Id. O’Rourke intervicwcd Granata on November 4, 1996, on July 14, 1997, and on numerous occasions between June 13, 1997, and December 1998, Id. at 5.

Leonard Patrick

Prior to joining the IG’s office, O’Rourke interviewed Leonard Patrick (“Patrick”) several times in 1990-1991. Id. at 7. Patrick was arrested on extortion charges in the early 1990s, agreed to cooperate with the FBI and plead guilty to organized crime activity. Ld. At that time, Patrick was the highest ranked Chicago Outfit member to have ever cooperatedwith Chicago authorities, Id. Patrick was a key person in the top levels of the Outfit’s gambling operations. Id. In the 1950s, Sam Giancana (“Giancana7), the boss of the Chicago Outfit, told Patrick to report to Alex, which Patrick did up to the time of his arrest and cooperation. Id.

Patrick has testified in numerous federal criminal trials inCIuding those against Rainone, Gio, and Alex. All three resulted in convictions. Id. at 8.


        Robert Cooley

O’Rourke interviewed Robert Cooley (“Cooley”) in person, on October 10 and December 18, 1996, and by telephone on July 29, 1995 under the auspices of the Chicago FBI office. Id. At 12. Cooley is presently in the Federal Witness Protection Program. Id. Cooley was a Chicago police officer and later a criminal defense attorney in Chicago who became involved with organized crime. Id. at 13. Cooley has testified in numerous federal cases involving the Chicago Outfit’s influence over politicians and judges. Id. Cooley testified in the following cases: United.States v. Lee On Leong, No. 90 CR 760,1991 WL 30673 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15,1991); United States v. John D’Arco, Jr., No. 94 CR 514, 1995 WL 42363 (N.D. 111. Feb. 2, 1995) and No. 90 CR 1043, 1992 WL 121603 (N.D. 111. May 18, 1992); United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. June 9, 1995), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 945; United States v. Lucious Robbinson, No. 89 CR 4771; United States v. Tom Maloney and Robert McGee, No. 91 CT 477, 1994 WL 96673 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 1994), qLf 4, 71 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pat Marcy and Fred Roti, No. 90 CR 1045, 814 F.Supp. 673 (N.D. 111. 1992); and United States v. David Shields and Pat DeLeo, 999 F.2 1090 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1071 (1994). Cooley testified in the hearing on the Chicago District Council.

Mario Rainone

Prior to joining the IG’s office, O’Rourke interviewed Rainone on October 29, 1989. GEB Ex. 34 at 13. Rainone was the principal street lieutenant for Patrick and Alex. Id. Rainone headed a crew consisting of himself, LaValley, and Gio. Id. On behalf of Patrick and Alex, Rainone participated in extortions, bombings, gambling, and juice loan collections. Id. at 13-14. In October of 1989, the FBI informed Rainone of an attempt on his life and Rainone decided to cooperate with the FBI and was taken into protective custody. Id. at 14.


Confidential Informants

O’Rourke testified concerning his debriefing of ten confidential informants. O’Rourke did not use consecutive numbers to identify the confidential informants.

O’Rourke operated confidential informant number one (“CI 1”) from 1988 to 1996. CI 1 was an associate of organized crime of the type that has a legitimate job but associated with organized crime figures inCIuding Joey Aiuppa, Jackie Cerone, Dominic Senese, Joe Lombardo, and others. Tr. 275. CI 1 personally knew both Matassa and Matassa’s father. Tr. 276.

Confidential informant number two (“CI 2”) had both criminal and legitimate jobs in the past. Tr. 276. CI 2 is a long time associate of the Chicago Outfit members. He is a fonnal burglar, jewel thief, and cartage thief. CI 2 has been an FBI informant from 1968 to the present and was personally operated as an informant by O’Rourke from the early 1990s until he left the FBI in 1996. O’Rourke continued to debrief CI 2 at least twice a month and has spoken with him as recently as December 4, 1998. O’Rourke said that CI 2’s information has been independently verified and found to be reliable by the FBI.

