Rick Weinberg—Gino Fish: business partners and casino-project collaborators

Rick Weinberg and Gino Fish were business partners whose collaboration connected the proposed casino project to political lobbying, negotiations over financial terms, and an eventual realignment after Weinberg’s death. The relationship was substantial but not presented as settled or transparent: Fish’s support was considered necessary for the project, the route by which money might reach political and criminal intermediaries remained unclear, and Fish ultimately said he owed Weinberg nothing and could benefit from working with Harvey Rose’s group instead.

Partnership and Casino Ambitions

Weinberg’s casino ambitions belonged to a larger effort to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts. Wayne Cosgrove explained that casino companies spent millions lobbying for legislation in the hope of receiving a license if the law passed; securing land in Revere, Massachusetts, would be a major step toward that goal. The exchange frames Weinberg’s business activity not simply as a real-estate pursuit but as part of a competition in which political influence and control of a potential site could reinforce one another.

The licensing process itself made the political stakes visible. Asked how a company secured a license, Cosgrove described a four-person board and began listing state officials who would convene to consider the matter; the exchange noted that the board had not yet convened. The account therefore places Weinberg and Fish’s collaboration within a process still in formation, where lobbying, land acquisition, and relationships with decision-makers could matter before any license was awarded.

Fish’s role was described as pivotal, though not as a completed commitment. Lewis Blanchard, speaking about Weinberg’s plans, said that Fish was the one person who had to get behind the arrangement for it to proceed. When asked whether Fish had done so, Blanchard answered that this remained to be determined. The qualification matters: the partnership and shared casino interests are established, but the evidence does not show that Fish had finally approved every term or that the proposed project had secured the political support it needed.

Political Relationships and Financial Routes

Weinberg’s negotiations centered in part on Joseph G. Perotti. Blanchard said Perotti had been elusive and was the main reason Weinberg was in Boston: Weinberg was trying to nail down Perotti on terms. Blanchard did not know the details, explaining that Weinberg preferred to work those terms out directly. He also could not say where the money would be funneled. The exchange presents a negotiation in progress while leaving its precise payment route unresolved.

A separate account of the gaming initiative described an unnamed person with friends at the Massachusetts State House who had helped get the initiative passed and was to work out details with the local Mob. When asked whether the arrangement involved a tribute, the answer characterized it instead as a percentage. This account suggests a proposed share-based arrangement around the initiative, but it does not identify that person as Weinberg or Fish, nor does it establish that either partner personally made such an agreement. Its relevance lies in the political and criminal environment surrounding the project, not in proof of a specific act by either man.

Cosgrove’s review of political contributions added a traceable financial lead. He said Weinberg’s official contributions included several thousand dollars here and there to senators, congressmen, and council members in Revere, which he described as expected political giving. He then reported that, late the previous year, Weinberg appeared to have given nearly half a million dollars through Envolve Development to a super-PAC run by the brother of Joseph G. Perotti. Cosgrove explained that super-PACs could receive large sums while donors had to be publicly identified. The reported donation connected Weinberg’s corporate vehicle to Perotti’s family circle, but it did not by itself establish what the contribution purchased or whether it was unlawful.

Allegations, Evidence, and Uncertainty

Later papers appeared to sharpen the connection between Fish and the Perotti payments. Cosgrove described records as showing direct payoffs to Perotti, some legal and most not, while immediately cautioning that proof was another matter and that he could not know whether the papers were genuine. He then pointed out that two of the companies making the payments belonged to Fish. That detail makes Fish more than a peripheral name in the investigation: companies associated with him appeared in the alleged payment trail. Yet the uncertainty is explicit. The papers were characterized as damning, not independently verified, and the record does not establish from this exchange that Fish personally authorized or made an illegal payment.

Taken together, the evidence distinguishes several kinds of political money rather than collapsing them into one proven scheme. Cosgrove separated ordinary official contributions from Weinberg’s reported super-PAC contribution; the later papers allegedly documented direct payments to Perotti; and the account of a percentage arrangement referred to an unnamed intermediary and the local Mob. Their convergence raises questions about how casino influence might be financed and distributed, but the uncertainties over authenticity, intent, and the identities involved remain part of the relationship’s meaning.

Realignment After Weinberg’s Death

After Weinberg’s death, Gino Fish acknowledged that he and Weinberg had been business partners. The admission confirms the relationship directly, while Fish’s response also distances him from any continuing obligation to Weinberg or Weinberg’s people. He said he owed them nothing and had found it advantageous to work with another party. When the investigator identified that party as Harvey Rose and his group in East Boston, Fish did not confirm the identification in words; he sipped his coffee and smiled. The scene leaves the inference intact without turning it into a detailed account of a completed agreement.

Fish’s change of orientation gives the partnership a distinctly conditional ending. Their shared business history and the apparent importance of Fish’s support to the casino plan did not guarantee loyalty after Weinberg’s death. Instead, Fish treated the changed circumstances as an opportunity to work elsewhere, while the investigation continued to test whether the financial records could substantiate the suspicions surrounding the project. The relationship thus links commercial cooperation to political bargaining, but stops short of a fully proven account of who arranged each payment or what either partner knew about every transaction.