Organization & Operation revisited

[gohnjotti]

I see the same thing playing out in the Colombo family over recent years. While Andrew Russo was the official boss of the family, it's clear that Teddy Persico was the real power behind the scenes. The government gathered intelligence from recorded conversations of captains stating that Persico had 'final say' over issues and could overrule Benji Castellazzo, the official underboss. It would be accurate to refer to Persico therefore as the real de-facto boss of the family, but this was not his official rank. In organisational terms, he was a captain without a crew. That's how I look at it. If Persico was to be introduced to another member during that time, he'd be introduced as a captain, not as the boss of the family. That's organisational to me. Now, the third party may pull the other member aside and say, 'Look, Teddy's our guy', but that's operational. That's not to say the operational isn't important, it's hugely important. You can't get an accurate picture of the family during that period without looking at Persico's clout, but it's a different mode of authority.

That's why I say the organisational/ operational thing is the farthest thing from a guess. It's a useful term used for us to apply to a very real distinction we observe within cosa nostra.

To further complicate the situation, Teddy Persico Jr. also indicated in a tape-recording that he had a list of people he wanted to murder, but would need to get approval from Michael Persico. Furthermore, it was Michael Persico who was frequently deferred to on matters like territorial disputes and upcoming inductions, likely due to his direct connection with his incarcerated brother Allie, who still directed family affairs through 2009.

In one tape-recording with trucking exec Steven Marcus, Colombo associate James Bombino described Persico as the boss of the family.

[B.]

We've discussed it before but it's still strange to me Scarpa told the FBI on two separate occasions that Michael Persico was made and he's clearly operated as a de facto Family leader involved not only in business but crime, murder, and administration. Everyone except Scarpa said he wasn't made so it had to be a deliberate decision to keep him an associate yet they're using him in the capacity of a high-ranking member. Both of his marriages were to the daughters of made members too.

Also, why was Scarpa so convinced he was made? He told the FBI that then was asked to confirm it again in a second interview which he did. His member identifications are generally great.

[gohnjotti]

We've discussed it before but it's still strange to me Scarpa told the FBI on two separate occasions that Michael Persico was made and he's clearly operated as a de facto Family leader involved not only in business but crime, murder, and administration. Everyone except Scarpa said he wasn't made so it had to be a deliberate decision to keep him an associate yet they're using him in the capacity of a high-ranking member. Both of his marriages were to the daughters of made members too.

Also, why was Scarpa so convinced he was made? He told the FBI that then was asked to confirm it again in a second interview which he did. His member identifications are generally great.

I wonder if he was introduced to people in as a friend of ours/amigo nostro? The Colombos have typically been quite formal on those sorts of introductions, judging from the court testimony of recent cooperating witnesses.

Given the amount of high-level sit-downs Michael Persico has attended, it would be weird if Michael was excluded from the traditional introductions that usually happen between made members.

[B.]

The Joker Poker business is an example of the Bonannos asking for tribute despite the accounts of members and associates not being required to kick up. Chin posted Cicale's testimony where he says they had to kick up from Joker Poker and another source said Vito Grimaldi paid heavy tribute from his Joker Poker machines. Joker Poker tribute in the Bonannos was supposed to go to the war chest, so that's how they justified it.

Apparently they didn't have a war chest at the time Massino took over as he decided the Family had to pay a small, regular sum into the chest and Vinny Asaro protested as he didn't feel anyone should have to pay to be a mafia member. Don't know if that means there was no war chest between 1977 and 1991 when Asaro was a member pre-Massino or if Massino brought it back. To be fair Asaro's trial showed he didn't think he should pay for anything, gas and beer included.

[CabriniGreen]

We've discussed it before but it's still strange to me Scarpa told the FBI on two separate occasions that Michael Persico was made and he's clearly operated as a de facto Family leader involved not only in business but crime, murder, and administration. Everyone except Scarpa said he wasn't made so it had to be a deliberate decision to keep him an associate yet they're using him in the capacity of a high-ranking member. Both of his marriages were to the daughters of made members too.

Also, why was Scarpa so convinced he was made? He told the FBI that then was asked to confirm it again in a second interview which he did. His member identifications are generally great.

This isn't an organizational strategy?

[B.]

I wasn't framing that post as organizational or operational just responding to what Gohn said about Michael Persico.