Confidential informant number five (“CI 5”) is an FBI informant developed and operated by O’Rourke from 1988 to 1996 when he left the FBI. O’Rourke continues to speak with CI 5 approximately once a week. CI 5 is a City of Chicago employee previously but not currently involved in criminal activities. He has had regular contact with members of the Chicago Outfit over a period of twenty-five years.

Confidential informant number six (“CI 6”) is an FBI informant O’Rourke developed and operated from 1985 to 1996. O’Rourke regularly debriefed CI 6 several times per month. O’Rourke continues to meet with CI 6 on an irregular basis. CI 6 was involved in daily gambling operations for the Chicago Outfit and was in regular contact with several individuals


involved in the Chicago Outfit. O’Rourke stated that the FBI had independently verified CI 6’s information and found it to be reliable.

Confidential informant number seven (“CI 7”) is an FBI informant developed and operated by O’Rourke from 1986 until 1996. O’Rourke had regular contact with CI 7 from 1986 to 1988, debriefing him on a daily basis. From 1988 to 1996, O’Rourke debriefed CI 7 approximately once a month. Since 1996 when he left the FBI, O’Rourke debriefed CI 7 several times, inCIuding on February 2, 1996 and June 13, 1996. CI 7 is a long time organized crime associate who was in regular contact with a number of high level organized crime bosses, members, and associates for over forty years. O’Rourke testified that the FBI had independently verified CI Ts information and found it to be reliable. CI 7 is personally acquainted with Matassa.

O’Rourke did not personally debrief confidential informant number ten (“CI 10”) while employed by the FBI; however, he did know of him while he was an FBI agent. CI 10 was developed and operated by another FBI agent. While a LIUNA inspector, O’Rourke has interviewed CI 10 once in person on January 9, 1997, and once by telephone. Both interviews were arranged by the FBI. CI 10 is still actively associated with the Chicago Outfit and provides information as an informant. CI 10 has had personal conversations with Matassa over a twenty year period. O’Rourke stated that CI 10’s information has been independently verified and found to be reliable by the FBI.

Confidential informant number eleven (“CI 11) is an FBI confidential informant who O’Rourke developed and operated from 1974 to 1996, during which time O’Rourke debriefed CI I I on a regular basis. Since 1996, O’Rourke has continued to debrief CI 11 periodically. CI 11 personally knows Matassa. While an employee of the City of Chicago who was not actively


involved in organized crime, CI 11 knew and had regular conversations with persons who were associates and members of the Chicago Outfit.

Confidential informant number twelve (“CI 12″‘) is a confidential informant of the FBI. O’Rourke debriefed CI 12 both when he was in the FBI and later as an IG. O’Rourke was permitted to debrief CI 12 with Assistant U.S. Attorney Buvinger, FBI Special Agent Ernie Luara, and a super-visor, Special Agent Jim Wagner, specifically concerning the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (“HEREIU”) and LIUNA. Tr. 169171, 174. CI 12 is a criminal and has been an associate of organized crime for approximately ten years. Tr. 169. From approximately 1985 to 1995, CI 12 was actively engaged on the street, collecting street tax and otherwise participating in organized crime activities. Tr. 170. CI 12 was part of the Elmwood Park Crew.

Confidential informant number thirteen (“CI 13”) was an FBI informant who O’Rourke operated from 1992 until 1996 during which time he debriefed CI 13 approximately once a month. Since 1996, O’Rourke has debriefed CI 13 by telephone several times. CI 13 is a long time associate of the Chicago Outfit and continues to be actively involved in criminal activities and engages in regular conversations with a number of high ranking Chicago Outfit figures. CI 13 has personally known MaWsa for thirty years, and visited Matassa’s house in the early 1970s.

