The government’s star witness in the alleged federal corruption trial of former Yonkers City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi and former Yonkers GOP Chairman Zehy Jereis continued on Monday, March 5, 2012, along a paradigm commandeered by the defendants' legal counsel from last Thursday, March 1, 2012, at which Anthony Mangone’s (LEFT) testimony seemed full of bluster, self-importance, pathologic in his personal relationships, and headstrong in his disdain for friends, associates, and partners alike. Mr Mangone, by his own words and expression, concocted a tale of plausible conduct and self-importance, that was deficient in provable “facts,” yet could be surmised as seemingly credible in its accusation of every protagonist he mentioned; only Mr Mangone was left blameless.
Mr Jereis’ counsel, Anthony Siano, proved Mr Mangone’s gambling problem to have consumed many of his years in “living large,” to the tune of accumulating debt of over $300,000 in casino “chips” and “loses.” To ameliorate his obsessive compulsive gambling disorder, long satiated by his visiting and playing at casinos in Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Uncasville, CT, Las Vegas, and Atlantic City, Mr Mangone incorporated the many ploys he learned over his almost two-decades long stint as a political gofer and desperate wannabee. 35 years of potential jail time may be Mr Mangone’s payoff.
His needing to satisfy gambling debt had Mr Mangone connive and contrive strategies to keep him one step ahead of societal norms. When losses would eventually accrue to unmanageable levels, he penetrated client escrow accounts, which are specifically “verboten!”
Mr Mangone advised that it was Nick Spano (CENTER) who told him about the practice of passing chips from one casino to another to get cash.
Mr Mangone said, “[then Senator Nick] Spano passed money to him through Donna Mangone, Mr Mangone’s wife, from 2002-2003, when Donna Mangone worked on the Friends of Nick Spano campaign effort, and receiving $27,000 to work on the campaign.
Mr Mangone also claims to have paid 10’s of thousands of bribes regarding the Longfellow Project.
Mr Mangone admits to being cajoled to hire Senator Joe Libous’s (RIGHT) son Matt, a lawyer, for $50,000 per annum. Within days, Mr Mangone stipulates Senator Libous called to advise Mr Mangone that the salary should be upped to $100,000 per annum and also include the balance of a lease of a Landrover for his son Matt. Less than a week later, Mr Mangone asserts Sen. Libous called to suggest the remuneration favoring his son Matt must be $150,000 per annum and the Landrover lease.
It was at the final demand that Mr Mangone balked advising that the firm could not afford such an outlay because Matt Libous, Esq., was not bringing any business into the firm.
Mr Mangone asserts Sen. Libous advised Mr Mangone to bill a shell or dummy corporation for $50,000. The corporation they are alleged to have billed was called HIFFA. HIFFA was said to have received money from third parties. HIFFA was billed for amounts that comprised $50,000 of Mr Matt Libous’ salary. The bills submitted to HIFFA have not been revealed nor verified to be legitimate.
Mr Mangone attested to having broken attorney client privilege by admitting it was he who advised the government Milio Management, under the milieu nurtured by co-founder Antonio Milio, and his son, Franco Milio, who, when becoming part of the firm was demanded to similarly conduct himself fraudulently. Mr Mangone admitted he advised the FBI that the Milio’s had not been paying taxes; neither City of Yonkers, New York State, or Federal taxes, among other employee related taxes, FICA, Social Security, and advised further that the Milio’s promoted job openings to those who were not documented as legal. Mr Mangone was NEVER exonerated from conforming to the tenets of attorney client privilege.
Mr Mangone divulged that it was he who labeled the Milio family, “cheap bastards,” and it was Mr Mangone that advised the FBI that the Milio’s were” cleaning up the cash.”
Mr Mangone relates how during one real estate transaction he was handling for the Milio’s, the Milio’s, cash rich, had a preference to close on a commercial purchase with a seller who would not close on a cash basis. The seller demanded check payment. The Milio’s sidestepped the issue by depositing cash payment to a third party to meet the final monetary figure for the closing transaction. That third party wired the amount needed to complete the purchase transaction with the seller to Mr Mangone’s client escrow account. When the bank wire was acknowledged, Mr Mangone issued a check to the seller of the property and thereby concluded a “deal” in which cash was “laundered.”
Mr Mangone advised in testimony that the Milio’s had used him and the “escrow account” “dozens of times” over many years to launder funds.
