General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

[PolackTony]

Not that I’m ascribing this particular argument to anyone here, but one line of reasoning that’s been bandied about to explain the decline of mafia membership is lack of a suitable recruitment pool, at least outside of the core area of the Northeast megalopolis, due to smaller numbers of Italians and the general trend of assimilation. For Chicago, at least, this is definitely not the case, as Antiliar has already suggested. To give those not familiar with Chicago a comparative example, Chicagoland’s Italian population is comparable to that of Philly, or to the total number and proportion of Italians within the 5 boros of NYC. Within this very significant Italian population there are densely interconnected networks of families that have been connected to the Outfit for decades, with ties that go back to their old neighborhoods as well as paesani heritage from Italy. While only a small fraction of people embedded in these networks are going to be directly connected to OC today, this is the soil through which the roots of the mob spread and draw sustenance from. It is the broader network of social influence, status, and trust that the mafia requires to reproduce itself and through which its members and those connected to its members move and seek advantage. Because of the robust history not just of mafia-connected organized crime but also Italian street gangs, there is a definite and enduring criminal element within these networks, which include a good number of hardened career criminals who have proven themselves to be both capable of enforcement tasks and racketeering operations and thus useful to the mob as either workers or potential members. If one is familiar with these social networks and communities, it is entirely unsurprising that hardened former gangbangers like Vena, Sarno, Panozzo, and Louie Rainone figure as important figures in the recent/current Outfit. Another angle is that Chicagoland has had decades of Italian immigration, which as in NYC has served to reinforce the Italian character of these social networks and serves as a counter-balance to the pressures of “assimilation”. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that at least since the 1980s the Chicago Outfit has had ties to all four major Italian mafia groups, and a number of the names of likely associates and partners of the Outfit over the last several decades have been from recent (as in 1960s and later) Italian immigrant families. Before Antiliar posted here on the info he reviewed from his source, my hypothesis was that the Outfit’s current recruitment pool consists of three (not mutually exclusive) sources: former Italian gangbangers from organizations historically tied to the Outfit, those from Outfit-connected “heritage” families, and those of recent Italian extraction. His info confirmed this with illustrative examples. His source named Louie Rainone, hardcore gangbanger who served serious time for murdering a rival gangbanger in his youth (and who also grew up with family members direct from Naples), Jason Nitti (from a family that on both sides — the Nittis and the Cerones — has been connected to the Outfit for generations and who also maintain close ties to family/paesani in Italy), and the LoBue brothers (who hail from Trabia, Palermo, an area that has been intimately connected to both the mafia and Chicago’s broader Italian community over 140 years of continuing chain migration).

So, if the Outfit hasn’t been making guys, it’s because they’ve decided not to, not because they don’t have a viable recruitment pool. One can make the argument that the incentives or motivation to continue making guys aren’t there anymore. But this is based entirely on one’s personal assumptions as to the values and motivations of this organization and its members. My belief is that, despite the scope and scale of Chicago’s operations and its major (mafia) status and political influence as a family, they’ve always been highly selective and small in terms of numbers of inducted members of the family as compared to their peer families in NYC. While 20-30 actual members today would certainly be a notable decline compared to the past, it’s not the kind of staggering difference that some might assume if they think that Chicago ever inducted members at numbers comparable to NYC. I see no reason to assume that Chicago would be unable to make guys at sufficient rates in recent years to replenish the ranks of ~20 made guys who stand as high-level figures and de facto “bosses” vis-a-vis the crews of associates who mainly do the actual work for the organization. One can take the validity and reliability of the info that we’ve discussed recently however one wishes, but there is at least evidence that suggests that Chicago has continued to make guys, so my belief is that the motivation and desire to do so remains. For the above reasons, I don’t believe it plausible that they don’t have the ability to make more than one guy at a time at extended intervals, if they so choose. I don’t think that they have or need a lot of seats to fill in terms of formal membership, so I find it fully reasonable that they’d have no problem replenishing the ranks of what is a downscaled and smaller family.

[B.]

Not much activity these days. 47 members back in the 1990s. 28 members in 2007. That tells us something. They stop making members for the same reasons other families have.

Do you have access to sources where modern mafia leaders have officially stated they've stopped inducting new members? Or what the reasons are?

I understand the rationale that LE pressure and a smaller recruitment pool* have made it more difficult to pad the ranks and there may be less incentive to induct members today, but if you're going to state definitively that an organization has stopped inducting new members and has specific rationale for this, you need to provide sources who have stated this.

* - People act like the recruitment process is an exact science, which it isn't. These relationships are more complex than "the mafia needs a large urban Italian-American community where they can recruit the best criminals". The incredible work people like Tony and Antiliar have done shows that Chicago's membership has been influenced by many other factors, just as we see in other Families.