Confidential informant fourteen CI 14″) was an FBI informant who O’Rourke developed and operated from 1992 to 1996, during which time O’Rourke debriefed CI 14 approximately once a month. Since 1996, O’Rourke has debriefed CI 14 in person or by telephone approximately once a month. CI 14 is personally acquainted with Matassa.

1 O’Rourke has identified this individual as CI 12 and as Q 12.



The IHO will utilize informant testimony only if independently corroborated and will not base any factual determination on informant information alone.

Joe Ken Eto

Joe Ken Eto (“Eto”) was in charge of gambling operations for the Rush Street Crew and in a position of “trusted personnel” for over thirty years. Tr. 75; GEB Ex. 1, Ken Eto Testimony. Eto became a cooperating witness for the federal government after an attempt was made to murder him by Johnny Gattuso and Jay Campise, both of whom worked for Vincent Solano. Eto was shot several times, and was left for dead. Tr. 85. Eto testified before the President’s Commission on Organized Crime (“PCOC”). Tr. 81-84. See also GEB Ex. 1.

Chicago District Council Proceedings

On June 13, 1997, the GEB Attorney filed a Complaint for Trusteeship against the Construction and General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity (“District Council”). The IHO held a hearing for nineteen days in the summer and fall of 1997. On February 7, 1998, the IHO issued an Order and Memorandum finding that an imposition of a trusteeship over the District Council was warranted. See In Re: Trusteeship Proceedings Chicago District Council, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-30T (February 7, 1998). One of the .findings made by the IHO was that certain officers and delegates of the District Council were associates or made members of the Chicago Outfit. Id. The IHO also made findings that Matassa was a member and an associate of the Chicago Outfit. Id.

The GEB Attorney offered the hearing transcripts of the Chicago District Council trusteeship proceedings as evidence in the present matter. Transcripts of a prior disciplinary or trusteeship proceeding are often introduced in evidence in subsequent disciplinary and trusteeship hearings. See In the Matter of Baker, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-55D (July 21, 1998) and In Re Trusteeship Proceeding Local 225, 97-54T; In the Matter of Tomasello,


IHO Order and Memorandum97-39D (December 5, 1997) and Chicago District Council, IHO 97-30T.

The facts and circumstances in those transcripts will be given the same test of reliability as applied to all hearsay evidence.


  1. . Matassa is the President and Business Manager of LIUNA Local Union 2 (“Local 2′). Stipulation at 1.
  2. Matassa has been a LIUNA member and officer in a LIUNA entity since 1985. Matassa became the Business Manager of Local 2 and delegate to the District Council in 1987, the President/Business Manager of Local 2 in 1989, and Vice President of the District Council in 1995 .2 Tr. 636-37; GEB Ex. 32 at 3775-3786. Matassa has also served as Auditor of the Chicago District Council in 1987 and as Coordinator of Committees after Vincent Solano’s death in 1992. Id.
  3. �Matassa has been a trustee to a Chicago District Council affiliated pension fund since 1992, a trustee to the Laborers’ Political League since 1993, and a trustee to the training fund affiliated with the Chicago District Council since 1994.
  4. The FBI defines organized crime as “any group having some form of� organizational structure whose primary purpose is to make money and which utilizes fear, the
    threat of fear, murder, corruption, graft, and which has a significant impact in the area in which it
    operates, such as La Cosa Nostra.” Tr. 26.
  5. �To meet the FBI definition, the group must have a formal or semi-formal intemal organization and a procedure for internal discipline. Tr. 26-27.


�2 After the trusteeship was imposed over the Chicago District Council in 1998, Matassa ceased being Vice President but remained as a delegate.



