THE BLACK HAND FORUM

by **Selig** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:18 am

Bruno was on the Commission. Patriarca never was. And if Bruno was simply a pawn for Gambino, which I doubt, an argument can be made for Patriarca being Genovese's, as he was appointed NE Boss when they "suggested" Buccola step down.

by **Wiseguy** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:01 pm

Confederate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:44 pm@Wiseguy
Do you think the Commission was basically disbanded sometime in the 1980's after the Feds started using the Rico Act?

No. As we know, leaders from the 5 NY families met in 2000. I think the Commission simply shrunk as connections between families weakened and the Mafia became less national in scope. Eventually getting to the point where the Commission was basically a New York entity with the Genovese continuing to represent several eastern families and the Outfit having oversight of families west of Chicago. That said, law enforcement surveillance was obviously a concern and the reason Chin lectured the other NY bosses about having so many meetings, especially about things that could be handled at lower levels.

JeremyTheJew wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:48 pm what about Patriarca?

Capeci never mentioned him as being on the Commission. Maybe other sources say otherwise.

by **JeremyTheJew** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:48 pm

what about Patriarca?

by **Lupara** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:45 pm

Wiseguy wrote:
SILENT PARTNERZ wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:37 am Wasn't Bruno was on the Commission roughly during the time
Zerilli was? They were the two city/members added
according to most information.
According to Capeci, after the original 7 families that had a seat on the Commission, the Philadelphia and Detroit families joined the Commission in 1961 and remained there until Zerilli's death in 1977 and Bruno's death in 1980. Buffalo also lost its seat when Maggadino died in 1974. By then, Chicago was mostly doing it's own thing and the Commission basically consisted of the NY families.

So the Commission's height was in the 1960s.

by **Confederate** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:44 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:33 pm
SILENT PARTNERZ wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:37 am Wasn't Bruno was on the Commission roughly during the time
Zerilli was? They were the two city/members added
according to most information.
According to Capeci, after the original 7 families that had a seat on the Commission, the Philadelphia and Detroit families joined the Commission in 1961 and remained there until Zerilli's death in 1977 and Bruno's death in 1980. Buffalo also lost its seat when Maggadino died in 1974. By then, Chicago was mostly doing it's own thing and the Commission basically consisted of the NY families.

@Wiseguy
Do you think the Commission was basically disbanded sometime in the 1980's after the Feds started using the Rico Act?

by **Wiseguy** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:33 pm

SILENT PARTNERZ wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:37 am Wasn't Bruno was on the Commission roughly during the time
Zerilli was? They were the two city/members added
according to most information.

According to Capeci, after the original 7 families that had a seat on the Commission, the Philadelphia and Detroit families joined the Commission in 1961 and remained there until Zerilli's death in 1977 and Bruno's death in 1980. Buffalo also lost its seat when Maggadino died in 1974. By then, Chicago was mostly doing it's own thing and the Commission basically consisted of the NY families.

by **SILENT PARTNERZ** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:37 am

Wasn't Bruno was on the Commission roughly during the time
Zerilli was? They were the two city/members added
according to most information.

by **JeremyTheJew** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:09 am

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:47 pm
JeremyTheJew wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:01 pm really? i figured Patriarca easily based on the commision as a influential member
This is where we get conflicting info from the past. Some sources say it was Bruno who was on the Commission from the 1960s until his death in 1980 and Patriarca never was.

From what i know...

Patriarca was on commision during the same time period Zerilli was.

did bonanno ever discuss either? i dont remmember him doing that

by **furiofromnaples** » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:24 am

Attaboi 1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:45 pm I was always under the impression that patriarca was represented by the Genovese on the commission

The Patriarcas always had a good relationship with the genoveses due the common rackets in Massachusetts but unlike philly family bosses that died when Manna menaged to increase the genoveses influence in philly,the Ray patriarca sr made a deal and established a border between 2 families influence.

by **Attaboi 1** » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:45 pm

I was always under the impression that patriarca was represented by the Genovese on the commission

by **Wiseguy** » Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:47 pm

JeremyTheJew wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:01 pm really? i figured Patriarca easily based on the commision as a influential member

This is where we get conflicting info from the past. Some sources say it was Bruno who was on the Commission from the 1960s until his death in 1980 and Patriarca never was.

by **TwoPiece** » Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:45 pm

I feel like Patriarca was more influential than Bruno. Not to take anything away from Bruno, but his vote on the Commission was essentially a proxy vote for Carlo and it's widely considered that Carlo installed him in the boss position. Patriarca seemed to carry more respect as a boss, and I think this is easily evidence by Bruno being killed not long after Carlo died, whereas I don't think anyone was ever gonna clip Ray Patriarca.

Ray had an entire region essentially to himself also, while Bruno had to deal with the five NYC families and DeCavs which I feel like would whittle his overall influence.

by **Fughedaboutit** » Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:36 pm

JeremyTheJew wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:01 pm really? i figured Patriarca easily based on the commision as a influential member

The same could be said for Bruno's ties to the Gambinos.

by **Cheech** » Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:03 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:35 pm In the 2000s, I would have said New England was probably in better shape. They seemed more active and certainly more diversified. The Providence faction had some involvement in the Laborers Union. Philadelphia was down to a dozen active members on the street at one point in the early 2000s.

Now I would say Philadelphia is in better shape if only because they seem to have a more consistent recruiting pool. And several of their guys have gotten out of prison in recent years. New England still has some semblance of a hierarchy but they don't really have much of a presence in Connecticut and the Providence faction only has a handful of older members left. Philadelphia has about 50 total members left while New England is closer to 30.

All that said, I wouldn't refer to either family as "powerful" at this point.

Dead on IMO

by **JeremyTheJew** » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:01 pm

really? i figured Patriarca easily based on the commision as a influential member

THE BLACK HAND FORUM

Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: RE: Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?

Re: Who are more powerful Patriarcas or Philly ?