EDIT: Tony said it better than I could.

[Newyorkempire]

Not that I’m ascribing this particular argument to anyone here, but one line of reasoning that’s been bandied about to explain the decline of mafia membership is lack of a suitable recruitment pool, at least outside of the core area of the Northeast megalopolis, due to smaller numbers of Italians and the general trend of assimilation. For Chicago, at least, this is definitely not the case, as Antiliar has already suggested. To give those not familiar with Chicago a comparative example, Chicagoland’s Italian population is comparable to that of Philly, or to the total number and proportion of Italians within the 5 boros of NYC. Within this very significant Italian population there are densely interconnected networks of families that have been connected to the Outfit for decades, with ties that go back to their old neighborhoods as well as paesani heritage from Italy. While only a small fraction of people embedded in these networks are going to be directly connected to OC today, this is the soil through which the roots of the mob spread and draw sustenance from. It is the broader network of social influence, status, and trust that the mafia requires to reproduce itself and through which its members and those connected to its members move and seek advantage. Because of the robust history not just of mafia-connected organized crime but also Italian street gangs, there is a definite and enduring criminal element within these networks, which include a good number of hardened career criminals who have proven themselves to be both capable of enforcement tasks and racketeering operations and thus useful to the mob as either workers or potential members. If one is familiar with these social networks and communities, it is entirely unsurprising that hardened former gangbangers like Vena, Sarno, Panozzo, and Louie Rainone figure as important figures in the recent/current Outfit. Another angle is that Chicagoland has had decades of Italian immigration, which as in NYC has served to reinforce the Italian character of these social networks and serves as a counter-balance to the pressures of “assimilation”. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that at least since the 1980s the Chicago Outfit has had ties to all four major Italian mafia groups, and a number of the names of likely associates and partners of the Outfit over the last several decades have been from recent (as in 1960s and later) Italian immigrant families. Before Antiliar posted here on the info he reviewed from his source, my hypothesis was that the Outfit’s current recruitment pool consists of three (not mutually exclusive) sources: former Italian gangbangers from organizations historically tied to the Outfit, those from Outfit-connected “heritage” families, and those of recent Italian extraction. His info confirmed this with illustrative examples. His source named Louie Rainone, hardcore gangbanger who served serious time for murdering a rival gangbanger in his youth (and who also grew up with family members direct from Naples), Jason Nitti (from a family that on both sides — the Nittis and the Cerones — has been connected to the Outfit for generations and who also maintain close ties to family/paesani in Italy), and the LoBue brothers (who hail from Trabia, Palermo, an area that has been intimately connected to both the mafia and Chicago’s broader Italian community over 140 years of continuing chain migration).

So, if the Outfit hasn’t been making guys, it’s because they’ve decided not to, not because they don’t have a viable recruitment pool. One can make the argument that the incentives or motivation to continue making guys aren’t there anymore. But this is based entirely on one’s personal assumptions as to the values and motivations of this organization and its members. My belief is that, despite the scope and scale of Chicago’s operations and its major (mafia) status and political influence as a family, they’ve always been highly selective and small in terms of numbers of inducted members of the family as compared to their peer families in NYC. While 20-30 actual members today would certainly be a notable decline compared to the past, it’s not the kind of staggering difference that some might assume if they think that Chicago ever inducted members at numbers comparable to NYC. I see no reason to assume that Chicago would be unable to make guys at sufficient rates in recent years to replenish the ranks of ~20 made guys who stand as high-level figures and de facto “bosses” vis-a-vis the crews of associates who mainly do the actual work for the organization. One can take the validity and reliability of the info that we’ve discussed recently however one wishes, but there is at least evidence that suggests that Chicago has continued to make guys, so my belief is that the motivation and desire to do so remains. For the above reasons, I don’t believe it plausible that they don’t have the ability to make more than one guy at a time at extended intervals, if they so choose. I don’t think that they have or need a lot of seats to fill in terms of formal membership, so I find it fully reasonable that they’d have no problem replenishing the ranks of what is a downscaled and smaller family.

So does it comes down to their demise has been greatly exaggerated? Or it just simply cant be measured?

[Wiseguy]

Thats my whole point. But then you'll take any indictment from the FBI and pick it apart, give you're own take on it and then say it has little meaning. Its really bizarre. Further, not everyone us giving suppositions only. Some people have direct knowledge on here whether you believe it or not. And again, the irony is you give suppositions when you use words/terms like "I suspect"...youre not even understanding what you are doing is the saddest part. YOU ARE GIVING HEARSAY

What in God's name are you talking about? What indictment have I said has little meaning?

How do you know who has "direct knowledge?" How does someone who is truly in a position to know first hand about who's made in Chicago blab away about that on the internet? How does that work exactly?

