Organization & Operation revisited

[Villain]

Thats it from me. See you guys tomorrow.

[Angelo Santino]

You're absolutely right about that. It's been speculated that Rockman did lie because he thought Licavoli was more influenceable. But that hasn't been substantiated.

Regarding Humphreys, again not a member, falls under operational. Had these guys wanted Ferraro and he proposed Giancana, next boss would be Ferraro.

[B.]

DeRose said initiation banquets could only be attended by members (all Italian) and that non-Italian associates could attend the celebration afterward. Same thing is done in NYC. That's a perfect example of an "organizational meeting" (initiation banquet) vs. an "operational meeting" (social event).

Gus Alex wasn't an official leader. He was a de facto leader authorized by the Family leadership and had a great amount of privilege and influence.

Are you referring to what Pierce said about Humphreys in 1956 or something else? He said a meeting was held to inform the top non-Italian associates of the leadership change and believed Humphreys was involved in the decision but he didn't have direct insight into the election from the inside. There was almost certainly a members-only meeting of the Consiglio where the actual decision was made to take Accardo down and a new boss was elected. That Humphreys was consulted and a meeting was held to inform select non-Italians speaks to their level of influence and respect in the Family's sphere of influence but it is one snippet into what was a much more complex process.

Other non-Italian leaders were called AFTER the main meeting on which Humphreys was also previously present, so they can inform the rest of the organization.

Yes, Pierce believed Humphreys was involved in the decision and a meeting was held to inform key associates. We don't know what the initial election consisted of nor exactly how Humphreys participated, only that Pierce believed Humphreys was involved in the decision. Pierce's reference to it, like most of his info, is very general and doesn't elaborate beyond that. You've drafted a scenario where Humphreys attended an official Consiglio meeting and formally voted on the new boss. Does that come from somewhere?

[Villain]

You've drafted a scenario where Humphreys attended an official Consiglio meeting and formally voted on the new boss. Does that come from somewhere?

(Had to come back) scenario? Really? Come on man...

Yeah I said Humphreys voted....Maybe I shouldve said "a decision was made" by the 4 top level guys. And pls, im not with the scenarios, believe me bro

Humphreys also voted if Capones family should be taken care of too. Or maybe i should say "it was made a decision"?

[Antiliar]

[Associates are not allowed into an Organizational Family meeting.

Besides making guys, can you give me few examples regarding organizational family meeting?

Aside from ceremonies, the selection of a new boss.

In 1956, Humphreys was the one who also had vote on who was going to lead the Cosa Nostra organization after Accardo.

A lot of informants paraphrase, generalize and speculate. When I talked to Mike Mags he called Alex a consigliere, but he didn't mean a LITERAL consigliere. He meant a respected advisor. So you have to consider the context. People don't always speak in a super literal way like they do in court.

[B.]

Scenario isn't an insult, it's a description of what you posted. We have an extremely brief reference to Pierce's belief that Humphreys was involved in selecting a new boss and you outlined a scenario where he sat at a table with official leaders and cast a formal vote alongside them. That's by definition a hypothetical scenario given no source was that specific about Humphreys' official involvement in the process.

[Angelo Santino]

You've drafted a scenario where Humphreys attended an official Consiglio meeting and formally voted on the new boss. Does that come from somewhere?

(Had to come back) scenario? Really? Come on man...

Yeah I said Humphreys voted....Maybe I shouldve said "a decision was made" by the 4 top level guys. And pls, im not with the scenarios, believe me bro

Humphreys also voted if Capones family should be taken care of too. Or maybe i should say "it was made a decision"?

There's no rule against consulting with non-members. Its rare that non-members are consulted on such things but its not unheard of.

This argument or disagreement seems based on the belief that Chicago "is different." It's not. It is a Mafia Family, a local branch of a larger organization, each branch has its own idiosyncrasies but 95% of the time, these organizations are identical. They follow the same protocol, formalities, operandi and system.

Made members such as Calabrese said as much as did wiretaps/informants from NY to LA. Never once did any single member mention that Chicago has non-Italians as de facto members/leaders or that being made has no merit, or that Chicago has some non-Mafia structure consisting of Top Boss, Senior Advisor, Boss, Underboss, Underboss to the Underboss, area leaders nor captains reporting to soldiers/associates. These are outsider interpretations.

There are about 90-100 Mafia Families in Sicily and at one time 25-30 in the US, they all line up. Some may not have a consig, others may not have captains, some had consigli (Tampa, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Gambinos) at one point or another. To argue that Chicago is some hybrid organization doesn't correlate to the larger body of evidence. It is either a Mafia Family or it is not, someone is either a member or they are not. That's organizational.

These Families are part of the local population and reflect that. They work with people involved in the same "world" as them. That's operational. They don't exist in a bubble and if they had, wouldn't have lasted more than a generation.

[Villain]

Scenario isn't an insult, it's a description of what you posted. We have an extremely brief reference to Pierce's belief that Humphreys was involved in selecting a new boss and you outlined a scenario where he sat at a table with official leaders and cast a formal vote alongside them. That's by definition a hypothetical scenario given no source was that specific about Humphreys' official involvement in the process.

