Organization & Operation revisited

[Angelo Santino]

Hmm, I'm trying to write C r a c k e r and its coming out like smacker? Ok...

[InCamelot]

At this point, I still feel that organizational vs operational remains a good way to understand the full picture of the US LCN, as per Tony's earlier post in this thread and B's in the 'Non-Italians' thread. Its the best way to describe a full picture of US LCN. Especially if Antillar's post that LCN did not start as a criminal organization is accurate. Not used to depict any conscious intentions of the US LCN.

Its possible that another part of the misunderstanding in this subject comes from the idea of timing.

One might presume that folks are saying they came up with an Organizational structure first. And then ten minutes later said "let's do an Operational one now. And we'll apply both because we're bored."

But they may be terms that come as a result of changes made as time went by.

After more thinking on the "whats the point of Organizational"....at one point in history perhaps the Organizational structure was very much the Operational structure as well. Maybe. Then things changed, people moved, came into contact with new historical circumstances and these things became two historical facets that can't be excluded when telling the story.

An accurate depiction of LCN might be folks trying to hang onto Organizational while trying to implement Operational to meet their needs of the time.

I didn't write that the Mafia didn't start as a criminal organization. I wrote that we don't know, that it's a chicken versus egg situation, but we do know that organization took priority. Also that the brotherhood aspect shouldn't be downplayed. They called it Fratellanza and Fratuzzi for a reason. Additionally, the American LCN came out of the Sicilian organization. Until 1931 they were basically the same except for relatively minor difference due to accommodations. For example, in Sicily they had provincial bosses while in America they had a capo di capi. But the other ranks previously existed in Sicily before they were brought to America. The same basic skeletal structure.

Right. Appreciate the correction.

[InCamelot]

Accardo also told Giancana on who were the bosses that the Chicago fam was able to relay on, which means there was some type of benefit. So Chicago possibly or probably had some benefit from mediating in Philly. Chicago's problem with Bonanno was both organizational and operational. Giancana wanted for Bonanno to be removed as boss or to be killed (organizational), and they also had problems with him in Arizona (operational).

This means that IF Bonanno was killed (organizational), the Chicago fam was going to push for a new boss who was going to be their ally (organizational) (benefit) and let them control all of Arizonas rackets (operational). I think similar thing happened with Philly.

Looks like org and op cant be separated again.

Hey was wondering in all your research did you come across any info verifying what Chicago's benefit in mediating w/ Philly was?

[Villain]

Accardo also told Giancana on who were the bosses that the Chicago fam was able to relay on, which means there was some type of benefit. So Chicago possibly or probably had some benefit from mediating in Philly. Chicago's problem with Bonanno was both organizational and operational. Giancana wanted for Bonanno to be removed as boss or to be killed (organizational), and they also had problems with him in Arizona (operational).

This means that IF Bonanno was killed (organizational), the Chicago fam was going to push for a new boss who was going to be their ally (organizational) (benefit) and let them control all of Arizonas rackets (operational). I think similar thing happened with Philly.

Looks like org and op cant be separated again.

Hey was wondering in all your research did you come across any info verifying what Chicago's benefit in mediating w/ Philly was?

Thanks and I agree.

I havent done any research on that subject but off the top of my head, i think Ive only seen wiretapped convos regarding Bruno talking positively about Giancana regarding something and that the Chicago boss worked with everyone. Also it seems Caponigro was close with Giancana too.


Btw, whats your opinion regarding a non-Italian leader Buster Wortman from St Louis being called on a meeting by Chicago capo, and the non-Italian leader says "we are family" and "im part of the family too"....?????? (during those days St Louis was under Chicago on the round table)



This was obviously organizational stuff.

[Wiseguy]

For the record, my viability argument has always rested on both because, while it may be "their organization," I look at it from the outside (I'm an outsider after all) - the way the FBI does, i.e. an ongoing pattern of racketeering (operational) in behalf of a criminal organization (organizational). Both are necessary, not just one or the other.

Your thesis is equally valid. Crime cannot be disconnected from the Mafia, let's say we discovered there was another former family in Montana, aside from genealogy we would also go through newspapers looking for any existing evidence of their criminal activity. This subject has room to be evaluated through different lens. Remember the first Predator, he's watching Arnold and Jesse in the forest and he keeps changing his lens to observe/look for different details? That's kinda what this is.

We've spoken before on Scranton, Cleveland and LA in their later years which appeared to be so anemic that they had bosses but nothing else. A one man crime family isn't very viable, we'll agree on that.

But let's look to LA specifically, Tommaso Gambino has been said to be the alleged boss. Aside from a purported LA member being killed in Buffalo territory I think it's safe to say that the Family isn't being "secretly rebuilt" or that Gambino has a fully formed Family "operating under the radar making money and not headlines." He might, but there's no evidence for it and for argument sake let's say he doesn't.

