Los Angeles odds & ends

[PolackTony]

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

I wonder if Eboli was linking the territorial boss structure to the capi mandamento in Sicily? I've wondered about this myself.

[Villain]

I wonder if Eboli was linking the territorial boss structure to the capi mandamento in Sicily? I've wondered about this myself.

Believe me bro i was going to be quite happy for you to receive that answer from Eboli but....

[Angelo Santino]

Jimmy Caci, was he a member in 1979 of LA yet or no? Motofab and myself aren't sure. He's on the earlier chart under Licata but so are alot of people who weren't members.

Looking into this, LA is pretty interesting in how it links to the rest of the country. NY, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pueblo. Very few people actually from LA. I'm a 3rd of the way through but so far, only member born in LA was L.T. Dragna.

[Villain]

1978 questioning of Outfit associate Irvin Weiner who also confirmed the connection between Fratianno and Alderisio who in turn was Fratiannos long time associate but still wasnt aware about the transfer...

Mr. WEINER - I don't think so. No.
Mr. WOLF - Do you know Mr. James Fratianno ?
Mr. WEINER - Yes.
Mr. WOLF - Have you ever met with him ?
Mr. WEINER - Yes.
Mr. WOLF - When did you meet with him ?
Mr. WEINER - I don't remember. The last time ? I don't remember.
Mr. WOLF - What meetings with him do you recall ?
Mr. WEINER - I am just trying to think. I met him in California.
Mr. WOLF - When was that ?
Mr. WEINER - I don't remember.
Mr. WOLF - Approximately when ?
Mr. WEINER - Ten years, fifteen years ago. I don't remember.
Mr. WOLF - What was your most recent meeting with him ?
Mr. WEINER - I don't remember that either. I don't remember when I met him.
Mr. WOLF - The only meeting with him you recall was in California ?
Mr. WEINER - I know I met him a few times. I met him in Las Vegas.
Mr. WOLF - How were you introduced to him ?
Mr. WEINER - Through Felix Alderisio who was a friend of his.
Mr. WOLF - Did you know him socially ?
Mr. WEINER - Yes.
Mr. WOLF - Did you ever have any business dealings with him ?
Mr. WEINER - Never.
Mr. WOLF - Did he ever discuss Giancana and Mr. Roselli with you ?
Mr. WEINER - No.

[Adam]

So the LA threads had me rereading "Last Mafioso" and "Vengeance is Mine". There's a point in Vengeance where Fratianno describes the meeting where Brooklier took credit for ordering the Bompensiero hit(which I still find odd and even the author isn't sure if Fratianno is lying just so he could include it in testifying against Brooklier). But it was a few weeks after Bompensiero's murder and Brooklier was there along with Fratianno, Sam Sciortino and Dominick Longo. But it mentions that the meeting takes place at the home of Vito Musso. Who the hell is Vito Musso? I've never been able to find that name again. Just seems like an odd detail for a meeting of the LA family boss, underboss, soldier and recent acting underboss where they discussed a recent murder. And it doesn't say Musso was there, just that it was at his house. Anyone ever come across a Vito Musso in researching LA?

[Costigan]

So the LA threads had me rereading "Last Mafioso" and "Vengeance is Mine". There's a point in Vengeance where Fratianno describes the meeting where Brooklier took credit for ordering the Bompensiero hit(which I still find odd and even the author isn't sure if Fratianno is lying just so he could include it in testifying against Brooklier). But it was a few weeks after Bompensiero's murder and Brooklier was there along with Fratianno, Sam Sciortino and Dominick Longo. But it mentions that the meeting takes place at the home of Vito Musso. Who the hell is Vito Musso? I've never been able to find that name again. Just seems like an odd detail for a meeting of the LA family boss, underboss, soldier and recent acting underboss where they discussed a recent murder. And it doesn't say Musso was there, just that it was at his house. Anyone ever come across a Vito Musso in researching LA?

In the Last Mafioso he describes this meeting at a condominium owned by Sciortino's cousin. It was probably in Palm Springs. This was most likely Vito Musso, but he doesn't mention a name in TLM.

[B.]

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

If Eboli returns maybe he can clarify what he meant (hope he is okay), but the Genovese family was structured like any other mafia family with an administration, capodecinas, and soldiers. Some capodecinas held more power/influence than others, but it wasn't formalized as multiple tiers within the hierarchy. We have enough member sources who confirm this. The Genovese family did have a different philosophy and some functional differences when it came to their activities, but so did just about every family in their own way.

Joe Valachi said the Genovese family was part of a consiglio of six members (the consiglio comes from the Sicilian mafia) who in addition to the boss helped set up policy and make formal rulings within the organization. See the consiglio thread for more info on that, but this was a Sicilian mafia process that was brought to the US and appears to have been used by most if not all early US families. It's possible Eboli confused the consiglio with some kind of multi-tiered system of captains, as no doubt the consiglio included some captains, but it isn't the same thing.