Its 1 am around here lol see ya tomorrow..really

Btw...heres one "scenario" for you regarding the right to vote together with the top leaders...

[Antiliar]

Humphreys took a vote, along with others, on a financial matter. Finances was one of his areas of responsibility because he was good at it. Jack Guzik had a similar role before him. So there's nothing unusual here. So I'm not sure what the issue is.

[B.]

Humphreys made a vague reference to "voting" on a different matter which isn't evidence he was part of a formal meeting where he officially cast a vote in the election of a new boss. I'm sure he was consulted in meetings before and after the election. His opinion mattered but the heart of this discussion is about the formal vs. informal power structure and these references don't shed light on that.

We do have insiders who described how the Chicago outfit allowed dominant associates into upper echelon affairs and gave them authority but they make it clear they were not members or official leaders. These references do shed light on what we're discussing here.

We have multiple made members who said Lansky was a de facto part of the Commission. He didn't have an official seat, though, and no sources place him in a formal Commission meeting where organizational affairs were debated. Bonanno said when Luciano invited Lansky to an early Commission meeting they were fine with him traveling with Luciano to the event but he had to wait outside of the formal meeting. This example can be scaled down to anyone else we're discussing and is identical to DeRose's description of initiation banquets in Chicago.

[B.]

This subject isn't particularly controversial in most cities / regions. Talking to JCB and Paul Hodos last week, they identified powerful non-members in Pittsburgh who were operational leaders but neither of them were of the belief that these individuals held official positions.

Chicago is obviously the big one, but Canada is another. In both locations, when we do get new inside info it often changes our operation-based understanding of what has taken place there. It's not that researchers or for that matter investigators are inept, it's just that an operational view doesn't always translate to organizational details.

Pre-Otremens, popular theories suggested there was a Violi-Luppino Family, a Musitano Family, and that the Buffalo Family was defunct, with some speculating the Violi-Luppinos and Musitanos were 'ndranghetisti. What we learned in Otremens is that the Violi-Luppinos are proud members of the Buffalo Family (the project's supervisor later stating at least one Musitano was a Buffalo member too) and that not only does Buffalo still have a presence in Ontario but other Families are making members there as well with and without Buffalo's approval. We'd never know this without Morena's cooperation and it completely changes our operation-based view even though it doesn't mean the operational side is meaningless.

[Antiliar]

Accardo said that they made Lansky an avugad, which usually means a boss who represents other bosses such as Commission members. It's easy to interpret that literally without knowing the context, but we know from multiple high quality sources that only Cosa Nostra bosses - which assumes that they're made members of Italian descent - can be on the Commission. So Accardo used a word in a broader sense based on context. Lansky wasn't an avugad in the same sense that Ricca, Accardo and Giancana were. Context is everything.

[Angelo Santino]

In the 1980's in Cleveland an associate was placed with a member and they were to run a gambling venture. The soldier said that the associate is to be his underboss. Hes speaking figuratively, no one is suggesting that Cleveland changed its structure so that soldiers have underbosses.

Even "boss" is confusing because it can mean many things. An associate works for a member, that's his boss. Soldiers are under a capodecina, hes their boss. And so on up. People arent always clear and concise, especially in a secret society that's criminally involved. We shouldn't expect any less.

[thekiduknow]

[Associates are not allowed into an Organizational Family meeting.

Besides making guys, can you give me few examples regarding organizational family meeting?

Promotions would be one. When a new captain is promoted, he has to be introduced to inducted members of his crew, which would onl. Gravano talks about when John Gambino was promoted:

"We spoke to John Gambino first on the side. We promoted him to the position of capo decine..We told him that this was official from our representante, that he was now capo decine, and he was going to take over this decine that was left abandoned by Paul Castellano..We went inside a bigger room [and] excused everybody who wasn't a friend of ours. I believe John told some of the people, his brother and them, to be excused, they left."- Quote from LCNBios, full info here: https://lcnbios.blogspot.com/2018/11/ga ... 1980s.html

Since this related to the actual organization, a new captain meeting his crew, all non members had to leave the room so the introductions could take place. This would be the same for a new underboss, consigliere, or boss.

[B.]

Accardo said that they made Lansky an avugad, which usually means a boss who represents other bosses such as Commission members. It's easy to interpret that literally without knowing the context, but we know from multiple high quality sources that only Cosa Nostra bosses - which assumes that they're made members of Italian descent - can be on the Commission. So Accardo used a word in a broader sense based on context. Lansky wasn't an avugad in the same sense that Ricca, Accardo and Giancana were. Context is everything.

We also have Bompensiero and a NYC TE informant who said Lansky was a de facto part of the Commission on behalf of the Jewish element but technically not an official Commission member. Lansky was the most significant associate and operational figure in the country (and perhaps internationally) but all of the money and clout in the world still didn't equate to an official title or membership. It did however give him unparalleled influence within Cosa Nostra's sphere and beyond.