  1. La Cosa Nostra (the “LCN”) is a tightly structured criminal organization which operates in various cities throughout the United States. It is in the business of crime for profit,
    Tr. 27. The Chicago Outfi
  2. The LCN is comprised of groups of individuals organized into entities called families. Tr, 35. In Chicago, the group is not known as a family, but as the Chicago Outfit. Tr. 28. A detailed history of the Chicago outfit and its structure is contained in Chicago District Council,_WO Order and Memorandum, 97-30T (February 7, 1998) at 3 1; see also In the Matter of Roco 1. Napoli and Thomas Fallacara (“Fallacaran, IHO Order and Memorandum, 96-65D (September 265, 1997) at 4.
  3. The Chicago Outfit’s structure consists of the head (the “Boss”), his assistant (the “Underboss”), and an advisor (the “Consigliere”). Tr. 37. The Boss, Underboss, and Consigliere oversee the activities of LCN members and their associates. A capo is a made member who has earned the right to supervise other made members.
  4. A “made member” of organized crime has undergone an initiation ceremony in which he has agreed to a code of conduct and has taken an oath that loyalty to the organization will be above family, country, and religion. Tr. 28-29. The initiation involves specific rituals and formalities.
  5. The Chicago Outfit operates in “street crews” which are supervised by a capo and are generally divided according to defined geographic areas or criminal specialty. Tr. 38.
  6. “Street tax” is a tribute usually collected monthly by organized crime from persons conducting illegal activities, such as auto theft, prostitution, pornography and bookmaking. Tr. 3 1. It is an extortionate tax to continue to operate the illegal business. Id.



  1. A “juice loan” is a Chicago term for a loan paid to a loan shark. Id. The loan is given in cash and to receive the loan, the individual must be vouched for by at least one member of organized crime. Tr. 32. The individual must repay the loan on a weekly basis, usually five percent per week (two hundred sixty percent per year). Id. The money repaid does not come out of the outstanding principal and must be paid off in a lump sum. Id.
  2. The number of LCN made members is relatively small. An individual who has achieved made member status will participate in a group or crew, and will engage in the activities of organized crime such as the shakedown of bookmakers, collection of street tax, or running gambling organizations. Tr. 29.
  3. There are two categories of associate of the Chicago Outfit. The first categoryincludes the footsoldiers who carry out the day to day criminal activities of the mob. Examples of footsoldier activities include collecting money from the bookmakers, setting up sports betting rings, making threats and confrontations, and committing murders and other acts of physical violence when necessary. Tr. 30. The second group of associates includes individuals who have seemingly legitimate jobs but are controlled and influenced by organized crime. Id. Such individuals may be politicians, judges, attorneys, bar owners, and others who are able to performsome service for organized crime. Id. These individuals use their influence or business or professional activity in response to the requests of organized crime. Id.

  4. The Northside Crew
  5. The Chicago outfit has divided the City of Chicago and its surrounding suburbs into territories in which organized crime operates. GEB Ex. 6A. One of these territories, run by the Northside Crew, inCIudes the north side of Chicago, from either the Chicago River or the Eisenhower Expressway to Rogers Park, inCIuding the Rush Street area. In this matter Matassa is charged with being an associate, a member, and a boss of the Northside Crew.


  1. There is well-corroborated evidence that in approximately 1980, the Northside Crew was run by Vincent Solano (“Solano’). Solano was also an officer of LIUNA Local No. 1 From that time to the present, the Northside Crew has been involved in organized gambling activities, loan-sharking, extortion of gay bars or bookstores, bribing police for protection, and extortion of legitimate businesses. The crew was heavily involved in the operation of pornographic bookstores on Rush Street, in the near Northside area. Tr. 71-72. The Chicago Outfit obtained money from pornographic bookstores by means of a street tax: if the stores were owned by one of its associates, the Chicago Outfit obtained money by skimming directly from the operation. Solano was the supervisor of the Rush Street Northside Crew from the late 1960s or 1970s until his death in 1992. Tr. 426. Eto testified before the PCOC that Solano was a capo in the Chicago outfit as well as being involved with Local 1. GEB Ex. 1.
  2. Based upon his work as a special agent involved in organized crime investigations, review of FBI files, contact with Chicago Police’ Intelligence Division detectives, and interviews of confidential informants and cooperating witnesses, O’Rourke testified that Mike Glitta (“Glitta”) was a made member of the Northside Crew run by Vincent Solano, along with Joe Arnold, Ceasar DiVarco, and Babe DeMonte. Tr. 178. As discussed below, this opinion has a solid factual base.
  3. A subgroup of the Northside Crew is the Rush Street Crew. Tr. 73. Based upon a review of FBI investigative files, debriefing informants, cooperating witnesses, cooperating subjects, and conversations with FBI colleagues, O’Rourke gave his expert opinion that Joseph “Caesar” DiVarco (“DiVarco”) was responsible for operating the Rush Street subgroup of the Northside Crew, and was the overseer of the illegal gambling, loan-sharking, extortion, street tax collections, and pornographic bookstore operations during the 1970s and 1980s. Tr. 99. Based upon personal surveillance and conversations with other state and federal agencies, Dineen stated


