Frank DiMattina – Staten Island

A summary of what happened?

Frank DiMattina, also known as “Frankie D” and “Frankie Ariana,” is a Staten Island-based caterer and reputed associate of the Genovese crime family. He gained notoriety for his involvement in organized crime activities, particularly extortion.

Major Concerns and Accusations:

1. Extortion and Firearms Charges:
   • In 2010, DiMattina was involved in the extortion of a fellow Staten Island caterer. He coerced the victim into withdrawing a competing bid for a lucrative Catholic school lunch program contract by displaying a firearm and threatening physical harm. DiMattina also threatened to burn down the bagel stores owned by the victim’s business partner if they did not comply.
     FBI
2. Conviction and Sentencing:
   • Following a three-day trial, a federal jury in Brooklyn convicted DiMattina of Hobbs Act extortion and a related firearms charge. He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment.
     FBI
3. Association with Organized Crime:
   • Authorities identified DiMattina as an associate of the Genovese crime family, one of New York’s notorious organized crime families. His criminal activities were consistent with the family’s reliance on threats and violence to intimidate individuals and secure business advantages.
     FBI
4. Legal Defense and Appeals:
   • DiMattina’s defense included motions for a new trial based on newly discovered alibi evidence, which were denied. He also sought bail pending appeal, which was granted due to substantial questions raised during the trial.
     Casetext
5. Civil Litigation:
   • In a separate civil matter, DiMattina filed a lawsuit against Walter Bowers, the caterer he was convicted of extorting. The suit accused Bowers of breaching a contract related to the sale of a catering hall and fraudulently using the business name “Ariana’s” beyond the agreed period.
     Five Families NYC

These incidents highlight DiMattina’s involvement in criminal activities, his connections to organized crime, and the legal challenges he faced as a result of his actions.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Frank DiMattina - Staten Island trying to hide?

Frank DiMattina – Staten Island‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Frank DiMattina – Staten Island in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Frank DiMattina – Staten Island may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Frank DiMattina – The Staten Island Caterer with Ties to Organized Crime

Introduction

Frank DiMattina, a Staten Island caterer also known as “Frankie D” or “Frankie Ariana,” has a reputation steeped in controversy, crime, and legal battles. Identified as an associate of the notorious Genovese crime family, his name has become synonymous with extortion, threats, and a criminal enterprise operating under the veneer of legitimate catering businesses. This report delves into DiMattina’s criminal history, detailing the accusations, lawsuits, and the broader implications of his actions for his community and the justice system.

1. Background and Business Ventures

Frank DiMattina was a prominent figure in Staten Island’s catering industry. He operated a business under the name Ariana’s Catering Hall, which served as both a legitimate enterprise and, allegedly, a front for criminal activities.

• Ariana’s Catering Hall:
  • Known for hosting events and weddings, the catering hall was central to DiMattina’s public-facing business operations.
  • Despite its outward respectability, authorities alleged that the business was intertwined with his connections to the Genovese crime family, one of New York’s most powerful organized crime syndicates.
• Community Ties:
  • As a caterer, DiMattina maintained relationships with local businesses and community members, making his criminal activities even more shocking to those who knew him.

2. The Extortion Case of 2010

The Incident

In 2010, DiMattina was implicated in a violent extortion scheme targeting a fellow Staten Island caterer and his business partner. The details of the case revealed his reliance on intimidation, threats, and violence:

• Victim’s Business:
  • DiMattina sought to force the victim to withdraw a competing bid for a lucrative Catholic school lunch program contract.
  • The victim, who owned several catering businesses and bagel shops, was seen as a competitor to DiMattina’s interests.
• Methods of Coercion:
  • DiMattina brandished a firearm during a confrontation, threatening physical harm if the victim did not comply.
  • He explicitly threatened to burn down the victim’s bagel stores if they failed to heed his demands.

Investigation and Arrest

• Surveillance and Evidence:
  • Federal agents built a case against DiMattina based on surveillance and witness testimony, solidifying his role in the extortion scheme.
• Arrest:
  • DiMattina was arrested and charged with Hobbs Act extortion and a related firearms charge, marking the beginning of a high-profile legal battle.

3. Legal Proceedings and Conviction

Trial and Sentencing

The trial against DiMattina unfolded over three days in a Brooklyn federal court:

• Prosecution’s Argument:
  • Prosecutors argued that DiMattina’s actions were not isolated but part of a broader pattern of using threats and violence to protect his business interests.
  • They emphasized his ties to the Genovese crime family as evidence of his reliance on organized crime tactics.
• Defense’s Position:
  • DiMattina’s defense team attempted to portray him as a legitimate businessman unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors.
  • Despite their efforts, the evidence presented, including witness accounts and physical threats, painted a damning picture.
• Verdict:
  • DiMattina was convicted of Hobbs Act extortion and the related firearms charge.
  • He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the firearms charge, with additional time for the extortion conviction.

