a) The letter and the open
letter sent to
Robert E. Taylor, Jr.
b) The answer from Robert E. Taylor, Jr
c) Our reply
We are requesting comment concerning this letter we sent you:
I recently was informed that you and your company have provided a letter to one Tom Papania [papanier] advising Tom that he could use the letter to recruit churches and other organizations for his speaking engagements. Further, Tom is using this "letter" stating it is a BACK GROUND check performed by YOU that verifies his legitimacy. QWe are providing some facts and questions. Would you be so kind as to reply.
Thank you
Jimmy DiCanio
The Rogues gallery
*****************************
CONTENTS OF LETTER:
Was saved in 1984
Was on trial for racketeering, drug distribution, and murder, (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO] from May 1986 until April 1987.
Awaited trial in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary from May 1986 until April 1987 [he was not allowed bail, and was considered a serious flight risk]
Was found innocent of all charges and released in April 1987
Began ministering to others while in prison the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary
Established God’s Saving Grace Ministries in 1989
WOW!! Is this guy for real or what?
WHERE IS ONE FACT THAT SHOWS ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT TOM'S BACKGROUND??
HE EVEN GOT THE DOGON FACTS WRONG!!
TOM WAS CHARGED WITH THREE MAIN CHARGES:
PORNOGRAPHY DISTRIBUTION
COCAINE DISTRIBUTUION
CONSPIRACY TO MURDER
THE PORNOGRAPHY CHARGE WAS DISMISSED....
HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT OF THE OTHER CHARGES....
why???
*************
"Tommy Papanier, a co-defendant in the trial of accused racketeer Carl Coppola, took the witness stand Thursday and disputed previous testimony that he was connected to New York's Gambino organized crime
family." ..... "The testimony of Papanier, a tall, strapping man with a thick New York accent, and his wife, Margaret , contained several references to his devout Christian beliefs. Ten members of his Norcross church lined the courtroom benches, and his attorney, Alan Begner, unsuccessfully sought permission for Papanier to hold his Bible while on the witness stand.
"
"The government is not alleging [papania] Papanier is a member of the Mafia, [prosecutor] Deichert said."
BYLINE: By Sam Hopkins Staff Writer
DATE: 05-13-1986
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
***************
THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE AS FAR AS CHARGES AND TRIAL? IT IS FACT AND WE STAND BEHIND
THAT.. BUT HAVE AN EXCEPTION WITH HIS LIES AND EXAGGERATIONS
HELLO?
HEY
MR. LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE DID NOT NEED TO KNOW THAT! WE HAVE ALL THAT HEREIN!
WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW IS:
a) IF TOM WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY BY THE GRACE OF GOD....
b) AND THAT GOD EXPOSED ALL
THOSE AGAINST HIM AS LIARS AND SAID SO WITH A BIBLE ON THE COURT HOUSE STEPS,....
AND THAT IN HIS OWN TESTIMONY, REPORTED AND QUOTED VERBATIM IN THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION ON TWENTY OCCASIONS, WHILE TOM SWORE ON THE BIBLE, AT THE TRIAL, AFTER HE WAS SAVED, WHILE MINISTERING TO INMATES IN THE PRISON TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS:
1-NEVER A MEMBER OF THE MOB
2- AN INNOCENT BODY GUARD FOR A DRUG DEALER THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF BEING A
DRUG DEALER.......
3-WAS NOT OR EVER A MEMBER OF THE GAMBIBO FAMILY OR EVER A MAFIOSA
4- THAT HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JOSEPH CAM MURDER,
5- NEVER FREED CARL COPPOLLA FROM ANY "DRUG DEALERS"
6- AND THAT THE "DRUG DEALERS" THAT KIDNAPPED COPPOLLA WAS IN FACT COPPOLLAS BUSINESS PARTNER...
7- AND, AGAIN, GAVE GOD CREDIT..
8- AND THE government prosecutors said: "The government is not alleging
[papania] Papanier is a member of the Mafia, [prosecutor] Deichert said."
WHY DOES HE SAY THIS NOW, AND IN THE SAME "TESTIMONY, THEN SAY HE WAS WHAT HE WAS NOT ???
THE ANSWER, HE WAS NEVER A MEMBER, AND WAS INNOCENT LIKE HE SWORE AND GOD
SET HIM FREE WHERE HE, TOM, DECIDED TO FLEECE-THE-FLOCK BY USING THE VERY
TRIAL CHARGES AS A HIS TRUE STORY....