that Joseph DiVarco was an underling of Vincent Solano’s crew, a day to day supervisor of the Rush Street area, and was nicknamed “Little Caesar.” DiVarco was convicted of RICO violations and died in federal prison. Tr. 423-27. Bohling stated that, based upon historical documents, surveillance reports, Chicago Crime Commission information, and his interaction with other agencies and investigators, Joseph DiVarco was also known as “Little Caesar” and was involved in upper level management of organized crime. Tr. 296-97. At the Chicago District Council hearing, Matassa stated that while he did not know the nature of the charges against DiVarco, he was aware that DiVarco had been convicted. GEB Ex. 26 at 3 8 84.

  1. Based upon a review of FBI investigative files, debriefing informants, cooperating witnesses, cooperating subjects, and conversations with FBI colleagues, O’Rourke gave his expert opinion that Joe Arnold was a member of the Northside Crew, a made member of organized crime, and responsible for making juice loans in the 1980s. Tr. 96-97. Bohling also stated that through historical documents, surveillance reports, Chicago Crime Commission information, and interaction with other agencies and investigations, he learned that Joe Arnold was an “upper level management individual” in Chicago organized crime in the Rush Street area of the near Northside of Chicago. Tr. 296. Based upon personal surveillance and through conversation with other state and federal agencies, Dineen stated that Joe Arnold was a virtual partner with Joe DiVarco in running the daily operations in the Rush Street area. Tr. 426, 428.
  2. O’Rourke testified that, in his expert opinion, the Rush Street Crew also consisted of Babe DeMonte (“DeMonte”), Joe Arnold (“Arnold”), and Joe Ken Eto (“Eto”). Tr. 73. Eto told the FBI that he was a member of the Rush Street Crew and worked for Solano.
  3. The GEB Attorney has presented evidence of various factual circumstances which he contends is evidence of Matassa’s organized crime membership or association. Each factual



circumstance will be examined below for its independent probative value, and to determine if it is corroborated by other evidence.

Matassa’s Participation in Extortion Activities

  1. When interviewed by the FBI, Eto explained that Vic Arrigo, Johnny Matussa [misspelling in original] also known as Pudgy, and DeMonte acted on behalf of Solano and DiVarco in making the first approach to new businesses which were targeted for a street tax. Tr. 115. See also GEB Ex. 6A. Well-established businesses, however, were approached directly by Mike Glitta (“Glitta”) or Jasper Campise. Tr. 115.
  2. CI 12 told O’Rourke that Matassa extorted money from Northside bars and on one occasion was intercepted on tape and indicted in federal court for extortion. GEB Ex. 34 at 23. The 1140 accepts C 12’s information about the extortion as it has been corroborated by other sources. The IHO specifically notes that Matassa was not found guilty of the charges, and therefore, the IHO does not accept as probative the fact Matassa was indicted. The IHO does not accept any testimony regarding the tapes that CI 12 alleged existed; such tapes were not produced at the hearing and their contents were not discussed.
  3. Frank DeMonte was an underling of Vince Solano in the Rush Street crew, had several felony convictions and was a LIUNA official. He died in 1992. Tr. 422. DeMonte spent time in jail for contempt of court. Tr. 627. Matassa testified at the Chicago District Council hearing that when DeMonte was jailed for contempt of court, DeMonte asked Matassa to collect loan money from the owner of a gay bar. Tr. 627-28. Matassa testified that the amount was approximately three or four thousand dollars but denied that the amount was for a street tax payment. Tr. 628-629. The IHO finds Matassa’s explanation to be incredible. Given the individuals involved, and the circumstances of collecting several thousand dollars from the