Michael Persico has a lot of organizational influence whether he's made or not and he's a de facto leader. We have a high-level source who said he was made and others who say otherwise. If it's true he was never made then he's no different from other associates who get discussed that were non-members but unofficially "like" members or leaders. Gohn said he had this role through his brother so Michael would be a good example of an associate whose status is authorized by the leadership, in this case his blood relatives who officially run the Family but it could apply to non-relatives too. Powerful associates / de facto leaders don't just claim that position without being backed by someone with official power no matter the nature of their relationship. Look at Hugh McIntosh.

I don't think any of the researchers in this thread would disagree that non-members / operational leaders can and do influence the organization itself even if they're not made. Maishe Rockman influenced the election of a new Cleveland boss and Joe Watts advised John Gotti to induct Michael DiLeonardo. In the Chicago examples, everyone agrees Gus Alex and Murray Humphreys influenced the organization but it doesn't mean they are formal members even though they were formally part of the Chicago Family's sphere of influence. Easy to overlook that associate is a formal status itself, as an associate is on record with a specific member and "part" of the organization they're just not an initiated member.

As far as strategy goes, I don't know what the strategy would be for not making Michael Persico. Keep him off FBI membership lists? Doesn't really matter as he is still a major RICO target named Persico who helped direct a mafia Family. If Scarpa was right and Persico was made, I guess the strategy was to keep it a secret limited to a small circle of people and Scarpa happened to hear about it but others didn't.

[B.]

Raynald Desjardins is a good example of a non-member who acted as an operational leader. His bro-in-law was a Bonanno member and he worked with Bonanno figures like Vito Rizzuto and Sal Montagna. He is or was a leader within that sphere of influence and despite what Fernandez said about Rizzuto making them, Desjardins said in one of his text messages that he couldn't become "godfather" (probably capodecina) because he was non-Italian. The media who named him as a candidate was viewing things through an operational lens in seeing him the same way as made members but Desjardins was aware of the fact that he was limited on an organizational level. He was still powerful and a Bonanno leader sought an alliance with him because of the value he brought but it should be framed properly if we want to understand these dynamics and document the story accurately.

If Fernandez was telling the truth and Vito Rizzuto initiated him and Desjardins, then Desjardins should have been a candidate for capodecina. There is no probationary period before a member can be promoted. John Pennisi could have been boss of the Lucchese Family the day after he was made if the circumstance presented itself. If Rizzuto made non-Italians, it had to have been a bastard organization that wasn't an official Cosa Nostra organization otherwise Desjardins wouldn't have ruled himself out as an official leader. More likely in my opinion is Fernandez lied, exaggerated, or misunderstood the arrangement (i.e. Rizzuto put them "on record" and he thought it had another meaning).

[Villain]

I don't think any of the researchers in this thread would disagree that non-members / operational leaders can and do influence the organization itself even if they're not made. Maishe Rockman influenced the election of a new Cleveland boss and Joe Watts advised John Gotti to induct Michael DiLeonardo. In the Chicago examples, everyone agrees Gus Alex and Murray Humphreys influenced the organization but it doesn't mean they are formal members even though they were formally part of the Chicago Family's sphere of influence. Easy to overlook that associate is a formal status itself, as an associate is on record with a specific member and "part" of the organization they're just not an initiated member.

B, do we know know how many times Rockman ATTENDED (not influencing) meetings regarding the election of a new boss? And at least how many times he allegedly "influenced" other high level members? Once, twice, etc.?

Im asking this because we have more than two or three evidences/situations in Chicago in which a non-Italian leader attended these types of high level meetings, meaning choosing a new CN boss.

[B.]

Something else to remember -- the FBI is concerned first and foremost with operations. They document the organization closely but their interest is in criminal operations because they can't prosecute someone for being a mafia member or even boss without evidence of criminal activity. The Secret Service was completely focused on counterfeiting operations and organizational info in the early days was only a side note.

Wiseguy's "viability" argument is an operational POV. He dismisses organizational intelligence because his idea of a mafia Family is tied entirely to their known operations. I understand this argument up to a point but he has a tendency to flat out reject or minimize intelligence about the org if he feels the group is limited operationally. This is particularly strange with Buffalo as evidence surfaced showing that the Family is alive and engaged in organized crime activity. The evidence we have is focused on Ontario but it doesn't matter where someone lives, a member still represents his Family whether he's in Canada, Florida, or Montana. They're part of Joe Todaro's Family and the Otremens investigation showed the members there are heavily focused on organizational details and protocol not only within their own Family but with regard to others too.

[B.]