YET, HE USES THE SAME "GOD SET ME FREE" IN HIS PRESENT TESTIMONY AND THEN GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE CHARGES HE FACED WERE TRUE??
I AM LOST MR. POLICEMAN?
HE WAS INNOCENT.. AND GOD SET HIM FREE.. OR WAS HE GUILTY AND LIED ON THE STAND? HE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS .. CAN HE, SIR?
AND, IF ALL THE LETTERS AND RECORDS AND FACTS WE HAVE ARE EVEN PARTIALLY TRUE, THE HE WAS INNOCENT SIR! AND IS LYING WITH YOUR OUTSTANDING LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD ON THE LINE.. SIR!@
AND THEN, THE QUESTION IS :
WHY DOES HE NOW SAY HE WAS A HIGH RANKING MOBSTER, FEARED BY ALL, A GAMBINO SOLDIER AT
THAT (THOUGH NO ONE CAN PLACE HIM OR REMEMBER HIM AS ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY AS WHAT HE
SAYS! HTTP://GANGLANDNEWS.COM).
AND WHAT OF ALL THE OTHER NONSENSE THAT IS UNTRUE, AND, IF IT WERE, THEN HE LIED ON THE STAND UNDER OATH WHILE PREACHING TO THE
IMAMATES??
SIR:
With all respects, Tom is a liar and a thief and a fraud. He uses a lie, the eXact opposite of what he told at the trial, after being saved, and giving God the credit.
A background would have you saying HE WAS a mobster of high ranking and feared by all?
What Say You?
A Back Ground would show why and when he was sent to prison back in da ole' days at 17?;
it would also say that he was in the air force and was 20 at the time, not 17 as his testimony today says....
Sir, why do you allow a liar to stand in your shoes..
to advertise your new company???
I see that you have your company and web site splashed all over that BOGUS BACKGROUND CHECK....hmmmmmml<
WHAT OF THE FACTS THAT TOM WAS SENT TO KANSAS PRISON FOR
BURGLARY AND NOT FOR SHOOTING TWO PEOPLE??
AND WHAT IF THE FACT THAT HE WAS IN THE AIR FORCE AND THAT THIS ALL OCCURRED IN 1965 WHEN HE WAS 20???
read Toms Testimony on the stand here at tompapaniafraud.COM @!
Read the PRESS quotes FROM THE NEWS PAPERS and then listen to his testimony on the pulpit@
He was set free by the Grace Of god, and so because all them there people were liars.. he swore "I was never a member of the MOB" and "I came to Atlanta to start over" and then was set free@!!@!
This is TOM's RECORD IF YOU WHO WANT TO KNOW JUST WHAT A LIAR HE IS::
( 2nd degree burglary and grand larceny, plus parole violation showed
as other arrests, around 1965 or 1970)
>1965 Burglary & Larceny Witchita Kansas - given 5-10 years for burglary,
served 1-5 in Kansas *(tom says he was 17 when he "shot" two people and got two 5 - 10 year sentences, yet, he was 20 years of age when he committed a BURLARY while stationed in Kansas in the Air Force and got a 5 to 10 year sentence )
>1970 New Jersey Carrying a prohibited weapon
>1974 Fulton City GA Distribution of obscene material and giving false
name for driver's licence
> 1978 Conspiracy in stolen stock
> 1979 Federal charges Petersburg VA Conspiracy in stolen stock
> 1980 Metro Correctional for conspiring against the U.S.
> 1984 Drug Possession, distribution of obscene material with intent (dismissed distribution of obscene material
charges )
BR>
> 1986 Georgia RICO act - COCAINE AND CONSPIRACY TO MURDER
Click Here for this "Bogus Background"
I wonder if
you are an ex-law guy getting paid somehow???
well, what of this sir???
Jimmy Dicanio
http://tompapaniafraud.com
this is his web site info if you want to know: THE TAYLOR GROUP
UPDATEL:
BYLINE: EPSTEIN, GAIL Gail Epstein Staff Writer STAFF
DATE: April 4, 1987
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution
EDITION: The Atlanta Journal Constitution
SECTION: LOCAL NEWS
PAGE: B/2
Thomas Papanier, a co-defendant in the racketeering trial of Carl Coppola who has been linked to the Mafia, testified Friday that he once was proud of his association with New York's Gambino organized crime family and that his friendships gave him access to exclusive restaurants and nightclubs. But Papanier denied being a member of the Gambino syndicate and said he moved to Atlanta to work for Coppola's Jilly's rib restaurants in 1983 to sever his informal ties with organized crime and "start my life over."
