Los Angeles odds & ends

[Angelo Santino]

Why would anyone as high up as Dellacroce even care about the Los Angeles family, much less "sanction" anyone or anything, when the Gambinos already had guys out there?

Exactly. It sounds like Rizzi was bullshittin' Fiato, trying to make himself sound important. Big plans and all that.

I got that same impression. He all but confirmed it when Rizzi told Fiato that he had just been made and is now a capo, that he's pulling Fiato close and told him to dress up tomorrow. Fiato shows up all decked out and is instead sent extort someone.
1 You don't generally tell an associate you've just been made. It may be understood but its not announced. Then again I was not there.
2 Fratianno's version doesn't indicate he made Rizzi a capo after the car ceremony, he does later tell Tieri that Mike's his skipper several months later in NY.
3 Even if true, a newly-minted capo doesn't have the authority to set up a ceremony. A capo would have to go through the formal process of recommending someone and there'd be a discussion and decision. If a captain told his boss that he just made someone the consequences for such a violation of protocol would be on par with Frat misrepresenting himself. So Fiato was either lying or was lied to.

Should be noted though that Rizzi was well connected to NYC via the Gallos who were connected to Dellacroce. There's a good chance that both men knew each other and just what that led to in LA is still very much up for debate. We already know that after Fratianno flipped the burden landed on Rizzi's lap, based on what all the sources say about Milano, Rizzi is a guy Milano would avoid and rather not be around. We don't know if this led to an official shelving or how it played out. But if Rizzi was ostracized and had connections to Dellacroce, its possible. Its possible he was able to "switch" families. I could see Milano not caring in the least and giving his consent, or maybe Dellacroce said: "You're disrespecting a friend of ours on account of that rat, you don't want to do nothing with this guy then we're taking him." Maybe DiLeonardo telling Milano the way it is in his territory isn't the first time the Gambinos punked him. Whatever the case, it's possible Milano viewed it as an advantage because the LA family of sleepy housecats were Hollywood wiseguys living middle class lives, growing old and playing the part with businessman and celebrities who wanted to lay claim to being connected. Why should the FBI focus on them when you got this Rizzi-Fiato crew running around engaged in violent shakedowns and just drawing heat, alot of it? But on the other hand, there is recording of Gelfuso of the Milanos poaching Fiato for membership which casts a cloud over what I'm speculating.

What I do know is that this shortlived Rizzi Crime Family was a crew with one made member (Rizzi) surrounded by a well-rounded crew of hustlers, nothing more. This was not a Family, not a decina of the Gambinos. In 150 years of history, this has never occurred before or after. It would be like the Gambinos taking in the Gallos formally and letting them form a semi-independent 6th Family. There's no precedent and if there was it would only lead to internal chaos which the mafia system is in place to avoid.

Biggest takeaway after finally taking a deepdive into the Animal's book is that Fiato was never an LCN member. His entire "Rizzi Family Acting Boss" claim was never a formal position in any formal group. Operationally though, he was a lieutenant in Rizzi's LA activity and the people under him. But Rizzi was never more than a capo (if he was even that post-Fratianno) without any formal LCN soldiers under him.

[B.]

What I do know is that this shortlived Rizzi Crime Family was a crew with one made member (Rizzi) surrounded by a well-rounded crew of hustlers, nothing more. This was not a Family, not a decina of the Gambinos. In 150 years of history, this has never occurred before or after. It would be like the Gambinos taking in the Gallos formally and letting them form a semi-independent 6th Family. There's no precedent and if there was it would only lead to internal chaos which the mafia system is in place to avoid.

This is interesting because Rizzitello was apparently part of the Gallo crew of the Colombos. What you're describing is exactly what the Gallos tried to do in NYC. Can it be confirmed that Rizzitello was part of the Gallo's "break-away" group that tried to make their own members and set up their own family? Maybe he learned it from them.

[Pogo The Clown]

He was. In his book Frattiano makes mention that Rizzitello was made in that Gallo group but it didn't count because they didn't have the authority to make anyone and that now Rizzitello wanted to be made for real.


Pogo

[B.]

He was. In his book Frattiano makes mention that Rizzitello was made in that Gallo group but it didn't count because they didn't have the authority to make anyone and that now Rizzitello wanted to be made for real.

Ok cool, I remembered something like that. Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like Rizzitello tried to do something similar in LA. It's like the cycle of abuse... "I learned it from watching you, Dad!"