If Chicago had a consiglio through the 1920s like most families, its influence could have mutated into something else like what you're describing, though without info on that we can't one way or another. In the Genovese case, Valachi described the same consiglio used by all of the families though he appears to have been clueless of its origin.

I do agree though that the Genovese and Chicago families are good comparisons for one another considering Capone's membership in both families (and other connections), as well as their Americanization, huge number of mainlanders, early relationships to non-Italians, etc.

So the LA threads had me rereading "Last Mafioso" and "Vengeance is Mine". There's a point in Vengeance where Fratianno describes the meeting where Brooklier took credit for ordering the Bompensiero hit(which I still find odd and even the author isn't sure if Fratianno is lying just so he could include it in testifying against Brooklier). But it was a few weeks after Bompensiero's murder and Brooklier was there along with Fratianno, Sam Sciortino and Dominick Longo. But it mentions that the meeting takes place at the home of Vito Musso. Who the hell is Vito Musso? I've never been able to find that name again. Just seems like an odd detail for a meeting of the LA family boss, underboss, soldier and recent acting underboss where they discussed a recent murder. And it doesn't say Musso was there, just that it was at his house. Anyone ever come across a Vito Musso in researching LA?

In the Last Mafioso he describes this meeting at a condominium owned by Sciortino's cousin. It was probably in Palm Springs. This was most likely Vito Musso, but he doesn't mention a name in TLM.

I wonder if he confused it with Tommy Palermo's cousin? Tommy Palermo was related to Dallas member Rosario Musso, as Musso was married to Palermo's cousin. Rosario Musso was observed visiting LA in the 1960s and stayed with Palermo. Seems like Vito Musso could be a relative of Rosario. Or maybe Sciortino is also related to this group somehow as there are many relations between these people.

[Villain]

If Eboli returns maybe he can clarify what he meant (hope he is okay), but the Genovese family was structured like any other mafia family with an administration, capodecinas, and soldiers. Some capodecinas held more power/influence than others, but it wasn't formalized as multiple tiers within the hierarchy. We have enough member sources who confirm this. The Genovese family did have a different philosophy and some functional differences when it came to their activities, but so did just about every family in their own way.

Joe Valachi said the Genovese family was part of a consiglio of six members (the consiglio comes from the Sicilian mafia) who in addition to the boss helped set up policy and make formal rulings within the organization. See the consiglio thread for more info on that, but this was a Sicilian mafia process that was brought to the US and appears to have been used by most if not all early US families. It's possible Eboli confused the consiglio with some kind of multi-tiered system of captains, as no doubt the consiglio included some captains, but it isn't the same thing.

If Chicago had a consiglio through the 1920s like most families, its influence could have mutated into something else like what you're describing, though without info on that we can't one way or another. In the Genovese case, Valachi described the same consiglio used by all of the families though he appears to have been clueless of its origin.

I do agree though that the Genovese and Chicago families are good comparisons for one another considering Capone's membership in both families (and other connections), as well as their Americanization, huge number of mainlanders, early relationships to non-Italians, etc.

Valachi was a only a soldier at the time who made more than few mistakes right? No commission or any type of high level national connections? Maybe he knew his stuff about the Genoveses but i dont think that he knew a lot about Chicago, according to his files

Also ive showed you what Eboli stated and theres no type of consiglio or some type of commission or anything like that...just a board of directors or Barons under one top admin...something that couldve been inherited by the mainlanders from Sicily...im trying to put the pieces together but most of those "consiglio" stuff dont fit with Chicago....maybe the early Chi Mafia and thats why i asked you but certianly not after that.

Ive never seen any info that the old Chi Mafia had a consigliere for example, same as the Outfit....there were allegedly two families but if you ask me there was only one and it was divided on at least two or three factions....as you already said, Capone Americanized the whole thing and it became different.

[B.]

Valachi was a only a soldier at the time who made more than few mistakes right? No commission or any type of high level national connections?

Also ive showed you what Eboli stated and theres no type of consiglio or some type of commission or anything like that...just a board of directors or Barons under one top admin...something that couldve been inherited by the mainlanders from Sicily...im trying to put the pieces together but most of those "consiglio" stuff dont fit with Chicago....maybe the early Chi Mafia and thats why i asked you but certianly not after that.

No disrespect at all to Eboli, but he would need to substantiate that information with some impressive sources if it's true he said the Genovese family had a formal "board of directors" or "Barons" distinct from the ranks of underboss, capodecina, or something like the consiglio described by Valachi. We know who held most of the positions in that family during the years going back to Joe Masseria. Some captains were more influential and may have had a stronger hand in guiding the family (Willie Moretti, Tony Bender Strollo, though they also held acting admin positions) and in later years there is the "front boss" controversy, but aside from some philosophical and ethnic background differences, the Genovese family had a standard mafia structure.

