Is there even a commission anymore?

[SonnyBlackstein]

Sonny will love that.

[B.]

If pointing out inconsistencies is your game you're going to love Vitale, Casso, Gravano, etc.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Pogo, B. Now that it's demonstrable that Massino was lying, and knew better, ie not a misunderstanding.

Are you prepared to accept Massino, if, as proven, lied about the Commission, would lie again in his testimony?

If not, please explain why he would lie about a, but not b.

The burden of proof is now on you both.

[SonnyBlackstein]

If pointing out inconsistencies is your game you're going to love Vitale, Casso, Gravano, etc.

Your whole single argument is based not on circumstantial evidence but Massinos testimony.

Now it's proven he lied, what is your basis for legitimacy?

[B.]

His inconsistencies have to be acknowledged for sure, as they do with every source (including the ones MightyDR cited, all of whom have their own issues), but what his incentive would be to lie about the Commission is known only to you. He admitted he was the official boss of a Family who oversaw vast criminal operations, including murder, and collaborated with other bosses, so claiming there is no official Commission doesn't do much one way or another to his story.

Here is the article that cites his claim that the Commission's final meeting was in November 1985:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ ... e-1.114750

It goes on to mention the January 2000 meeting, which he didn't consider a Commission meeting. It doesn't really make a difference when it comes to the substance of the meeting, it's just a matter of whether the formal body itself existed so hard to understand what narrative he'd be trying to create through his inconsistent use of the term. Can you explain how lying about it would benefit his story? I'm genuinely interested in knowing if there's something I'm not seeing in this example or if you're just deadset on discrediting Massino.

Sal Vitale gave an elaborate story for the Joe LoPresti murder when he initially cooperated but when it was mentioned to him in his 2011 testimony he couldn't remember who that even was. He's been inconsistent or incorrect with other details as well. Was he lying, is it memory issues, or just human error? The same question could be asked about Massino re: Commission.

In the other testimony posted on the board Massino does make references to the Commission as the five NYC bosses and says they made policy decisions together. This is along the lines of how the other sources refer to the Commission but Massino's claim that the Commission was no longer in effect post-1985 appears to refer to the formal body as it was understood 1931-1985. Post-1985 it seems to be used to refer to NYC leaders touching base and weighing in on occasional issues which is a big departure from what it was earlier.

I'm not interested in proving Massino right, proving you wrong, or anything except an interesting discussion and as the only sitting NYC boss to fully cooperate Massino's word has to be considered even if it wavers on some details.

[furiofromnaples]

The Commission even in 1980s was made by only the 5 families.before that there was more connection even between distant families but now where its enought few sitdown to solve a dispute,the Commission didnt exist anymore apart in Violi wiretaps.

[Angelo Santino]

I tried posting this several days ago but this forum was glitchy so I'll try again.

I see the official Commission as having lasted from 1931 until 1985. After that point, there might have been meetings of bosses which one could argue was a Commission meeting but it would be a stretch to say that the Body existed post-Castellano.

Could it have been revived? Not even a year ago I would argue probably not. Now? I mean, the conviction of mob bosses in NY seemes to have slowed. We have Cefalu, Bellomo, Mancuso on the street, the two former having been on the street for awhile now. It wouldn't surprise me if an attempt was made at reconstituting it as a formal body. They tried to do this in Sicily and as short lived as it was, it has a precedent.

One thing to consider is that the terms "Commission," "Underboss," and "Consigliere" were formal terms but also descriptors. We see it in modern culture where someone is called the Consigliere and no one explains what it means because we all understand it to be "very important advisor." Underboss is a second in command. Well with Commission, it was generally understood to mean when family bosses met.

But I also fall on the side of the importance of what the Commission was so I don't consider bosses meeting to warrant automatically being stamped as a Commission meeting.

[Cheech]

The Commission even in 1980s was made by only the 5 families.before that there was more connection even between distant families but now where its enought few sitdown to solve a dispute,the Commission didnt exist anymore apart in Violi wiretaps.

Thats a good point, Fur. Thanks for posting that

[Angelo Santino]

Interesting how the Gran Consiglio faded into obscurity and people only recall the Commission.

Senator NUNN. What is your understanding of a commission
meeting? Could you give us your definition of the word "commis-
sion" and "meeting"?
Mr. CAFARO. Well, from what I was made to understand, a com-
mission meeting was made—the commission was formed in the late
1930s, after the wars. The wars, what I mean, the wars with the
wiseguys. At the time, it was with the Sicilians. They were killing
all the Sicilians in the 1920s and 1930s, when Luciano was in
power.
So after they, I guess, killed whatever they had to kill, and who-
ever went back to Sicily, Luciano, they had killed, what's his
name? Joe "the Boss" Masseria in New York? Joe the Boss. And he
was the boss of bosses at the time.
So when Luciano became in power, he says, it would not be fair
for me to be boss of bosses, because you got a family, he's got a
family, he's got a family. Why should I tell you what to do? We will
form a commission, and we will straighten out our grievances.
And the commission was only formed for the purpose of stopping
wars. For peace.
Senator NUNN. Do we have a boss of bosses now?
Mr. CAFARO. No.
Senator NUNN. So the commission is the hierarchy?
Mr. CAFARO. Right. All the bosses sit at the commission.
Senator NUNN. They are on the same level then?
Mr. CAFARO. Right. And that is why the commission was formed
in the late 1930s.