[Angelo Santino]

Isn't it interesting how different the ideologies are towards being a gangster? We've got hardened LA criminals- Fratianno, Rizzi, Fiato, Gallo who were black sheep of the LA Mafia underworld. Pete Milano's modus operandi seems to predate him. He wasn't from LA, nor was Brooklier, Licata I think not, DeSimone yes, Dragna no,.., Di Giorgio no. This family seems to have a history of being a transient group, not one was from there.

We've seen this dispute play out time and time again (albeit more simplified for character contrast):
Castellano was a chairman, Gotti was a street guy.
Stanfa was a traditionalist, Merlino a corner guy
Bruno was a racketeer, Scarfo was a gangster.
Fratianno was the Last Mafioso, Brooklier was the biggest deadhead
Frato (the associate) was true Cosa Nostra, Milano was a pussy bookmaker.

What's interesting is that in the 1960's, Sicilian mafiosi around the country lost their shit over the intense FBI scrutiny. It's easy to blend in public, not so much when the spotlight is shone on them. The Mafia worked better when no one understood it, soon as charts were made and the law was putting things together life as an American Mafioso changed. Many were not hardened criminals, they dabbled in crime while managing their interests. But to people without the bloodlines, they couldn't understand how these guys they'd regard as pussies were mafiosi. Kenji Gallo: "I didn't work for 20 years, I'm the real gangster." - Fiato: "I was extorting everyone so my status as a mafioso was before any ceremony, I'm the real gangster." - Fratianno: "Most of the membership is deadheads, I'm part of the 20% who can do work, I'm the real gangster." - Alite: "I murdered 500 people one afternoon, you'd never respond to me in person the way you do on youtube. I'm the real gangster." Meanwhile, I can't see Bonanno, Gravano, DiLeonardo or Lonardo if magically locked in a room together arguing over who was biggest gangster, the respect would just be there I imagine.

Anthony Fiato is the quintessential example of how an associate can think he knows everything and truly know nothing. The Animal is required reading if only to showcase that associates and outsiders truly don't know the inner workings despite being totally active in the operation side of things.

[Cheech]

chris for long posts do you type those in word and copy and paste in?

why hasnt the black hand have a book out yet? wheres scott d? does he avoid these threads?

[Cheech]

I honestly never clicked on this thread until the mass PM so at least it was good publicity!

[Angelo Santino]

chris for long posts do you type those in word and copy and paste in?

why hasnt the black hand have a book out yet? wheres scott d? does he avoid these threads?

I type them here, for those posts I was hitting Save Draft and taking breaks. However there's been times I've taken so long on a post that it logged me out despite my still being on the page, I hit submit and it takes me back to log-in and then back to where I was minus my reply, you can try and click back but it'll be gone there too. So copy and paste as a backup before hitting submit and spare yourself some board rage.

[Nicholas]

Anyone know anything about Joseph Grosso ? He gave testimony against Mike Rizzi in the Billy Carroll shooting , he was also from NY like Rizzi - think that he just did a 30 year bid in California but why did he do so much time if he did cooperate ? No sentence reduction ?

Just read about this guy. Jesus, what a story

[motorfab]

Chris, do you have a list of the Mike Rizzitello renegade crew members ?

[Pogo The Clown]

It's understandable why the Chicago leadership failed to properly communicate Fratianno's transfer to each other. When you have a top boss, chairman, boss, underboss, four territory bosses, sixteen crew bosses, and thirty-two crew underbosses in a pear tree it's easy for things to get lost in the mail. Especially when you trust those non-Italians to do everything... how are they going to know proper transfer protocol?

I know you are being sarcastic but there is something to what Villain is saying. If you look at the Chicago chart included in Roemers books it reflects a similar structure. You have the top two guys in Aiuppa and Accardo listed together at the very top. The number 2 in Cerone is listed right under them and a non-Italian in Gus Alex is also included in the top leadership. Under the 5 Crew Bosses there are 3-6 Lieutenants listed under each and then the Soldiers and Associates. The 1997 CCC chart also included the Lieutenants under the 3 Captains. So LE itself viewed Chicsgo different than they did the other families in terms of structure.


Pogo

[Snakes]

It's understandable why the Chicago leadership failed to properly communicate Fratianno's transfer to each other. When you have a top boss, chairman, boss, underboss, four territory bosses, sixteen crew bosses, and thirty-two crew underbosses in a pear tree it's easy for things to get lost in the mail. Especially when you trust those non-Italians to do everything... how are they going to know proper transfer protocol?