Valachi was a made member for over thirty years who regularly interacted with high-ranking members from many families, including his own, and his take on the Genovese family is supported by other made CIs/CWs in NYC spanning generations. His info and recollections aren't always perfect, which can be said for every source, but we have no reason to challenge his overall view of the organization he was part of.

Committees aren't rare in the mafia, either, though they tend to show up later and not earlier on. We saw where the Bonanno family began using committees possibly as early as the 1950s and kept it up consistently through the 2000s. Certain captains were used as a buffer between the administration and served as a point of contact for other captains, though they were still ultimately captains, they just had other sets of duties in helping run the family. This led to confusion on ranks before it was cleared up by Massino.

I personally think the committee idea is intuitive so it's not surprising it shows up similarly over the years... we know the early national mafia had a Grand Consiglio and National Assembly meetings where leaders voted, so the Capo dei Capi's position was not as overtly tyrannical as it's made out to be. Similarly, most families had a consiglio who voted in high-level affairs within each family alongside the boss. It seems there have always been attempts to make mafia leadership horizontal even though there is still the pyramid structure we all know. The earlier forms of this seem to be more based on distribution of power, while later it had to do more with buffering the leadership from LE and of course covering open spots due to incarceration and old age.

[Pete]

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

Yes 100 percent correct numerous stories of someone going to Lombardo with a problem Joey didn’t call anyone or have a sit down he made a ruling and that was it. It’s always been unclear to me if they could actually order murders. One time someone wanted someone killed Lombardo said break his head legs and arms If he does it again kill him. One instance was Frank culotta did something to Louie Eboli And Louie went to Joey. Joey told frank you gotta take the beating. That was it frank and Louie started tangling Joey kicked a brick to Louie and Louie beat frank with it then said that’s enough.

[Villain]

Valachi was a only a soldier at the time who made more than few mistakes right? No commission or any type of high level national connections?

Also ive showed you what Eboli stated and theres no type of consiglio or some type of commission or anything like that...just a board of directors or Barons under one top admin...something that couldve been inherited by the mainlanders from Sicily...im trying to put the pieces together but most of those "consiglio" stuff dont fit with Chicago....maybe the early Chi Mafia and thats why i asked you but certianly not after that.

No disrespect at all to Eboli, but he would need to substantiate that information with some impressive sources if it's true he said the Genovese family had a formal "board of directors" or "Barons" distinct from the ranks of underboss, capodecina, or something like the consiglio described by Valachi. We know who held most of the positions in that family during the years going back to Joe Masseria. Some captains were more influential and may have had a stronger hand in guiding the family (Willie Moretti, Tony Bender Strollo, though they also held acting admin positions) and in later years there is the "front boss" controversy, but aside from some philosophical and ethnic background differences, the Genovese family had a standard mafia structure.

Valachi was a made member for over thirty years who regularly interacted with high-ranking members from many families, including his own, and his take on the Genovese family is supported by other made CIs/CWs in NYC spanning generations. His info and recollections aren't always perfect, which can be said for every source, but we have no reason to challenge his overall view of the organization he was part of.

Committees aren't rare in the mafia, either, though they tend to show up later and not earlier on. We saw where the Bonanno family began using committees possibly as early as the 1950s and kept it up consistently through the 2000s. Certain captains were used as a buffer between the administration and served as a point of contact for other captains, though they were still ultimately captains, they just had other sets of duties in helping run the family. This led to confusion on ranks before it was cleared up by Massino.

I personally think the committee idea is intuitive so it's not surprising it shows up similarly over the years... we know the early national mafia had a Grand Consiglio and National Assembly meetings where leaders voted, so the Capo dei Capi's position was not as overtly tyrannical as it's made out to be. Similarly, most families had a consiglio who voted in high-level affairs within each family alongside the boss. It seems there have always been attempts to make mafia leadership horizontal even though there is still the pyramid structure we all know. The earlier forms of this seem to be more based on distribution of power, while later it had to do more with buffering the leadership from LE and of course covering open spots due to incarceration and old age.

I agree and i think we are slowly reachin the same page. One question...did any of those old time consiglios had a top boss or some type of chairman with more influence than the rest of the members on that same table?

[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

Yes 100 percent correct numerous stories of someone going to Lombardo with a problem Joey didn’t call anyone or have a sit down he made a ruling and that was it. It’s always been unclear to me if they could actually order murders. One time someone wanted someone killed Lombardo said break his head legs and arms If he does it again kill him. One instance was Frank culotta did something to Louie Eboli And Louie went to Joey. Joey told frank you gotta take the beating. That was it frank and Louie started tangling Joey kicked a brick to Louie and Louie beat frank with it then said that’s enough.