owner of a gay bar, the IHO finds that Matassa, at the very least, should have known he was collecting money for an operation related to organized crime.

  1. The IHO finds that Matassa collected money for a known organized crime figure, under circumstances which indicate the collection was not pursuant to a legitimate loan. Matassa’s Participation in Illegal Gambling Activities
  2. 26. Eto told the FBI and the PCOC that he worked for Solano and was in charge of running gambling operations, specifically Bolita, Monte, and other ethnic gambling games which were mob controlled. Tr. 75. Eto stated he paid $ 1,000 a month to Johnny Apes Monteleone (“Monteleone”) for protection of a Monte game he operated in Irving Park. Tr. 120. GEB Ex. 613. Eto stated that during the time period in which he was operating a monte game, he knew John Matassa, known to him as “Pudgy.” Tr. 121. GEB Ex. 613. Eto described Matassa as the son of a present or former Chicago Police Officer. Tr. 121. Eto also stated that Matassa had a friend working on the Tactical Unit of the police district. Eto provided Matassa with the telephone and address of Eto’s monte game so that it would not be raided by the Tactical Unit. Tr. 121. GEB Ex. 6B.
  3. The IHO finds that Matassa acted as a go-between for protection of Ken Eto’s monte, game.
  4. Eto stated that a Las Vegas type gambling operation took place at the Grand Plaza Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois, Tr. 125. GEB Ex. 6D. Eto frequented the Grand Plaza Hotel operation. Tr. 126. GEB Ex. 6D. Eto met with DeMonte and John Matassa at the operation. Id. Eto also said that Jasper Campise bankrolled three tables run by Matassa at the operation. Tr. 122. GEB Ex. 6C.
  5. 29. At the Chicago District Council hearing, Matassa testified that he had known Jasper Campise all his life and attended Campise’s wake after Campise was murdered and his


body was found crammed in the trunk of a car. Tr. 64445. Matassa denied knowledge of Campise’s organized crime membership. He stated that although he knew Campise had been murdered and his body was found in the trunk of a car, he did not ask anyone about the details o Campise’s murder. Tr. 644-45, This denial is not credible.

  1. The IHO finds that Matassa associated with Campise, a major organized crime figure. The IFIO also finds that Matassa frequented the Grand Plaza gambling operation in Rosemont, and ran three tables there, controlled by Campise.

Matassa’,,& Participation in the Outfit’s Illegal Pornography Activities

31                                                                                                          It is a well-established fact that organized crime has a solid stronghold in the pornography industry. Tr. 288. While Bohling was working for the police department, there were three major pornography distributors in the Chicago area. Tr. 290, Bohling stated that based upon his experience investigating pornography and organized crime, he learned that Mike Glitta controlled the pornography distribution industry in the Chicago area and was involved in organized crime. Tr. 293-94. This statement is corroborated by O’Rourke and Dineen who also conCIuded that Glitta was a made member of the Northside Crew who was in charge of the pornographic bookstore activities of the crew. Tr. 178, 426, 428.