4. Connections to the Genovese Crime Family

Organized Crime Ties

Authorities identified DiMattina as an associate of the Genovese crime family, known for its influence in New York’s underworld. His actions reflected the hallmarks of organized crime:

• Use of Violence and Intimidation:
  • The Genovese family’s reliance on threats and coercion was evident in DiMattina’s methods.
• Financial Motives:
  • His attempts to monopolize the Catholic school lunch program contract indicated a pattern of using criminal influence to secure financial gains.

5. Subsequent Legal Actions and Civil Litigation

Civil Suit Against Walter Bowers

In a separate legal battle, DiMattina filed a lawsuit against Walter Bowers, the very caterer he was convicted of extorting.

• Allegations in the Civil Suit:
  • DiMattina accused Bowers of breaching a contract related to the sale of Ariana’s Catering Hall.
  • He claimed Bowers fraudulently continued to use the name “Ariana’s” beyond the agreed-upon period, damaging his brand and reputation.
• Significance:
  • The civil suit highlighted DiMattina’s continued legal troubles and his contentious relationships within the Staten Island business community.

6. Appeals and Bail Pending Appeal

After his conviction, DiMattina pursued legal remedies, including motions for a new trial and bail pending appeal:

• Motion for a New Trial:
  • DiMattina’s defense argued that newly discovered alibi evidence warranted a retrial. However, the court denied this motion, finding the evidence insufficient to overturn the conviction.
• Bail Granted:
  • Despite his conviction, DiMattina was granted bail pending appeal due to substantial questions raised during the trial. This development extended the legal proceedings and kept public attention on the case.

7. Community and Public Perception

Shock in Staten Island

DiMattina’s criminal activities shocked Staten Island residents who knew him as a local caterer and businessman. Many were unaware of his connections to organized crime and the extent of his illegal dealings.

Supporters and Critics

• Supporters:
  • Some community members defended DiMattina, citing his years of service in the catering business and questioning the motives of his accusers.
• Critics:
  • Others viewed him as a classic example of organized crime infiltrating legitimate businesses, using fear and coercion to maintain control.

8. Broader Implications

Organized Crime in Legitimate Industries

DiMattina’s case underscores the persistence of organized crime’s influence in seemingly legitimate sectors, such as catering and school lunch programs.

• Challenges for Law Enforcement:
  • The case highlights the difficulty of uncovering and prosecuting criminal activities that are masked by legitimate businesses.
• Impact on Local Communities:
  • The use of threats and violence to dominate business opportunities creates an environment of fear and stifles fair competition.

Conclusion

Frank DiMattina’s rise as a successful Staten Island caterer was overshadowed by his deep ties to organized crime and reliance on intimidation to maintain his business interests. His conviction for extortion and firearms charges not only tarnished his reputation but also exposed the pervasive influence of criminal networks in local economies.

Key Findings

1. Criminal Enterprise: DiMattina’s actions, including threats and extortion, reflected his association with the Genovese crime family’s tactics.
2. Legal Troubles: His conviction and subsequent legal battles highlighted a pattern of coercion and disregard for the law.
3. Impact on Staten Island: DiMattina’s case exemplifies how organized crime undermines trust in legitimate businesses and disrupts local economies.

Recommendations

1. Strengthened Oversight:
   • Authorities should enhance monitoring of businesses in industries susceptible to organized crime influence.
2. Community Education:
   • Public awareness campaigns can help communities identify and report intimidation tactics used by criminal enterprises.
3. Support for Victims:
   • Victims of extortion and threats should have access to resources and protection to come forward without fear of retaliation.

Frank DiMattina’s case serves as a cautionary tale of how the veneer of respectability can hide criminal operations, reminding us of the importance of vigilance in combating organized crime.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Frank DiMattina – Staten Island (or actors working on behalf of Frank DiMattina – Staten Island), we will inform Frank DiMattina – Staten Island of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Frank DiMattina – Staten Island may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Frank DiMattina – Staten Island, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Frank DiMattina – Staten Island to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Frank DiMattina – Staten Island made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Frank DiMattina – Staten Island is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Frank DiMattina - Staten Island

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Frank DiMattina - Staten Island Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Frank DiMattina – Staten Island used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Frank DiMattina – Staten Island could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Frank DiMattina – Staten Island have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Frank DiMattina – Staten Island is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Frank DiMattina – Staten Island creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Frank DiMattina – Staten Island either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Frank DiMattina – Staten Island, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Frank DiMattina – Staten Island is in great company ….

What else is Frank DiMattina - Staten Island hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Frank DiMattina – Staten Island] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Frank DiMattina – Staten Island that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.