Do you have access to sources where modern mafia leaders have officially stated they've stopped inducting new members? Or what the reasons are?

I understand the rationale that LE pressure and a smaller recruitment pool* have made it more difficult to pad the ranks and there may be less incentive to induct members today, but if you're going to state definitively that an organization has stopped inducting new members and has specific rationale for this, you need to provide sources who have stated this.

* - People act like the recruitment process is an exact science, which it isn't. These relationships are more complex than "the mafia needs a large urban Italian-American community where they can recruit the best criminals". The incredible work people like Tony and Antiliar have done shows that Chicago's membership has been influenced by many other factors, just as we see in other Families.

Nobody has said it but, just like Buffalo or Detroit or other places, you can look at the FBI figures over the years and see a clear decline. Do we know 100% that the Outfit hasn't made anyone after the 1990's? No. But we don't have any firm evidence that they have either. So we're left looking at the clear and undeniable decline in membership. I'm sorry but a handful of names that god knows who said are made isn't very convincing.

Not that I’m ascribing this particular argument to anyone here, but one line of reasoning that’s been bandied about to explain the decline of mafia membership is lack of a suitable recruitment pool, at least outside of the core area of the Northeast megalopolis, due to smaller numbers of Italians and the general trend of assimilation. For Chicago, at least, this is definitely not the case, as Antiliar has already suggested. To give those not familiar with Chicago a comparative example, Chicagoland’s Italian population is comparable to that of Philly, or to the total number and proportion of Italians within the 5 boros of NYC. Within this very significant Italian population there are densely interconnected networks of families that have been connected to the Outfit for decades, with ties that go back to their old neighborhoods as well as paesani heritage from Italy. While only a small fraction of people embedded in these networks are going to be directly connected to OC today, this is the soil through which the roots of the mob spread and draw sustenance from. It is the broader network of social influence, status, and trust that the mafia requires to reproduce itself and through which its members and those connected to its members move and seek advantage. Because of the robust history not just of mafia-connected organized crime but also Italian street gangs, there is a definite and enduring criminal element within these networks, which include a good number of hardened career criminals who have proven themselves to be both capable of enforcement tasks and racketeering operations and thus useful to the mob as either workers or potential members. If one is familiar with these social networks and communities, it is entirely unsurprising that hardened former gangbangers like Vena, Sarno, Panozzo, and Louie Rainone figure as important figures in the recent/current Outfit. Another angle is that Chicagoland has had decades of Italian immigration, which as in NYC has served to reinforce the Italian character of these social networks and serves as a counter-balance to the pressures of “assimilation”. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that at least since the 1980s the Chicago Outfit has had ties to all four major Italian mafia groups, and a number of the names of likely associates and partners of the Outfit over the last several decades have been from recent (as in 1960s and later) Italian immigrant families. Before Antiliar posted here on the info he reviewed from his source, my hypothesis was that the Outfit’s current recruitment pool consists of three (not mutually exclusive) sources: former Italian gangbangers from organizations historically tied to the Outfit, those from Outfit-connected “heritage” families, and those of recent Italian extraction. His info confirmed this with illustrative examples. His source named Louie Rainone, hardcore gangbanger who served serious time for murdering a rival gangbanger in his youth (and who also grew up with family members direct from Naples), Jason Nitti (from a family that on both sides — the Nittis and the Cerones — has been connected to the Outfit for generations and who also maintain close ties to family/paesani in Italy), and the LoBue brothers (who hail from Trabia, Palermo, an area that has been intimately connected to both the mafia and Chicago’s broader Italian community over 140 years of continuing chain migration).

So, if the Outfit hasn’t been making guys, it’s because they’ve decided not to, not because they don’t have a viable recruitment pool. One can make the argument that the incentives or motivation to continue making guys aren’t there anymore. But this is based entirely on one’s personal assumptions as to the values and motivations of this organization and its members. My belief is that, despite the scope and scale of Chicago’s operations and its major (mafia) status and political influence as a family, they’ve always been highly selective and small in terms of numbers of inducted members of the family as compared to their peer families in NYC. While 20-30 actual members today would certainly be a notable decline compared to the past, it’s not the kind of staggering difference that some might assume if they think that Chicago ever inducted members at numbers comparable to NYC. I see no reason to assume that Chicago would be unable to make guys at sufficient rates in recent years to replenish the ranks of ~20 made guys who stand as high-level figures and de facto “bosses” vis-a-vis the crews of associates who mainly do the actual work for the organization. One can take the validity and reliability of the info that we’ve discussed recently however one wishes, but there is at least evidence that suggests that Chicago has continued to make guys, so my belief is that the motivation and desire to do so remains. For the above reasons, I don’t believe it plausible that they don’t have the ability to make more than one guy at a time at extended intervals, if they so choose. I don’t think that they have or need a lot of seats to fill in terms of formal membership, so I find it fully reasonable that they’d have no problem replenishing the ranks of what is a downscaled and smaller family.