Cafaro on the Commission going forward (from 1988)

Senator NUNN. Do you think—we've had a lot of convictions of
the top members of various families in New York and elsewhere.
Do you think there still is a commission in New York?
Mr. CAFARO. To my knowledge, no, and I don't think there will
ever be a commission anymore.
Senator NUNN. Why is that?
Mr. CAFARO. Well, you haven't got the Fat Tonys no more. You
haven't got the Tony Ducks, you haven't got the Tom Mixes. The
oldtimers are not there no more and I say there will never be an-
other commission.
Senator NUNN. You're still going to have the families, though,
aren't you?
Mr. CAFARO. Well, you can talk boss to boss. You send your con-
sigliere there if there's a problem in the family.
Senator NUNN. In other words, you think it will be more boss-to-
boss, one family to another, and not the whole group meeting to-
gether?
Mr. CAFARO. That's right.
Senator NUNN. Why would not their successors follow that pat-
tern?
Mr. CAFARO. Well, why they won't follow the same pattern as the
oldtimers?
Senator NUNN. Yes.
Mr. CAFARO. Well, you haven't got the oldtimers there no more
and the young guys that are there now, they are not as level-
headed as the oldtimers. They are not peace-minded. I don't think
they are peace-minded, which the oldtimers, there was nothing but
peace and if you
Senator NUNN. Well, the purpose of the commission was peace
and you don't believe that that will be organized that way?
Mr. CAFARO. No, because you get a—from what I see of Johnny
Gotti—I met him in MCC, like I said. He ain't going to—he has got
an attitude that, hey, this is my brugad and nobody is going to tell
me what to do. Or Chin ain't going to make anybody tell him what
to do with his brugad.

[SonnyBlackstein]

or if you're just deadset on discrediting Massino.

I'm not dead set on discrediteding Massino at all.
I simply think the overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise to what Massino testified.

Leadership representatives from all five families meeting to discuss LCN business/policy/disputes/rackets etc.
If that isn't a commission meeting, I don't know what is.

Additionally Massino has contradicted himself stating he was made Boss by the Commission in 91. There is also Violi on tape stating its existence.

So it's not about disproving Massino, it's that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts him.

If I was to guess it would appear Massino has a pattern of minimilisation. To downplay matters. But that is speculation.

Do i think there is a formal body meeting every second saturday, no. But do I think that representatives from the families occasionally meet to discuss pertinent matters (appointment of Violi for example), yes, the evidence indicates that is likely the case. If we avoid semantics, I think this body, in it's purpose could absolutely be called a commission. As Violi himself states.

Massinos testimony is obviously highly important, but it must be considered in context with available evidence. It is not sacrosanct as some on here hold it and above question.

[Tonyd621]

Ask hootie russo. I heard he's the boss of bosses now.

[B.]

This is a semantic argument, though, so without semantics there's no discussion.

It's similar to the Carmine Galante issue. He declared himself boss of the Bonanno Family and had a significant faction who considered him the boss, but he was not formally recognized by his peers as the rappresentante officiale. We have sources who called him the boss and he was the defacto boss but he was not officially the boss. A defacto Commission is not the same as the formal Commission, which may be where Massino is coming from when he marks November 1985 as the cut off.

A big question is whether there is still anything resembling the formal avugad system, which was a major function of the Commission until 1985 as evidenced by the Palma Boy tapes...

- Did Todaro reach out to a specific Family that was designated as his official point of contact in NYC, or did he just reach out to whoever he knew in NYC when it came to promoting Violi? It was obviously important to him that NYC condone the promotion of a Canadian underboss but whether he casually asked their opinion or followed some kind of established process is important to this discussion. After Buffalo lost their Commision seat the Genovese Family served as their avugad, so if Todaro reached out to "the Commission" via the Genovese that'd be telling.

- When Philly met with the Gambino Family in 2010 to air their grievances with other Families and make introductions, was there a formally designated relationship for Philly to contact the Gambinos for assistance with those issues? Or was there just a circumstantial relationship and they happened to reach out to the Gambinos for help?

- What about Joey Merlino's close relationship with Genovese leaders? If Merlino had a problem with other Families or needed guidance, would he reach out to the Gambinos like Ligambi did or the Genovese because he's close to them?

- In the late 1980s John Gotti dressed down John Riggi at a wedding or funeral in order to control the DeCavalcantes. Stango said more recently the DeCavalcantes still "run under" the Gambinos and phrased it like it was a bad thing. Historically you would never have seen a Family boss approach another Family and say "We're your avugad now whether you like it or not", it was a formal relationship and mutually beneficial. Does the Gambino Family serve as the avugad for the DeCavalcantes today, or is it just a relationship based on defacto influence/power?

So far I've seen nothing about these relationships being formalized the way they once were but we're also missing many details.

[B.]

The Cafaro thing reminds me that various sources post-1931 have said that certain bosses were the "boss of bosses".

It's an absolute fact that this position ceased to exist in 1931 and was never reinstated. However, there was a perception at various times that some bosses were the defacto boss of bosses and were referred to that way. Informally, there may well have been certain bosses who had more power and influence, and thus had control over other bosses, but the formal position itself no longer existed.

This might be an analogue to the way "Commission" has been used post-1985. Not an exact comparison but similar.

[furiofromnaples]

The DeCavalcantes was ever under the Gambinos. John Gotti forced them in the late to 1980s to repeat a making ceremony to DeCavalcantes because them didnt followed the rules.
The Philly ties to Genoveses lasted to Scarfo sr and Bobby Manna relation from ehere in Yardville prison in the 1970s.
For the Todaro,historically Buffalo had ties with Bonannos but I think that today its enought to send a messagge to all the 5 families asking the ok.

[Uforeality]

My thoughts were that since broad, organized, currupt influence of entire sectors of the national economy weren't being carried out anymore by the Italian mob, what's the use of all of us meeting up anymore? Crime is more localized it seems. There are exceptions, obviously.