Papanier also disputed testimony that he plotted with Coppola to kill two associates and conspired to distribute large quantities of cocaine in Atlanta. His argumentative responses to the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination prompted repeated warnings from U.S. District Judge Robert Vining.
Tommy Papanier, a co-defendant in the trial of accused racketeer Carl Coppola, took the witness stand Thursday and disputed previous testimony that he was connected to New York's Gambino organized crime family. Papanier also denied previous testimony that he conspired to distribute cocaine with Coppola and hosted a series of meetings at his Dunwoody home during which the murder of an associate was planned.
The testimony of Papanier, a tall, strapping man with a thick New York accent, and his wife, Margaret, contained several references to his devout Christian beliefs. Ten members of his Norcross church lined the courtroom benches, and his attorney, Alan Begner, unsuccessfully sought permission for Papanier to hold his Bible while on the witness stand.
The couple also stressed Papanier's strong anti-drug stance. Mrs. Papanier said she kicked her cocaine habit with Papanier's encouragement.
Papanier said he worked for a New York poultry firm owned by Castellano's family and had been Bilotti's friend since 1968. When Bilotti admitted belonging to the Gambino family, Papanier said he broke off their friendship.
Papanier denied plotting to distribute cocaine with Coppola and other men or seeking sources for the drug in New York, as witnesses have testified. He also denied hosting two meetings with Coppola and others to plot the murder of assoc iate Daniel Forgione, as witnesses have testified.
Papanier said he moved to Atlanta in May 1983 to work for Coppola's Jilly's rib restaurants. He said he eventually became Coppola's bodyguard, too, and admitted to carrying a weapon because Coppola's life had been threatened. As a convicted felon, Papanier is prohibited from carrying a weapon.
and finally, Tom says it was an 11 month trial, it was 14 weeks.....
YLINE: EPSTEIN, GAIL Gail Epstein Staff Writer STAFF
DATE:
June 4, 1987
PUBLICATION: The
Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution
EDITION: The Atlanta
Constitution
SECTION: LOCAL NEWS
PAGE: A/1 After 3 months together, goodbye comes hard for Coppola jurors
"After 14 weeks, honey, we know each other!" jury foreman Jerry Garber said Wednesday afternoon as he bid a boisterous but temporary farewell to fellow jurors. "We were together 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. There were a couple of days at the end when we said we didn't want to see each other again
**************************************
1 CORINTHIANS 4:1
So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.In the above verses of text everyone should count Paul and other Christian workers as "servants" of Christ, fully responsible to him and not to the Corinthians. The phrase "those entrusted with" means "house stewards" and refers to a position often held by a slave [like Joseph in Gen 39:2:19] entrusted with managing the affairs of a household. "The secret things of God" indicates the mysteries of salvation God has revealed in his Word (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3-4; 1 Timothy 3:16)--things one cannot discover by human wisdom. These truths of the cross have been entrusted to Christian workers to be carefully used and guarded. As subordinate servants of Christ, they have no right of authority over those truths, but must minister them in Christ's name to God's people. Paul also now examines the character of those who are handling God's truth: they, including himself, must first of all show themselves faithful. Since he is the Lord's servant and steward, it is to the Lord that he owes responsibility, and it is the Lord who "judges" him for the quality of his service. Human judgment has little value; even self-evaluation is unreliable. Christ is Lord of the conscience and the one who can evaluate it properly.
Secondly,
1. Brethren must refrain from judging one another
ROMANS 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
The word "eat" characterizes this section. Diet practices differ, and these differences can easily become a basis of disagreement. Paul terms overscrupulous believers as those who are "weak in faith," meaning that the faith of such persons is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ. They are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods
. The injunction to those who do not share this weakness is to "accept" them warmly [verse 1] and not to pass judgment on them. Weak Christians must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted.The specialized use of "faith" becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context. One person, obviously strong in faith, feels he can eat anything. Paul would concur that he has this freedom [
1Timothy 4:3-4]. Another person, weak in his faith, confines his diet to vegetables. The motive for doing so is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of the strong to this practice. The omnivorous man is apt to "look down" on the weak brother, an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak brother may retaliate by condemning the one who has no inhibitions about his food. If so, the latter needs to reflect on the fact that God has accepted this man [verse 3], so why should he himself not do so?To reinforce the rebuke, Paul cites the relationship of a servant to his master in verse 4. In ordinary life, it would be unseemly for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the servant's actions. Thus the strong certainly may enjoy their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain him.
**********************************************