General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

[B.]

Chicago sent their representative to the mid-late 1970s Commission meeting(s) about the dispute between the DiBella-Persico and Abbatemarco-Yacovelli factions. The informant didn't identify who the Chicago representative was but I'd guess Aiuppa.

[Snakes]

Chicago sent their representative to the mid-late 1970s Commission meeting(s) about the dispute between the DiBella-Persico and Abbatemarco-Yacovelli factions. The informant didn't identify who the Chicago representative was but I'd guess Aiuppa.

Not sure why they didn't identify him, but I saw another file on the same meeting that specifically mentioned Aiuppa. I wonder if the CI initially didn't know but was later shown a photo or intel later revealed it was Aiuppa.

There was also a rumored Commission meeting involving the Gambinos and Carlisi in Florida, but the FBI never got anything concrete on if or when that rumored meeting occurred.

On another related note, the Genovese told Cleveland that their pick for Teamsters president needed to be approved by Chicago. I think this ended up being Presser and both Aiuppa and Cerone approved him. Showed that Chicago held enough sway over the Teamsters that the Genovese respected and encouraged their input as a fellow Commission seat.

[B.]

Great job confirming Aiuppa.

Lonardo said the Genovese Family represented Cleveland on the Commission and they had to get Salerno's approval to make ten new members.

[Wiseguy]

I saw this on Facebook. Anybody know what this is about?

What the heck is this? Not sure how the Luccheses are going to run a Teamsters local hundreds of miles away. There are a few IBT locals that have descendants of past Outfit figures in their leadership but I don't think 705 is one of them.

So the sense is that Chicago (and the families it represented) didn't constitute their own commission? Rather that the Outfit just represented those families on the national level?

I think that's exactly it. It wasn't a second Commission, with a group of other families in their own body, but the Outfit having oversight and representation of families west of Chicago.

Given the close relationship between Chicago and the Genovese [the Westside/Westside partnership], wouldn't surprise me if the Genovese may have delegated some of their avugad duties in the Midwest to Chicago for some things). Or it could just be that, as the most politically powerful family outside of NY, Detroit turned to Chicago to help them resolve some issues at times. I haven't seen any other claims that support the idea that Chicago had its own "Commission", which would have been a major deal in terms of national LCN politics. Certainly, if any such arrangement had been going on earlier, guys like Maniaci, Bompensiero, Frattiano, Piscopo, would've mentioned it.

It makes a lot of sense those two families would have such interaction, being as the Genovese represented several eastern families and the Outfit did the same with western ones. As shown above by Snakes, I imagine much of it had to do with national union matters at the time. Another example was Scarfo going to the Genovese, who in turn went to the Outfit (which controlled the national), to secure control of HEREU Local 54.

In the 1994 LIUNA RICO complaint, the government stated "The boss of the Chicago family is a member of the Commission. Often the views of the Chicago family are presented to the Commission by the Genovese family."

[funkster]

Saw this on YouTube. It’s a video of mugshots of Outfit guys. Wish they would put the names of the guys bc there are a lot that I don’t recognize

https://youtu.be/F55vVLJy7aw

Do yourself a favor and don't read Byrne's awful attempts at comedy on a bunch of these pics in the comment thread.

[PolackTony]

1962 account from an apparent Philly member CI (Riccobono?) concerning Angelo Bruno having to dress-down Philly member Tony Perella. Bruno's cousin Calogera Sinatra had recently arrived from Vallelunga, Caltanissetta, and Perella became disgruntled about the way that local members were being introduced to him (Perella apparently complained that Bruno couldn't introduce members to Sinatra as Bruno hadn't been formally introduced as a member to Sinatra by a 3rd party).

I'm posting it because Bruno was suspicious that Perella had approached an avugad about his complaint, and warned him not to talk to another family, whether NYC or Chicago, regarding internal family complaints. I think it goes to further indicate that Chicago was seen as co-equal with NYC in terms of national LCN politics and suggests that Chicago's stature and role as avugad weren't limited strictly to families in the Midwest/West. While labor union and other racketeering operations (interstate gambling, jukeboxes/slot machines, entertainment industry stuff, etc) would obviously be important issues to deal with, Commission meetings and the responsibilities of an avugad were focused heavily on LCN political matters; for example, the 1959 conversation where Giancana was telling Accardo about Commission business only touched on political matters (internal Philly family problems, Bonanno already trying to "plant flags" in AZ/NV and whether that might result in him having to "forfeit" his avugad status).

[funkster]

1962 account from an apparent Philly member CI (Riccobono?) concerning Angelo Bruno having to dress-down Philly member Tony Perella. Bruno's cousin Calogera Sinatra had recently arrived from Vallelunga, Caltanissetta, and Perella became disgruntled about the way that local members were being introduced to him (Perella apparently complained that Bruno couldn't introduce members to Sinatra as Bruno hadn't been formally introduced as a member to Sinatra by a 3rd party).

