Gambling ring suspect Kowalski waives counts
One of 16 people indicted for partaking in an alleged Mon Valley gambling ring has waived his case to court.
Eugene “Red” Kowalski, 65, of North Huntingdon Township appeared before Forest Hills Magisterial District Judge Thomas Caulfield Wednesday on charges of dealing in proceeds of illegal activity, corrupt organizations, gambling devices and conspiracy. His formal arraignment is scheduled for Oct. 21 at 11 a.m.
Charges stem from his alleged involvement in an illegal gambling ring said to be headed by Ronald “Porky” Melocchi Sr., owner of Glassport-based Back Alley Vending.
The investigation by the Attorney General's Organized Crime Section and state police centered around Melocchi from October 2012 through Dec. 10, 2012, in what was called Operation Pork Chop.
Melocchi is accused of installing, servicing and maintaining gambling devices in bars, restaurants and other locations.
The criminal complaint alleges that Kowalski collected from the places where Melocchi's company's machines were located.
Collectors check a machine's meter to see how much had been paid out in winnings and determine the profit and the split.
All 16 suspects were formally arraigned in Caulfield's chambers on Sept. 4. They were released on nonmonetary bond on condition that they be fingerprinted at Pittsburgh Municipal Court on Oct. 2.
Michael DiVittorio is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161 ext. 1965, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.