I think it goes without saying that the Outfit would have had to decide to stop making new members. Not simply doing so because of lack of Italians in Chicago. But if the Outfit was pegged by the feds at a 41-51 range during the 1980s and 1990s, and down to 28 members by 2007, wouldn't we see a similar decline in the 15 years thereafter? I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility that a few guys have been made post-1990's I just don't see any clear evidence of it. How are Louie Rainone, Jason Nitti, or the LoBue brothers different from dozens of other names floated as members or possible members for Chicago but with no official verification? But, given that people use to float numbers like 60 or 70 for Chicago a decade ago, I suppose 20-25 is progress of a sort.

[Newyorkempire]

Thats my whole point. But then you'll take any indictment from the FBI and pick it apart, give you're own take on it and then say it has little meaning. Its really bizarre. Further, not everyone us giving suppositions only. Some people have direct knowledge on here whether you believe it or not. And again, the irony is you give suppositions when you use words/terms like "I suspect"...youre not even understanding what you are doing is the saddest part. YOU ARE GIVING HEARSAY

What in God's name are you talking about? What indictment have I said has little meaning?

How do you know who has "direct knowledge?" How does someone who is truly in a position to know first hand about who's made in Chicago blab away about that on the internet? How does that work exactly?

Do you have access to sources where modern mafia leaders have officially stated they've stopped inducting new members? Or what the reasons are?

I understand the rationale that LE pressure and a smaller recruitment pool* have made it more difficult to pad the ranks and there may be less incentive to induct members today, but if you're going to state definitively that an organization has stopped inducting new members and has specific rationale for this, you need to provide sources who have stated this.

* - People act like the recruitment process is an exact science, which it isn't. These relationships are more complex than "the mafia needs a large urban Italian-American community where they can recruit the best criminals". The incredible work people like Tony and Antiliar have done shows that Chicago's membership has been influenced by many other factors, just as we see in other Families.

Nobody has said it but, just like Buffalo or Detroit or other places, you can look at the FBI figures over the years and see a clear decline. Do we know 100% that the Outfit hasn't made anyone after the 1990's? No. But we don't have any firm evidence that they have either. So we're left looking at the clear and undeniable decline in membership. I'm sorry but a handful of names that god knows who said are made isn't very convincing.

Not that I’m ascribing this particular argument to anyone here, but one line of reasoning that’s been bandied about to explain the decline of mafia membership is lack of a suitable recruitment pool, at least outside of the core area of the Northeast megalopolis, due to smaller numbers of Italians and the general trend of assimilation. For Chicago, at least, this is definitely not the case, as Antiliar has already suggested. To give those not familiar with Chicago a comparative example, Chicagoland’s Italian population is comparable to that of Philly, or to the total number and proportion of Italians within the 5 boros of NYC. Within this very significant Italian population there are densely interconnected networks of families that have been connected to the Outfit for decades, with ties that go back to their old neighborhoods as well as paesani heritage from Italy. While only a small fraction of people embedded in these networks are going to be directly connected to OC today, this is the soil through which the roots of the mob spread and draw sustenance from. It is the broader network of social influence, status, and trust that the mafia requires to reproduce itself and through which its members and those connected to its members move and seek advantage. Because of the robust history not just of mafia-connected organized crime but also Italian street gangs, there is a definite and enduring criminal element within these networks, which include a good number of hardened career criminals who have proven themselves to be both capable of enforcement tasks and racketeering operations and thus useful to the mob as either workers or potential members. If one is familiar with these social networks and communities, it is entirely unsurprising that hardened former gangbangers like Vena, Sarno, Panozzo, and Louie Rainone figure as important figures in the recent/current Outfit. Another angle is that Chicagoland has had decades of Italian immigration, which as in NYC has served to reinforce the Italian character of these social networks and serves as a counter-balance to the pressures of “assimilation”. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that at least since the 1980s the Chicago Outfit has had ties to all four major Italian mafia groups, and a number of the names of likely associates and partners of the Outfit over the last several decades have been from recent (as in 1960s and later) Italian immigrant families. Before Antiliar posted here on the info he reviewed from his source, my hypothesis was that the Outfit’s current recruitment pool consists of three (not mutually exclusive) sources: former Italian gangbangers from organizations historically tied to the Outfit, those from Outfit-connected “heritage” families, and those of recent Italian extraction. His info confirmed this with illustrative examples. His source named Louie Rainone, hardcore gangbanger who served serious time for murdering a rival gangbanger in his youth (and who also grew up with family members direct from Naples), Jason Nitti (from a family that on both sides — the Nittis and the Cerones — has been connected to the Outfit for generations and who also maintain close ties to family/paesani in Italy), and the LoBue brothers (who hail from Trabia, Palermo, an area that has been intimately connected to both the mafia and Chicago’s broader Italian community over 140 years of continuing chain migration).