Yup and i think that Culotta also confirmed the story. Thanks

[Villain]

I never knew that after the scandal with the Chicago Outfit, Fratianno was without membership for some period...

[B.]

I agree and i think we are slowly reachin the same page. One question...did any of those old time consiglios had a top boss or some type of chairman with more influence than the rest of the members on that same table?

That is a good question and we don't know enough info to know how it all worked, but it probably varied depending on the family. We do know the actual boss of the family sat on the consiglio, so he would have carried substantial weight, but other than that the other consiglio members appear to have had a voice/vote in matters and some likely had more weight than others.

In Milwaukee for example former boss John Alioto stepped down but continued to serve on the consiglio. A recording of one of the consiglio meetings in Frank Balistrieri's office show Alioto get into a heated argument with Balistrieri (who was his son-in-law), so he was comfortable challenging the boss even though he had stepped down from the position.

We also have this interesting piece of info from Frank Bompensiero:

Moceri and La Salle also indicated LCN boss Joe Zerilli of Detroit is considering retiring from active leadership. That Mike Polizzi, son-in-law of John Priziola, would take over Joe Zerilli’s job as Detroit LCN Family Boss ‘with a seat on the Commission’, that Zerilli would become a consigliere of power. (Informant speculated that Tony Zerilli would become Underboss in the Detroit Family).

So Detroit was considering electing Mike Polizzi as official boss and Commission representative, while Zerilli would "step down" and be "consigliere of power". Given that Detroit appeared to have a consiglio, it's hard to say whether this meant Zerilli would join the consiglio (what Scott B calls "consiglieri emeritus") or if it meant he would actually become "official consigliere" but with significant "power". It doesn't appear to have happened, but given the source of the info, it appears to have been a very real possibility.

I imagine the power dynamics of the consiglio depended on the family, who was on it at any given time, and other factors.

[Villain]

I agree and i think we are slowly reachin the same page. One question...did any of those old time consiglios had a top boss or some type of chairman with more influence than the rest of the members on that same table?

That is a good question and we don't know enough info to know how it all worked, but it probably varied depending on the family. We do know the actual boss of the family sat on the consiglio, so he would have carried substantial weight, but other than that the other consiglio members appear to have had a voice/vote in matters and some likely had more weight than others.

In Milwaukee for example former boss John Alioto stepped down but continued to serve on the consiglio. A recording of one of the consiglio meetings in Frank Balistrieri's office show Alioto get into a heated argument with Balistrieri (who was his son-in-law), so he was comfortable challenging the boss even though he had stepped down from the position.

We also have this interesting piece of info from Frank Bompensiero:

Moceri and La Salle also indicated LCN boss Joe Zerilli of Detroit is considering retiring from active leadership. That Mike Polizzi, son-in-law of John Priziola, would take over Joe Zerilli’s job as Detroit LCN Family Boss ‘with a seat on the Commission’, that Zerilli would become a consigliere of power. (Informant speculated that Tony Zerilli would become Underboss in the Detroit Family).

So Detroit was considering electing Mike Polizzi as official boss and Commission representative, while Zerilli would "step down" and be "consigliere of power". Given that Detroit appeared to have a consiglio, it's hard to say whether this meant Zerilli would join the consiglio (what Scott B calls "consiglieri emeritus") or if it meant he would actually become "official consigliere" but with significant "power". It doesn't appear to have happened, but given the source of the info, it appears to have been a very real possibility.

I imagine the power dynamics of the consiglio depended on the family, who was on it at any given time, and other factors.

I agree and those are some good examples and to tell you the truth, during the Giancana era Accardo completely fits that same role and thats why i previously labelled him as "boss emeritus" (the term can be seen in several files) and he was also labelled as former commission member by being replaced with Giancana. The main problem is that Ricca was also considered as commission member at the same time with Giancana, meaning we have two commission reps which is the main reason for my previous question.

Besides commission matters, if Giancana was absent, it was for Ricca, Accardo, the underboss (Ferraro) and another "ruling panel" member (Humphreys) to decide on who was going to become a new capo etc. In fact, it was Ricca and Accardo who later replaced Giancana with Battaglia.

Im not sure but i think it was Roselli who said to Fratianno?? something like "forget about Accardo and Giancana, Ricca is the top guy in Chicago"...something to that extent.

I also remember Antliliar saying something similar regarding the KC family or during certain time pwriod they also had some type of "ruling body" i think.....

Btw if that Detriot situation occurred and if Zerilli took a step back but was still considered a commission rep together with the new boss, than we can surely say that the same thing already happened in Chicago...