32                                                                                                          Through his work as a police officer, Bohling learned that Robert Dominic (“Dominic”) controlled and operated several adult bookstores that featured live dancers. Tr. 297-98. Dineen testified that based upon his own investigative experience and efforts, he had knowledge that Dominic was involved in gambling and pornographic literature controlled by the Rush Street Crew, Tr. 422. During the mid 1980s, pursuant to arrest warrants signed by a state court judge based upon Bohling’s purchase of materials from Dominic, Bohling arrested Dominic for obscenity approximately five times, and was present on several other occasions



when Dominic’s was arrested. Tr. 299. Bohling stated that Dominic pled guilty to obscenity on at least one occasion. Id.


  1. Dineen stated that Chicago Police surveillance reports of Matassa in March 1990, reported that Matassa and DeMonte were seen exiting Mr. Edward’s Restaurant followed shortly by Dominic and then engaging in a conversation in the parking lot. Tr. 421-22. During the Chicago District Council hearing, Matassa confirmed that he was at Mr. Edward’s Restaurant in March 1990 meeting %ith DiMonte and Dominic. GEB Ex. 26 at 3924, 3927. Matassa CIaimed that the occasion in which he was surveilled was the only time he had met with Dominic. GEB Ex. 26 at 3924. The IHO does not credit Matassa’s testimony that this was the only time he had met with’Dominic.
  2. The IHO finds that Matassa was often seen with Dominic, an organized crime associate who was a dealer in pornographic material.
  3. Bohling testified that Glitta is Matassa’s uncle. 3 Tr. 304. Bohling also testified that he saw Matassa chauffeuring Glitta on several occasions, both at adult bookstores and random traffic encounters. Tr. 305. Matassa testified that he “was with Mr. Glitta seven days a week, on Saturdays and Sundays, too.” Tr. 638-4 1. The IHO finds that Matassa drove Glitta on a daily basis.
  4. Based on surveillance reports, informants, meeting and observing Matassa, and the knowledge he accumulated as a police officer, Bohling learned of Matassa’s organized crime involvement. Tr. 306. Bohling stated that he was unsure of Matassa’s role in the mid 1980s other than that he often saw Matassa in the company of Glitta. Id. In the later part of the 1980s and early 1990s, after Glitta’s death, surveillance reports and observations made by other law


Despite Matassa’s calling Glitta “uncle,” Glitta is actually the first cousin of Matassa’s father but is referred to as uncle by Matassa due to their close relationship. GEB Ex. 26 at 3880.



enforcement agencies lead Bohling to conclude that Matassa had taken Glitta’s place in managing the adult bookstores and distribution on the Northside for organized crime. Tr. 307. Bohling did not qualify this information. Bohling’s statement is accepted only as a general corroboration that Matassa was involved in the pornographic operation on the north side. Bohling’s statements corroborate O’Rourke’s testimony in a general fashion.

  1. CI 1 told O’Rourke that he knows Matassa played a role in the operation of pornographic bookstores and worked as a “muscle man” for Vincent Solano. GEB Ex. 34 at 15. CI 5 told-O’Rourke that Matassa was associated with Glitta in the pornography business for the outfit in the 1970s and 1980s. GEB Ex. 34 at 18. CI 6 also told O’Rourke that Matassa was involved in the pornography business. GEB Ex. 34 at 19. CI 12 stated that Matassa had control over several pornographic bookstores on the near north side of Chicago. GEB Ex. 34 at 23. CI 13 stated that Matassa was involved in pornography and was part of the Northside Crew working for Solano, Glitta, DeMonte, and others in the 1970s and 1980s. GEB Ex. 34 at 24,
  2. At the Chicago District Council proceedings, Matassa stated that Glittal s wife owned “three or four” adult bookstores which were located on CIark Street and Rush Street in Chicago, and Mannheim Road in the suburbs. GEB Ex. 26 at 3806. Matassa also stated that he drove Glitta to his bookstores, and helped him go shopping and restock his bookstores. GEB Ex. 26 at 3807.
  3. The IHO finds that Matassa CIosely associated with Glitta, a recognized organized crime figure. Mattassa was Glitta’s driver. In organized crime cirCIes, major organized crime figures usually have a close associate drive them