So, if the Outfit hasn’t been making guys, it’s because they’ve decided not to, not because they don’t have a viable recruitment pool. One can make the argument that the incentives or motivation to continue making guys aren’t there anymore. But this is based entirely on one’s personal assumptions as to the values and motivations of this organization and its members. My belief is that, despite the scope and scale of Chicago’s operations and its major (mafia) status and political influence as a family, they’ve always been highly selective and small in terms of numbers of inducted members of the family as compared to their peer families in NYC. While 20-30 actual members today would certainly be a notable decline compared to the past, it’s not the kind of staggering difference that some might assume if they think that Chicago ever inducted members at numbers comparable to NYC. I see no reason to assume that Chicago would be unable to make guys at sufficient rates in recent years to replenish the ranks of ~20 made guys who stand as high-level figures and de facto “bosses” vis-a-vis the crews of associates who mainly do the actual work for the organization. One can take the validity and reliability of the info that we’ve discussed recently however one wishes, but there is at least evidence that suggests that Chicago has continued to make guys, so my belief is that the motivation and desire to do so remains. For the above reasons, I don’t believe it plausible that they don’t have the ability to make more than one guy at a time at extended intervals, if they so choose. I don’t think that they have or need a lot of seats to fill in terms of formal membership, so I find it fully reasonable that they’d have no problem replenishing the ranks of what is a downscaled and smaller family.

I think it goes without saying that the Outfit would have had to decide to stop making new members. Not simply doing so because of lack of Italians in Chicago. But if the Outfit was pegged by the feds at a 41-51 range during the 1980s and 1990s, and down to 28 members by 2007, wouldn't we see a similar decline in the 15 years thereafter? I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility that a few guys have been made post-1990's I just don't see any clear evidence of it. How are Louie Rainone, Jason Nitti, or the LoBue brothers different from dozens of other names floated as members or possible members for Chicago but with no official verification? But, given that people use to float numbers like 60 or 70 for Chicago a decade ago, I suppose 20-25 is progress of a sort.

Dude. You just said that the indictments in Florida had too much weight applied to them. Wtf?

[B.]

Nobody has said it but, just like Buffalo or Detroit or other places, you can look at the FBI figures over the years and see a clear decline. Do we know 100% that the Outfit hasn't made anyone after the 1990's? No. But we don't have any firm evidence that they have either. So we're left looking at the clear and undeniable decline in membership. I'm sorry but a handful of names that god knows who said are made isn't very convincing.

I appreciate you acknowledging right away that you lack sources to support your definitive statements and are, like all of us, simply trying to make sense of the limited information that's available.

Observing a decline in membership is a different argument from your statement "They stop making members for the same reasons other families have."

[Wiseguy]

Dude. You just said that the indictments in Florida had too much weight applied to them. Wtf?

Indictments are the clearest, most consistent, and most definitive evidence of mob activity.

But that doesn't change the fact you have a history of reading into isolated indictments what you want, particularly within a limited timeframe and ignoring the bigger picture. You're basically doing the same thing with Florida that you've done with Buffalo.

[Antiliar]

It's a straw man fallacy to claim that anyone is claiming over 30 current members. 20 being a stretch is your opinion based on out of date information.

Coloboy said 20-40. Granted he's the only I've seen throw out that high of a number and my comment was in response to that.

By "definitive evidence" I'm talking about a guy being identified as made in an indictment/press release, law enforcement report, legal proceedings, by a law enforcement official, that type of thing. The last thing like that we've seen is from 2007 when 28 members was the figure and several have died since then. If you've seen anything like that since, please share. This isn't out of date if all that is being added is assumption based on the general Italian population of Chicago or nameless sources on the internet. Especially in light of the lack of cases, particularly significant cases, out Chicago.

In fairness to Coloboy he was making a range estimate and didn't actually claim there were 40 members. When we debate others, as a general rule we should assume charity over malice, and mistakes over willful wrongdoing. We see bad faith interpretations all the time in political debates, where people assume the worst, least charitable interpretation possible. So just a friendly suggestion would be to show a bit more flexibility and charity in discussions.

As for "definitive evidence," if that's your criteria, then you may have a long wait. In the 2009 indictment of Mark Sarno, he wasn't even ID'd as an Outfit member, although we know from other sources that he was the boss at that time. The indictment didn't use the words Outfit, Cosa Nostra, LCN, mob or Mafia. He was just the head of a conspiracy that engaged in certain specified crimes that involved particular people who were also defendants. Despite the hype and the claims, there was no Family Secrets 2.