I know you are being sarcastic but there is something to what Villain is saying. If you look at the Chicago chart included in Roemers books it reflects a similar structure. You have the top two guys in Aiuppa and Accardo listed together at the very top. The number 2 in Cerone is listed right under them and a non-Italian in Gus Alex is also included in the top leadership. Under the 5 Crew Bosses there are 3-6 Lieutenants listed under each and then the Soldiers and Associates. The 1997 CCC chart also included the Lieutenants under the 3 Captains. So LE itself viewed Chicsgo different than they did the other families in terms of structure.


Pogo

What's weird is that the CCC (who also made the chart in Roemer's book) always gave a more intricate organization than the FBI. For some reason, the FBI tried to stick as close to the boss, underboss, consigliere, capos organization as they could. I think it was because they wanted to keep them in line with the other families for simplicity and consistency's sake.

[Villain]

It's understandable why the Chicago leadership failed to properly communicate Fratianno's transfer to each other. When you have a top boss, chairman, boss, underboss, four territory bosses, sixteen crew bosses, and thirty-two crew underbosses in a pear tree it's easy for things to get lost in the mail. Especially when you trust those non-Italians to do everything... how are they going to know proper transfer protocol?

I know you are being sarcastic but there is something to what Villain is saying. If you look at the Chicago chart included in Roemers books it reflects a similar structure. You have the top two guys in Aiuppa and Accardo listed together at the very top. The number 2 in Cerone is listed right under them and a non-Italian in Gus Alex is also included in the top leadership. Under the 5 Crew Bosses there are 3-6 Lieutenants listed under each and then the Soldiers and Associates. The 1997 CCC chart also included the Lieutenants under the 3 Captains. So LE itself viewed Chicsgo different than they did the other families in terms of structure.


Pogo

What's weird is that the CCC (who also made the chart in Roemer's book) always gave a more intricate organization than the FBI. For some reason, the FBI tried to stick as close to the boss, underboss, consigliere, capos organization as they could. I think it was because they wanted to keep them in line with the other families for simplicity and consistency's sake.

And its not just that chart since there are also few others showing similar structure...they also used that type of structure during Etos testimony, besides having some of the members in the wrong crews and stuff...Eto used the overall boss term instead of territorial (that same term was also used back in the 60s to explain the positions of Prio, Battaglia or LaPorte)....Pranno or Fratto i dont remember, also gave the same formation...even back in the 40s they used to label the Outfits top admin as "board of directors" and least 6 or 7 guys were often mentioned as members of that same "council" including non-Italians like Guzik or Humphreys etc.

[B.]

Yeah, I definitely don't have a black and white view of it and of course I was kidding around with Villain, though I think some of the information is open for interpretation, especially in terms of language. Just some things to consider:

- There is a tendency for local investigative bodies and local LE to have a different view of organizations than the FBI, who investigate nationally and use national sources (i.e. members from other US families) to shape their view of different groups. To the FBI's credit, other member sources from around the US describe Chicago in terms consistent with the other US families, i.e. Frank LaPorte is called a caporegime by LA members and Sam Giancana is called rappresentante on FBI recordings of other bosses. From the national perspective of federal investigators targeting "Cosa Nostra" this makes sense.

- It's reminiscent of some of the charts that have been produced of Canadian mafia figures. An example is when the FBI learned in the 1960s that the Bonanno family had twenty members in Montreal, they sent a letter to the RCMP asking for leads on who these members might be. The RCMP sent back a list of ~20 names that included many non-Italians as well as Italians who likely weren't made members, but the RCMP was operating from the POV of the "Cotroni organization". The FBI simply wanted to know who was a made member of the Bonanno family in Canada while to the RCMP the Cotroni group was not simply twenty Italian members who took an oath and might not even have any obvious association with each other. Neither the FBI nor the RCMP was wrong -- the FBI was asking a different question from the one the RCMP was answering.

- The RCMP's list was accurate in the sense that it pinpointed key figures under the Cotroni umbrella, but it didn't necessarily highlight the formality, which is that Cotroni and certain members of his group (many/most of whom weren't on the RCMP's list) were Bonanno members recognized by other groups as a decina with soldiers, while on an operational level the Montreal group was a much more diverse and complex group than simply a "crew". That was the 1960s, when the RCMP knew much less about the mafia, but we see the Rizzuto era treated the same way ("the Sixth Family") and we even have a non-Italian claiming that he and another non-Italian were "made", though we don't have hard evidence the Rizzuto era is any different than the Cotroni era in its formal vs. operational set-up.

Of course I think the CCC is going to understand the local organization better than I ever could and you Chicago researchers make strong arguments for Chicago's unique and diverse structure and relationships. I think my POV is closer to the FBI's in that it is focused more on how other mafia families and their members understood Chicago, not necessarily how Chicago functioned on its own. When I talk about a Chicago "member", I'm like the FBI writing to the RCMP wondering who could be introduced across the world as "amico nostra", not necessarily who is an important pillar of Chicago's operations.