I don't think any of the researchers in this thread would disagree that non-members / operational leaders can and do influence the organization itself even if they're not made. Maishe Rockman influenced the election of a new Cleveland boss and Joe Watts advised John Gotti to induct Michael DiLeonardo. In the Chicago examples, everyone agrees Gus Alex and Murray Humphreys influenced the organization but it doesn't mean they are formal members even though they were formally part of the Chicago Family's sphere of influence. Easy to overlook that associate is a formal status itself, as an associate is on record with a specific member and "part" of the organization they're just not an initiated member.

B, do we know know how many times Rockman ATTENDED (not influencing) meetings regarding the election of a new boss? And at least how many times he allegedly "influenced" other high level members? Once, twice, etc.?

Im asking this because we have more than two or three evidences/situations in Chicago in which a non-Italian leader attended these types of high level meetings, meaning choosing a new CN boss.

We already established that there's no hard evidence Humphreys attended a formal meeting of the Chicago Family in which members elected Sam Giancana. We have an anecdote from a non-Italian associate who said Humphreys was involved in the decision, nothing about an actual meeting he attended in which he participated the same way fully-initiated Chicago members did.

[Villain]

I don't think any of the researchers in this thread would disagree that non-members / operational leaders can and do influence the organization itself even if they're not made. Maishe Rockman influenced the election of a new Cleveland boss and Joe Watts advised John Gotti to induct Michael DiLeonardo. In the Chicago examples, everyone agrees Gus Alex and Murray Humphreys influenced the organization but it doesn't mean they are formal members even though they were formally part of the Chicago Family's sphere of influence. Easy to overlook that associate is a formal status itself, as an associate is on record with a specific member and "part" of the organization they're just not an initiated member.

B, do we know know how many times Rockman ATTENDED (not influencing) meetings regarding the election of a new boss? And at least how many times he allegedly "influenced" other high level members? Once, twice, etc.?

Im asking this because we have more than two or three evidences/situations in Chicago in which a non-Italian leader attended these types of high level meetings, meaning choosing a new CN boss.

We already established that there's no hard evidence Humphreys attended a formal meeting of the Chicago Family in which members elected Sam Giancana. We have an anecdote from a non-Italian associate who said Humphreys was involved in the decision, nothing about an actual meeting he attended in which he participated the same way fully-initiated Chicago members did.

You didnt answer my questions. And I dont know what it was "established", meaning i dont agree.

We have the same situation when Battaglia was being elected as boss, meaning Accardo and Ricca needed support from the Humphreys group regarding Cerone. This means Humphreys had the right to vote, not giving advice.

Later we also have evidences regarding Alex and Aiuppa being involved in the structural formation of the Outfit.

Thats organizational.

[B.]

Yeah, associates can and do influence the organization. The people you're referring to were powerful associates.

Villain, your biases and hostile attitude greatly hold back your value as a researcher. You do a lot of hard work learning about Chicago and it often results in animosity toward anyone who disagree with your theories. It's one thing to hold strong on your arguments but you called my friends retarded when they're two of the most generous researchers this subject has right now. Everyone on here has massively benefited from Angelo and Tony's work.

Until you apologize to them I'm not interested in discussing anything.

[Villain]

Yeah, associates can and do influence the organization. The people you're referring to were powerful associates.

Villain, your biases and hostile attitude greatly hold back your value as a researcher. You do a lot of hard work learning about Chicago and it often results in animosity toward anyone who disagree with your theories. It's one thing to hold strong on your arguments but you called my friends retarded when they're two of the most generous researchers this subject has right now. Everyone on here has massively benefited from Angelo and Tony's work.

Until you apologize to them I'm not interested in discussing anything.

The same thing goes with all of you. Whenever someone presents good evidences against your claim, you guys start acting funny. As you can see other posters have the same thinking as I do. Just swallow it.

Oh sorry. I called only one of your "lovers" like that. Is that the same guy who threatened me with banning me from the forum because I showed evidences against his fictional claim?

I respect Anti and you, but you obviously have a problem with self esteem.

Believe me bro, ill destroy your "Lets make Chicago completely Sicilian again" campaign because it doesnt hold water. Just watch me....

[Angelo Santino]

Never once did I ever threaten you or anyone else with a ban over a disagreement. Now you're just being libelous.

[Villain]

No worries, falls under operational. I'm a mod (capo) and I have the power to go to the boss and argue that so and so should be banned (organizational) but wanting to ban someone over a disagreement (operational) would not be acceptable.

^^^^^

You're a Sicilian and I know how to read between the lines regarding manipulation and stuff. Ive seen what happened to other posters in the past because of you. Thats why some people are "scared" from your manipulation and contact me only via pms.