The fact is that since the original FS case the Illinois federal attorney have avoided making any statements on the Outfit in indictments. Even in the Rudy Fratto case, the only mention was that Fratto had represented himself to others as an Outfit member. The feds neither confirmed nor denied it in its press release, despite Nick Calabrese's testimony. So the feds are showing a real hesitancy to divulge this information. It seems to me that without having made members testifying post-Calabrese, the feds are not making any public claims. Elsewhere the feds have revealed that they do have confidential informants, but they apparently believe that's insufficient. So in my opinion we probably shouldn't assume that the feds themselves don't have "definitive evidence" that neither you nor I have or that such "definitive evidence" doesn't exist.

Sarno indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/il ... 28_01a.pdf

Fratto press release:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/chica ... 031210.htm

Chicago hasn't been a "major family" in years. If we're just going to assume there have been making ceremonies post-1990's, why just stop at a few? Hell, maybe the Outfit has had one every year, making several guys in each. Might as well go big.

That's a slippery slope fallacy and unreasonable and unnecessary hyperbole. No one is claiming the Outfit has annual making ceremonies. You don't help your credibility when you make these fallacious arguments.

[Wiseguy]

Nobody has said it but, just like Buffalo or Detroit or other places, you can look at the FBI figures over the years and see a clear decline. Do we know 100% that the Outfit hasn't made anyone after the 1990's? No. But we don't have any firm evidence that they have either. So we're left looking at the clear and undeniable decline in membership. I'm sorry but a handful of names that god knows who said are made isn't very convincing.

I appreciate you acknowledging right away that you lack sources to support your definitive statements and are, like all of us, simply trying to make sense of the limited information that's available.

Observing a decline in membership is a different argument from your statement "They stop making members for the same reasons other families have."

Well that was said in the hypothetical sense when I was asked why they would stop making new members. Only two reasons I can think of - whoever is left make the decision to stop making new members or there's nobody left to be made.

And when you talk about "lack of sources," feel free to come up with anything that comes even remotely close to the FBI giving a specific, non-rounded figure back in 2007.

In fairness to Coloboy he was making a range estimate and didn't actually claim there were 40 members. When we debate others, as a general rule we should assume charity over malice, and mistakes over willful wrongdoing. We see bad faith interpretations all the time in political debates, where people assume the worst, least charitable interpretation possible. So just a friendly suggestion would be to show a bit more flexibility and charity in discussions.

As for "definitive evidence," if that's your criteria, then you may have a long wait. In the 2009 indictment of Mark Sarno, he wasn't even ID'd as an Outfit member, although we know from other sources that he was the boss at that time. The indictment didn't use the words Outfit, Cosa Nostra, LCN, mob or Mafia. He was just the head of a conspiracy that engaged in certain specified crimes that involved particular people who were also defendants. Despite the hype and the claims, there was no Family Secrets 2.

The fact is that since the original FS case the Illinois federal attorney have avoided making any statements on the Outfit in indictments. Even in the Rudy Fratto case, the only mention was that Fratto had represented himself to others as an Outfit member. The feds neither confirmed nor denied it in its press release, despite Nick Calabrese's testimony. So the feds are showing a real hesitancy to divulge this information. It seems to me that without having made members testifying post-Calabrese, the feds are not making any public claims. Elsewhere the feds have revealed that they do have confidential informants, but they apparently believe that's insufficient. So in my opinion we probably shouldn't assume that the feds themselves don't have "definitive evidence" that neither you nor I have or that such "definitive evidence" doesn't exist.

Sarno indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/il ... 28_01a.pdf

Fratto press release:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/chica ... 031210.htm

I'm aware of the lack of specific reference to the Outfit or Chicago LCN in those cases. But that vagueness, for lack of a better word, has been abused by many a forum poster for far too long when it comes to Chicago. And always in the direction of inflating the size and scope of the Outfit.

Lol. Like I said. You want it every possible way. You keep things open ended so it looks like you are right even when you re wrong. You want indictments, then when you get indictments you walk then back...(Buffalo included)...here is how you minimize the indictments you need top rely on.. From your Florida post...

"If you look over the last decade, you have two cases (2012, 2021) involing Farese, Truglia and people around them. You have Genovese gambling networks extending down there through people like Patsy Capolongo. A guy in the Tuzzo bust had a check-cashing business there. You had the bookmaking and the healthcare fraud tied to Florida in the 2016 East Coast bust. And in the Russo bust you did have marijuana being driven down to Florida for distribution. There is activity. Is it "a lot" of activity?"