Mr Mangone also related the story regarding the anticipated departure of Mr Anthony Servino to return to the Office of the Westchester County District Attorney. When Mr Mangone joined the firm of Servino & Santangelo, it was known as Servino, Santangelo & Randazzo. The firm would continue to evolve to be known as Servino, Santangelo, Randazzo & Mangone. When Mr Servino departed the firm, the name was changed to Santangelo, Randazzo & Mangone. Mssrs Mangone and Santangelo kept Mr Servino ignorant of the expected income that could have resulted in increased profits to be equally shared among the partners. To avoid sharing more than they wanted to, Mssrs Mangone and Santangelo agreed to be silent of the expected income, to commandeer checks that were expected for work performed to NOT be deposited until after Mr Servino’s departure from the firm for a position elsewhere. This was the conduct of Mr Mangone after 6 years as a partner to Mr Servino.
Mr Mangone was shown to have lied in grand jury testimonies oftentimes in his career. Mr Mangone would at times mention some members of the Melio family giving him specific amounts of cash, but the amount of cash fluctuated from $10,000 to $20,000, to $30,000 and even $40,000. He vacillated between amounts he stipulated, was uncertain upon which days, sometimes even on which months money transfers took place. He was even confused from whom he received cash, whether there were witnesses to the said transactions or not, and similarly had equal difficulty on attributing his conduct when in the presence of other people allegedly delivering cash.
He attempted to play the U.S. Attorney’s Office by suggesting he would tell them the “truth,” but admitted that be “lied” oftentimes.
Mr Mangone related instances in which he left out pertinent information in his “re-telling” of circumstances. He left out former NYS Senator Nick Spano’s name from being present at Reno’s Restaurant, admitting that he did so to protect then Senator Nick Spano over an alleged voter falsification scheme.
Many times, Mr Mangone advised that in reading FBI information culled from his testimony, that the FBI did not articulate in writing form that which took place. Mr Mangone stipulated “the FBI lied!”
Mr Mangone would tell of circumstances in which he stipulated that a particular individual was in attendance at a gathering yet it could not be corroborated by any other source. Did the FBI lie? Mr Mangone has mentally submitted to the personal demons of his delusions suggesting uniquivecally that "the FBI did lie!"
Mr Mangone divulged that a Milio relative advised him that Mr Jereis and Ms Annabi were intimate with one another. Mr Mangane claims Mr Dominic Maiano told him (Mr. Mangane) that “Jereis was sleeping with Annabi.” It is presently conjecture as no evidence has been submitted proving it to be the case.
Further Ms Annabi and Mr Jereis are not cousins.
Mr Mangone spoke often of attempting to find an avenue of communication with then Councilwoman Sandy Annabi, yet Mr Mangone also admits to not going to her directly; seeking the assistance of Mr Jereis, and not ever approaching Mr Mangone’s wife’s sister, Debbie Kayal, Ms Annabi’s then Legislative Aide. Mr Mangone should like the jury to believe his description of Ms Kayal as a secretary, is accurate; claiming no knowledge of her title or her job responsibilities.
Mr Mangone professes to presently be engaged as a restauranteur. The first name of the restaurant was inaudible, the second part of the name was Trattoria. The restaurant is a licensed establishment, that is, it serves alcohol, but the question begging to be asked is how could he have received a license to operate an establishment serving liquor with his record, vis-à-vis the law? He further advised that he operates a firm engaged in commercial interior designs. The firm is known as Aspen Design.
After the conclusion of Mr Mangone’s testimony, an FBI specialist in communications analysis took the stand. This agent was tasked o follow the telephone calls initiated by Sandy Annabi,Zehy Jereis, Anthony Mangone, and another individual who presently escapes my recollection. When testimony by this agent continues Tuesday, it would be pertinent and appropriate to learn if communication by cell phone transpired between by Mr Mangone, when he attended a gathering among associates at a restaurant that conducted business as Trattoria, in White Plains, New York, yet defunct today, with Mr Jereis, who Mr Mangone stipulates stopped before the restaurant, advised Mr Mangone of his presence, and of Mr Mangone exiting the restaurant, entering Mr Jereis’ car and allegedly giving him $10,000 in cash.
At the speed by which Hon. Colleen McMahon, District Judge is moving, it seems U.S. Attorneys Jason Halperin and Anthony Carbone will rest their case within two weeks’ time.