I'm posting it because Bruno was suspicious that Perella had approached an avugad about his complaint, and warned him not to talk to another family, whether NYC or Chicago, regarding internal family complaints. I think it goes to further indicate that Chicago was seen as co-equal with NYC in terms of national LCN politics and suggests that Chicago's stature and role as avugad weren't limited strictly to families in the Midwest/West. While labor union and other racketeering operations (interstate gambling, jukeboxes/slot machines, entertainment industry stuff, etc) would obviously be important issues to deal with, Commission meetings and the responsibilities of an avugad were focused heavily on LCN political matters; for example, the 1959 conversation where Giancana was telling Accardo about Commission business only touched on political matters (internal Philly family problems, Bonanno already trying to "plant flags" in AZ/NV and whether that might result in him having to "forfeit" his avugad status).

It's interesting how deeply important the third party introduction still is based on JP's videos. I knew it was a rule, just assumed it was one that wasn't followed closely anymore.

[B.]

The full transcript of that conversation is interesting. Perella (part of the Sicilian faction) seems to be saying Sicilian members can't be introduced as made members to US members (like the Genovese Family rule/guideline) but Bruno doesn't understand his point and thinks Perella is complaining about the third party rule being violated and they argue past each other. Bruno had been introduced to tons of Sicilian mafiosi and fully recognized them in the US / Sicily and seems oblivious about any issue with recognizing Sicilian members. He says the Commission had no problem with it either and held a dinner where Sinatra was formally introduced/recognized.

As for Chicago's Commission seat, I don't think there's much basis for saying they didn't care about anything outside of their own territory. Accardo told Giancana he should care about national obligations like he would his own area. All Families are going to be concerned first and foremost with their own jurisdiction (their territory + other Families they represent) so silly to think that's unique to Chicago. Seems a couple offhand remarks/opinions from Giancana created a whole narrative about Chicago not taking their national duties seriously. Bill Bonanno said at Giancana's first Commission meeting he questioned Anastasia about his problems with Frank Scalise in front of everyone which was controversial and shows he immediately took an interest in NYC issues.

[B.]

Might as well revisit this idea.

Chicago myths:

- They weren't a mafia Family post-1931
- Outfit was a formal name unique to Chicago
- They inducted non-Italians and/or recognized them as made members
- They never used terms like capodecina/caporegime/capo
- They didn't care about anything outside of Chicago / Midwest / West Coast
- Nobody acknowledged differences in Italian ethnicity post-1931
- The formal org had a fundamentally different hierarchical structure than other Families
- Chicago was unique in that they may have skipped the traditional ceremony for a period
- Chicago not using the phrase Cosa Nostra was unique / shows they didn't consider themselves a Family
- Chicago went through the motions of being a Family to make NYC happy
- Having a board / committee of powerful members was unique

All of these have been proven wrong or questionable at best and can be properly contextualized:

- The Chicago Family controlled a massive organized crime network beyond their formal structure alone
- Outfit was the preferred euphemism used by all of the Midwest Families, LA, and elsewhere
- Certain non-Italian associates were highly respected and given operational authority
- Some members did use terms like capodecina
- They did have an interest in national affairs via their Commission seat
- Italian ethnicity wasn't as important as it was in some cities but even non-members were aware of who was Sicilian / non-Sicilian
- Certain members / former bosses had power that transcended the formal hierarchy and gave them permanent authority and they may have had some unique twists on the structure (crew boss / avugad being one example, though we are missing details)
- Sicilian-centric NYC/NJ Families also skipped the traditional ceremony
- Most of the US didn't use the euphemism Cosa Nostra pre-1960s and Joe Bonanno didn't either
- There's no evidence Chicago was motivated by a desire to appease NYC
- Many traditional Families in the US and Sicily had a formal consiglio / council

Anything missing? Am I wrong about any of this?

Important: none of this makes Chicago's environment any less unique and interesting. It also doesn't mean formalities ruled their daily operations or that Chicago approached their group exactly the same as everyone else (turns out most cities had their own approach / unique qualities too).

[PolackTony]

Great summary and 100% agreed. Good overview of some of the long-standing myths regarding Chicago and the counter-narrative that is today afforded by an examination of the body of evidence that we have available. Another myth is that Chicago was somehow fundamentally different in apparently not having an individual designated with the formal office of consuleri (at least from the 1950s onward), when we know Magaddino didn’t have a consuleri either and Chicago’s council and “Chairmen” very much appear to have fulfilled the organizational role of a consuleri (something which would seem to have had precedent in Sicily as well).

As you note, every family had its idiosyncrasies, its own “corporate culture” molded by the background of its membership and the particular local conditions and exigencies of its social environment. Completely unsurprisingly, Tampa had highly respected Cubans/Spanish, who seem to have been a part of the operational version of their council in the way that Guzik, Humphreys, and Alex were in Chicago. Despite Tampa being a highly Sicilian-centric and probably very “conservative” family (likely very small formal membership with infrequent inductions), they naturally adapted themselves to their local conditions and had close relationships with non-Itals (though arguably the cultural divide was at least less stark with Cubans and Spaniards). In Detroit, there were Syrians/Lebanese who were important associates. In Chicago, having highly influential and trusted Jews and Greeks makes perfect sense given the patterns of organized crime and community development (the Taylor St Patch was bordered by Greektown on one side and the primary port of entry Jewish ghetto on the other, so even without the Capone legacy, interactions between Italians and these groups in racket operations and legit businesses was going to happen — much like Luciano’s relationship with Jews on the LES. Gus Alex’s father ran a diner in Chinatown that was a mafia hangout and I suspect was himself very much plugged in to the mafia network). In Boston you had the Irish, etc, etc. It’s important to keep in mind that even in NYC the Italian communities were never 100% Italian.