Youre a gaslighter and then try to walk back comments when you get caught in your own hypocrisies. You literally name call the indictments then you say "nothing is going on here because its not 1970 anymore"....do you know what quicksand is?

If I had said there was no activity in Florida, you would have a point. But we're talking in relative terms. You apparently think that the activity in Florida over the last decade is substantial. Again, no surprise given what you think about Buffalo and elsewhere. I don't think it is, not only when compared to the past but also in relative terms of where we can see remaining mob activity today. Nobody is trying to have it both ways. You apparently just can't see the difference of between the importance of indictments and you misinterpreting them.

[Newyorkempire]

Dude. You just said that the indictments in Florida had too much weight applied to them. Wtf?

Indictments are the clearest, most consistent, and most definitive evidence of mob activity.

But that doesn't change the fact you have a history of reading into isolated indictments what you want, particularly within a limited timeframe and ignoring the bigger picture. You're basically doing the same thing with Florida that you've done with Buffalo.

Lol. Like I said. You want it every possible way. You keep things open ended so it looks like you are right even when you re wrong. You want indictments, then when you get indictments you walk then back...(Buffalo included)...here is how you minimize the indictments you need top rely on.. From your Florida post...

"If you look over the last decade, you have two cases (2012, 2021) involing Farese, Truglia and people around them. You have Genovese gambling networks extending down there through people like Patsy Capolongo. A guy in the Tuzzo bust had a check-cashing business there. You had the bookmaking and the healthcare fraud tied to Florida in the 2016 East Coast bust. And in the Russo bust you did have marijuana being driven down to Florida for distribution. There is activity. Is it "a lot" of activity?"

Youre a gaslighter and then try to walk back comments when you get caught in your own hypocrisies. You literally name call the indictments then you say "nothing is going on here because its not 1970 anymore"....do you know what quicksand is?

[Newyorkempire]

Nobody has said it but, just like Buffalo or Detroit or other places, you can look at the FBI figures over the years and see a clear decline. Do we know 100% that the Outfit hasn't made anyone after the 1990's? No. But we don't have any firm evidence that they have either. So we're left looking at the clear and undeniable decline in membership. I'm sorry but a handful of names that god knows who said are made isn't very convincing.

I appreciate you acknowledging right away that you lack sources to support your definitive statements and are, like all of us, simply trying to make sense of the limited information that's available.

Observing a decline in membership is a different argument from your statement "They stop making members for the same reasons other families have."

Well that was said in the hypothetical sense when I was asked why they would stop making new members. Only two reasons I can think of - whoever is left make the decision to stop making new members or there's nobody left to be made.

And when you talk about "lack of sources," feel free to come up with anything that comes even remotely close to the FBI giving a specific, non-rounded figure back in 2007.

Yes. "Hypothetical" sense, a.k.a. your supposition. Which is the same thing you try and accuse others of. Quicksand

[Wiseguy]

Yes. "Hypothetical" sense, a.k.a. your supposition. Which is the same thing you try and accuse others of. Quicksand

I'll ask you what I'll ask of everything else in this thread. Show me anything even close the 28 member figure the FBI gave in 2007. A specific count (not a non-rounded estimate) that we rarely see. There's nothing that holds even close to that much weight.

[Antiliar]

Yes. "Hypothetical" sense, a.k.a. your supposition. Which is the same thing you try and accuse others of. Quicksand

I'll ask you what I'll ask of everything else in this thread. Show me anything even close the 28 member figure the FBI gave in 2007. A specific count (not a non-rounded estimate) that we rarely see. There's nothing.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, the lack of evidence for something does not mean that something does not exist. It only means that there's a lack of evidence. It's like the proverbial tree falling in a forest and there's no one around to observe. The lack of observation doesn't mean the tree didn't fall.

[Newyorkempire]

Nobody has said it but, just like Buffalo or Detroit or other places, you can look at the FBI figures over the years and see a clear decline. Do we know 100% that the Outfit hasn't made anyone after the 1990's? No. But we don't have any firm evidence that they have either. So we're left looking at the clear and undeniable decline in membership. I'm sorry but a handful of names that god knows who said are made isn't very convincing.

I appreciate you acknowledging right away that you lack sources to support your definitive statements and are, like all of us, simply trying to make sense of the limited information that's available.

Observing a decline in membership is a different argument from your statement "They stop making members for the same reasons other families have."

Well that was said in the hypothetical sense when I was asked why they would stop making new members. Only two reasons I can think of - whoever is left make the decision to stop making new members or there's nobody left to be made.

And when you talk about "lack of sources," feel free to come up with anything that comes even remotely close to the FBI giving a specific, non-rounded figure back in 2007.

