Jailed Bonanno mobster John ‘The Maniac' Ragano gets 3 more years for making loan victim strip
An imposing Bonanno soldier nicknamed 'The Maniac' got just over three years behind bars Wednesday for forcing a loansharking victim to strip naked in Queens — on top of the nearly five years he's already serving in part for extorting the same victim.
John Ragano, 62, who also goes by the nickname 'Bazoo,' was trying to pressure mob-connected businessman Vincent Martino into paying back a $150,000 street loan — even after he'd already been convicted in a case involving that same loan.
Martino was wearing a wire for the FBI, though, and Ragano's attempts at extortion came to a head on July 5, 2023, in a scene that could have fit into an episode of 'The Sopranos.'
Jurors heard audio from the dramatic encounter during a four-day trial in Brooklyn Federal Court in October that ended in Ragano convicted of extortion, but acquitted on witness harassment and tampering charges.
Martino, 47, walked into the lobby that day of A & G Auto Dismantlers in Ridgewood as Manfred Mann's classic cover of Bruce Springsteen's 'Blinded by the Light' played in the background, and stepped into a dark warehouse area to meet Ragano face-to-face.
As the two were surrounded by tires and tools, Martino accused Ragano of ratting him out to the feds in a marijuana distribution scheme.
That enraged and confused Ragano, who asked 'Are you trying to get stupid on me?' and commanded, started bellowing, 'Take off your f–ing s–t right now. Take off your f—ing pants!'
Martino fled the garage, his pants around his ankles and his shirt over his head, but the wire kept recording.
The confrontation happened just five days before Ragano was set to start a nearly five-year sentence in a union shakedown indictment that led to the convictions of the entire leadership of the Colombo crime family.
Martino was also snared in that indictment, charged with going into the marijuana trafficking business with Ragano and others.
On Wednesday, Judge Hector Gonzalez, who originally sentenced Ragano in the earlier case, added another three-plus years.
Despite the guilty verdict, Ragano's lawyers, Ken Womble and Joel Stein tried to argue that prosecutors presented a 'false narrative' at trial, instead presenting his efforts as a misguided but friendly attempt to reclaim the principal amount owed, without interest. They were asking for a one-year sentence.
Stein said the feds sent Martino into the auto shop that day to provoke a response out of Ragano.
'If it wasn't for July 5, we wouldn't be here today,' Stein said. 'They concocted this plan to upset him, to piss him off, and they were successful.'
When Womble suggested that Ragano and his victim were merely 'friendly Mafia individuals,' the judge asked, 'Isn't there something oxymoronic about that?'
Prosecutors were asking for an additional 51 to 63 months. Gonzalez said he ultimately went with a lower number, in part because of the conditions at MDC Brooklyn, where Ragano has been held for the past year and change, and in part because he considered the crime as an extension of what landed him the original nearly five-year sentence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court of Canada to hear appeal in long-running Facebook privacy case
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to review a ruling that concluded Facebook broke federal privacy law by failing to adequately inform users of risks to their data when using the popular social media platform. Last September, the Federal Court of Appeal found Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms, did not obtain the meaningful consent required by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act between 2013 and 2015. The decision overturned a 2023 Federal Court ruling. The Court of Appeal said Facebook invited millions of apps onto its platform and did not adequately supervise them. It found that the Federal Court's failure to engage with the relevant evidence on this point was an error of law. Privacy commissioner Philippe Dufresne called the Court of Appeal decision an acknowledgment that international firms whose business models rely on users' data must respect Canadian privacy law. Facebook applied for a hearing at the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeal took the wrong approach to consent and security safeguards under the privacy law. It said in a written application that, rather than evaluating Facebook's multi-layered efforts to obtain meaningful consent, the Court of Appeal focused myopically on the platform's privacy policy alone. The Supreme Court, following its usual practice, gave no reasons Thursday for agreeing to hear the case. A 2019 investigation report from then-federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien and his British Columbia counterpart cited major shortcomings in Facebook's procedures and called for stronger laws to protect Canadians. The probe followed reports that Facebook let an outside organization use a digital app to access users' personal information, which was then passed to others. The app, at one point known as "This is Your Digital Life," encouraged users to complete a personality quiz but collected information about the people who installed the app and data about their Facebook friends. Recipients of the information included the British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which was involved in U.S. political campaigns and targeted messaging. About 300,000 Facebook users worldwide added the app, leading to the potential disclosure of the personal information of approximately 87 million others, including more than 600,000 Canadians, the commissioners' report said. The commissioners concluded that Facebook violated PIPEDA by failing to obtain valid and meaningful consent from installing users and their friends, and that it had "inadequate safeguards" to protect user information. Facebook disputed the investigation's findings. The company has said it tried to work with the privacy commissioner's office and take measures that would go above and beyond what other companies do. In early 2020, Therrien asked the Federal Court to declare Facebook had violated the law. A judge ruled the commissioner failed to establish that Facebook breached the law on meaningful consent. He also agreed with Facebook's argument that once a user authorizes it to disclose information to an app, the social media company's safeguarding duties under PIPEDA come to an end. In its decision, the Court of Appeal noted Facebook's contention that users read privacy policies presented to them when they sign up to social networking websites — something the judges called "a dubious assumption" given such documents can run to thousands of words. "Terms that are on their face superficially clear do not necessarily translate into meaningful consent," Justice Donald Rennie wrote for a three-member panel. "Apparent clarity can be lost or obscured in the length and miasma of the document and the complexity of its terms." In this case, Rennie said, a central question was whether a reasonable person "would have understood that in downloading a personality quiz (or any app), they were consenting to the risk that the app would scrape their data and the data of their friends, to be used in a manner contrary to Facebook's own internal rules (i.e. sold to a corporation to develop metrics to target advertising in advance of the 2016 U.S. election)." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025. Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sends Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI back to lower court for more review
Supreme Court sends Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI back to lower court for more review Show Caption Hide Caption Can FBI be sued if agents raid wrong house? Supreme Court to weigh in. Trina Martin, son Gabe Watson and partner Toi Cliatt seek compensation after their house was mistakenly raided by the FBI. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court sent a case involving an Atlanta family seeking to sue the FBI for raiding their house back to a lower court for more consideration, but left unresolved the broader question of how much protection from lawsuits the courts should give law enforcement officers mistakes on the job. Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the 'monstrous noise' of a half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn. But the Special Weapons and Tactics team was at the wrong home, 436 feet from a similar beige, split-level house where a suspected gang member lived. Federal courts dismissed the family's lawsuit for compensation over the mistake by ruling courts shouldn't second-guess law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal of the case on June 12. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that there are several exceptions to whether law enforcement officers can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the appeals court should review them again. Martin, her son who was 7 years old at the time of the raid, and Cliatt each feared they could be killed when the SWAT team burst noisily into their house. The ordeal lasted about five minutes before the FBI agents realized their mistake and headed out to the correct house. The FBI agents described their meticulous planning to search the house by locating it with GPS during daylight, taking pictures and drawing up a tactical plan. Congress changed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1974 to allow lawsuits against law enforcement after two wrong-house raids the year before. But the government argued that judges shouldn't second-guess agents doing their jobs. A District Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case by finding the agents were immune.