I have a question to ask that I will post in the Chicago thread. I'm sure Villain or Snakes can easily answer it.

[Villain]

Yeah, I definitely don't have a black and white view of it and of course I was kidding around with Villain, though I think some of the information is open for interpretation, especially in terms of language. Just some things to consider:

- There is a tendency for local investigative bodies and local LE to have a different view of organizations than the FBI, who investigate nationally and use national sources (i.e. members from other US families) to shape their view of different groups. To the FBI's credit, other member sources from around the US describe Chicago in terms consistent with the other US families, i.e. Frank LaPorte is called a caporegime by LA members and Sam Giancana is called rappresentante on FBI recordings of other bosses. From the national perspective of federal investigators targeting "Cosa Nostra" this makes sense.

- It's reminiscent of some of the charts that have been produced of Canadian mafia figures. An example is when the FBI learned in the 1960s that the Bonanno family had twenty members in Montreal, they sent a letter to the RCMP asking for leads on who these members might be. The RCMP sent back a list of ~20 names that included many non-Italians as well as Italians who likely weren't made members, but the RCMP was operating from the POV of the "Cotroni organization". The FBI simply wanted to know who was a made member of the Bonanno family in Canada while to the RCMP the Cotroni group was not simply twenty Italian members who took an oath and might not even have any obvious association with each other. Neither the FBI nor the RCMP was wrong -- the FBI was asking a different question from the one the RCMP was answering.

- The RCMP's list was accurate in the sense that it pinpointed key figures under the Cotroni umbrella, but it didn't necessarily highlight the formality, which is that Cotroni and certain members of his group (many/most of whom weren't on the RCMP's list) were Bonanno members recognized by other groups as a decina with soldiers, while on an operational level the Montreal group was a much more diverse and complex group than simply a "crew". That was the 1960s, when the RCMP knew much less about the mafia, but we see the Rizzuto era treated the same way ("the Sixth Family") and we even have a non-Italian claiming that he and another non-Italian were "made", though we don't have hard evidence the Rizzuto era is any different than the Cotroni era in its formal vs. operational set-up.

Of course I think the CCC is going to understand the local organization better than I ever could and you Chicago researchers make strong arguments for Chicago's unique and diverse structure and relationships. I think my POV is closer to the FBI's in that it is focused more on how other mafia families and their members understood Chicago, not necessarily how Chicago functioned on its own. When I talk about a Chicago "member", I'm like the FBI writing to the RCMP wondering who could be introduced across the world as "amico nostra", not necessarily who is an important pillar of Chicago's operations.

I have a question to ask that I will post in the Chicago thread. I'm sure Villain or Snakes can easily answer it.

Its very simple....Chicago was always divided on four areas, north, west, south and the heights, whether it was on some legit business plan, or some political structure or some illegal structure like the Mob....even the old gangs from the late 19th century used to divide the city in the same way...on top of that, if the boss and underboss have additional four guys beneath them, then they were protected from two main things....one was obviously LE since those four guys are additional protective layer....and second and most important thing was that they protected themselves from any additional less important organizational problems and activities.

For example, if South Side capos such as Caruso, Fischetti or Fusco (yeah I believe Fusco was a capo) had some beef, they didnt take the problem to Accardo but instead they took the problem to their top rep which was Ferarro at the time. Later it was the same situation, if Caruso had problems with some1, he took his problem to Alex who in turn was acting for Ferraro at the time since, the latter one became the underboss. The same situation was going on the west side, meaning if capos such as Alderisio, Cerone, Pranno or Potenza had a beef with some1, they took their problem to Battaglia who was the top rep for the west side blocc at the time.

During their peak and since they controlled the second largest city at the time, Chicago had between 11 and 13 both Italian capos and non-Italian district bosses and besides Chicago and US, they also had interests all around the world...central and south America, South Africa, England, Spain, the Middle East, Japan etc....so the bosses needed help regarding the constant problems within their own organization. Thats it.

This is why i miss my friend Eboli who used to give me similar examples regarding the Genovese family, meaning during certain time periods they also had some type of major capos who were between the bosses and the rest of the organization...again, during certain time periods they even had similar, if not the same, top admin structure as the Outfit... I also remember he saying something that the territorial boss structure was inherited by the mainlanders in Italy from the old Sicilian Mafia...i think...even rayray gave same examples... EBOLI PLS GET YOUR ASS BACK OVER HERE lol