Thanks for the reading on the Perella-Bruno thing. Misunderstandings around protocol can be a great way to better understand how protocol worked, of course. Apart from the differing views on whether Sicilian members could be introduced, what stood out to me was that not only was Chicago involved in East Coast mafia politics (which we know they absolutely were from not just the Giancana-Accardo wiretap and Bill Bonanno’s account, but also the fact that Chicago was involved intimately in working to resolve the Profaci family conflict. Unlike the Bonanno crisis, where Bonanno was directly challenging Chicago’s influence in the West, the Colombo thing involved a family that Chicago had no geographic interest with or stakes involved. It was a purely NYC political crisis), but that the boss of Philly also saw Chicago as being on the same level of political power and potential involvement in East Coast politics as NYC. He apparently specifically instructed his members not to bring internal complaints to any avugad whether in NYC or Chicago, which I found very telling.

My belief is that Giancana was something of an aberrant boss, probably due to personal idiosyncrasy. We have to keep in mind that this was a guy who seems to have subsequently been forced out by the “board”, and was kept locked out of the admin despite a protracted leadership crisis where Ricca and Accardo had to act as the heads of the family. Unsurprising that a CI reported that Mooney had stopped meeting with the “board”. I don’t think that he had the personal qualities to effectively deal with his office, in that he probably lacked the patience and political acumen to deal with the way decisions were made both within the family and at the national level. I forgot who it was, but one of the NYC guys said that at Commission meetings “every other word” out of Mooney’s mouth was “kill”. I believe Michelino Clemente also stated on wiretap in 1964 that he was told that Chicago was replacing Giancana with Ferraro, suggesting to me that the board was already fed up with Mooney by that point. The idea that Giancana embodied the spirit or ethos of the Chicago family is completely wrongheaded IMO. In his flashiness, tempestuousness, and (apparent) lack of regard for LCN protocol he was I think the opposite of guys like Ricca and Accardo who were careful, deliberate, and politically cunning. Same with Aiuppa and probably Carlisi, and both of those guys also had longstanding relationships with other families.

[Antiliar]

Since the issue of prostitution came up in the Chicago origins thread I think it's worth exploring.

Murray Humphreys clearly looks down on prostitution and denied that Gus Alex was involved in it:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

Informant T-4 said Frank LaPorte used to be involved in prostitution:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

Fred Morelli ran four houses of prostitution for Capone:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

The Chicago Crime Commission asserted that Gus Alex, Louis Arger and Louis Tornabene had a prostitution racket at the Sante Fe Hotel:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

An informant involved with prostitution reported that Lenny Patrick told her organization to expand by obtaining more girls for prostitution or else they would get into trouble:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

An informant says that Louis Arger, a lieutenant of Gus Alex, collects money from strip clubs that are involved with prostitution:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

A prostitute or former prostitute says that she has worked for Joe Aiuppa and Jimmy Allegretti in the past and serviced some members of the Chicago White Sox:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... %20chicago

[Coloboy]

As far as more recent years, didn’t Panozzo run a possible prostitution/massage place around Grand?

[Coloboy]

Still, I wonder how things looked at the top level post 1994 when both difronzo and Lombardo were around. What are the chances that these 2 met in person to hash things out? They were both very insulated and protective by this point, but I am curious what the risk tolerance was in terms of a meeting. What are the chances Lombardo wanted to or even made a campaign for boss? .

Sit tight, I'm working on some stuff. It may be a while, but I hope to be able to shed some light on this time period sooner, rather than later.

@snakes- curious how the 90’s stuff mentioned above is coming along?

[PolackTony]

As far as more recent years, didn’t Panozzo run a possible prostitution/massage place around Grand?

Yup. The 2014 racketeering charges against Panozzo and Paulie K stated that Panozzo was operating a prostitution ring out of a massage parlor on Superior by Halsted (800 W block). While Panozzo may be an associate (unclear to me whether he’s made and he’s only half-Ital anyway), one can assume that his activities were sanctioned by Grand Ave and they got a cut.

[Snakes]

Still, I wonder how things looked at the top level post 1994 when both difronzo and Lombardo were around. What are the chances that these 2 met in person to hash things out? They were both very insulated and protective by this point, but I am curious what the risk tolerance was in terms of a meeting. What are the chances Lombardo wanted to or even made a campaign for boss? .

Sit tight, I'm working on some stuff. It may be a while, but I hope to be able to shed some light on this time period sooner, rather than later.

@snakes- curious how the 90’s stuff mentioned above is coming along?

Ha, I'm playing the long game there -- I wouldn't expect to have anything until a few months from now. I may get some things together before then, though.