In fairness to Coloboy he was making a range estimate and didn't actually claim there were 40 members. When we debate others, as a general rule we should assume charity over malice, and mistakes over willful wrongdoing. We see bad faith interpretations all the time in political debates, where people assume the worst, least charitable interpretation possible. So just a friendly suggestion would be to show a bit more flexibility and charity in discussions.

As for "definitive evidence," if that's your criteria, then you may have a long wait. In the 2009 indictment of Mark Sarno, he wasn't even ID'd as an Outfit member, although we know from other sources that he was the boss at that time. The indictment didn't use the words Outfit, Cosa Nostra, LCN, mob or Mafia. He was just the head of a conspiracy that engaged in certain specified crimes that involved particular people who were also defendants. Despite the hype and the claims, there was no Family Secrets 2.

The fact is that since the original FS case the Illinois federal attorney have avoided making any statements on the Outfit in indictments. Even in the Rudy Fratto case, the only mention was that Fratto had represented himself to others as an Outfit member. The feds neither confirmed nor denied it in its press release, despite Nick Calabrese's testimony. So the feds are showing a real hesitancy to divulge this information. It seems to me that without having made members testifying post-Calabrese, the feds are not making any public claims. Elsewhere the feds have revealed that they do have confidential informants, but they apparently believe that's insufficient. So in my opinion we probably shouldn't assume that the feds themselves don't have "definitive evidence" that neither you nor I have or that such "definitive evidence" doesn't exist.

Sarno indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/il ... 28_01a.pdf

Fratto press release:
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/chica ... 031210.htm

I'm aware of the lack of specific reference to the Outfit or Chicago LCN in those cases. But that vagueness, for lack of a better word, has been abused by many a forum poster for far too long when it comes to Chicago. And always in the direction of inflating the size and scope of the Outfit.

Lol. Like I said. You want it every possible way. You keep things open ended so it looks like you are right even when you re wrong. You want indictments, then when you get indictments you walk then back...(Buffalo included)...here is how you minimize the indictments you need top rely on.. From your Florida post...

"If you look over the last decade, you have two cases (2012, 2021) involing Farese, Truglia and people around them. You have Genovese gambling networks extending down there through people like Patsy Capolongo. A guy in the Tuzzo bust had a check-cashing business there. You had the bookmaking and the healthcare fraud tied to Florida in the 2016 East Coast bust. And in the Russo bust you did have marijuana being driven down to Florida for distribution. There is activity. Is it "a lot" of activity?"

Youre a gaslighter and then try to walk back comments when you get caught in your own hypocrisies. You literally name call the indictments then you say "nothing is going on here because its not 1970 anymore"....do you know what quicksand is?

If I had said there was no activity in Florida, you would have a point. But we're talking in relative terms. You apparently think that the activity in Florida over the last decade is substantial. Again, no surprise given what you think about Buffalo and elsewhere. I don't think it is, not only when compared to the past but also in relative terms of where we can see remaining mob activity today. Nobody is trying to have it both ways. You apparently just can't see the difference of between the importance of indictments and you misinterpreting them.

You contradict yourself through and through. Again, you have no credentials to decide what is considered substantial or what is important. YOU ARE GIVING YOUR OPINIONS. What dont you comprehend. My God. My claim is that you misinterpret pretty much everything in order to try to convince us that at the macro level the mob has declined. This is old news. Great research. Your posts are boring and stale and id rather read someone you think is Vacari because at least its a different claim. Have you ever been inside any mobbed up place in Utah? No. So right there you do not have nearly as many interesting stories as people who may or may not have which you dont have to believe regardless. You think some posters are full of shit and some think you are. Now what? You really have nothing. Outside relaying articles you really arent much of a poster. As shown by everyone's comments about you, todays comments specifically, shows how senile you are. Thats why I ask if you re in law enforcement and this has all been a big ruse to convince us you have destroyed the mob.

[Newyorkempire]

Yes. "Hypothetical" sense, a.k.a. your supposition. Which is the same thing you try and accuse others of. Quicksand

I'll ask you what I'll ask of everything else in this thread. Show me anything even close the 28 member figure the FBI gave in 2007. A specific count (not a non-rounded estimate) that we rarely see. There's nothing that holds even close to that much weight.

Read what Antillar wrote. Hes way more respected than me but yet you wont respect his logic. Point is you dont know and neither does the FBI and youre relying on something from 15 years ago that could have been wrong then, that you'll then pair with "trends". You know a good way to find out? Get off your ass in Utah, fly to Chicago and stick your head in Venas office and ask. Outside an honest answer from him and your telling us you talked with him directly Im not believing any exact number. The truth is somewhere in between knowing and not knowing and youre on the not knowing part of that spectrum. And for me, the fact you live in Utah gives you even less credibility regardless of how many articles youve read but thats just my supposition and geographical bias.