Organizationally- his being boss makes him a representative of his area, someone that New York or Sicily to go to as a contact.
Operationally- sells wine and has a contract with smacker Barrell to sell his Gambino water at 500 restaurants.

Viability/criminal activity? I don't think Gambino/LA can even remotely compare to other crime groups in the area- Bloods, Crips, Surenos, MS-13, Cartels, bikers, Russians, Armenians, Chinese, Viet etc etc. If a list of most criminally powerful were drawn up in the area, Gambino/LA would probably rank at the very bottom. But I don't think Gambino wants to be a "crime boss" and I don't think he looks at his anemic setup and wishes/wants it to reflect the New York Families with 2-300 members. Maybe if he and Mancuso were swapped and it was Mikey Nose in LA he may be more aggressive. We'll never know.

Gambino appears to lead a very luxurious life, so what desire would he have to "rebuild" the family? He's got a deal with 500 CB nationwide, why would he want to start making local Italians with the intention to "take over" LA a la GTA: Vice City style? For one, it would be impossible but second, the mob doesn't work like that. Being boss involves more than sitting on a throne and having underlings bring you money, a boss is supposed to be the members' representative which means when a member of his family does something wrong or requires mediation, the boss' job is to ultimately act as his attorney, especially if its with a dispute over another family member. That said, it's why I don't think Gambino has neither the desire or inclination to make 30 guys and divide them into three decina so he can say- LA is back, baby!

This is looking at it from an organizational perspective but when it comes to viability/activity, there's no evidence that Gambino is leaving bodies in the street and trying to secure local rackets by force. Outsiders would label that a joke.

But an interesting parallel to the LA Milano years would be New Orleans of the 1960's. LA is mocked by outsiders because members of other families operated there, his own family was quite anemic by that point and had very little going on. Milano was a millionaire through his coffee shops I believe it was. Rewind back to New Orleans in 60's, very similar circumstances- members of other families operated in his area, the family was depleted and his wealth rested on his gambling operations nationally, not from envelopes from underlings. In fact, outside of the larger families, in places like Nola or Tampa or SJ, it was seen as the boss' job to help their members out, either by loans or going into business with them right down to finding them a damned dentist. They are criminals, they engage in illegal operations, but the organization behind it all is set up to really govern its members.

Despite all that, viability as a measuring tool to weigh just where they fit on the criminal scale with other ethnic groups has merit and is an important part in understanding these groups, at least through a certain lens.

Like I said before and in PM's, you're one of us. if you don't want to do an episode we'd still like you to join one of our private calls. No steamrolling, just friends and peers in this subject. Disagree all we may, we're all brothers in this. C'mon let's do a "tie in."

I digress but I personally think way more has been made out of Tommy Gambino than what it is. There's nothing to be boss of. He's not some official representative, unless he's giving vacationing mafiosi in the area advice on where to go for dinner.

What I do find very believable is that, even though he's a formally inducted member of what was once the Los Angeles LCN family, he's now effectively an an affiliate of the Gambino family. Sort of a one-man version of what the remnants of the Trafficantes were to the Gambinos in the 1990s. But even then, its largely because of his familial blood connections that is even the case. Otherwise, he'd likely be similar to Mike Esposito or Louie Caruso - made but effectively a non-entity in today's LCN.

[InCamelot]

For the record, my viability argument has always rested on both because, while it may be "their organization," I look at it from the outside (I'm an outsider after all) - the way the FBI does, i.e. an ongoing pattern of racketeering (operational) in behalf of a criminal organization (organizational). Both are necessary, not just one or the other.

Your thesis is equally valid. Crime cannot be disconnected from the Mafia, let's say we discovered there was another former family in Montana, aside from genealogy we would also go through newspapers looking for any existing evidence of their criminal activity. This subject has room to be evaluated through different lens. Remember the first Predator, he's watching Arnold and Jesse in the forest and he keeps changing his lens to observe/look for different details? That's kinda what this is.

We've spoken before on Scranton, Cleveland and LA in their later years which appeared to be so anemic that they had bosses but nothing else. A one man crime family isn't very viable, we'll agree on that.

But let's look to LA specifically, Tommaso Gambino has been said to be the alleged boss. Aside from a purported LA member being killed in Buffalo territory I think it's safe to say that the Family isn't being "secretly rebuilt" or that Gambino has a fully formed Family "operating under the radar making money and not headlines." He might, but there's no evidence for it and for argument sake let's say he doesn't.

Organizationally- his being boss makes him a representative of his area, someone that New York or Sicily to go to as a contact.
Operationally- sells wine and has a contract with smacker Barrell to sell his Gambino water at 500 restaurants.

Viability/criminal activity? I don't think Gambino/LA can even remotely compare to other crime groups in the area- Bloods, Crips, Surenos, MS-13, Cartels, bikers, Russians, Armenians, Chinese, Viet etc etc. If a list of most criminally powerful were drawn up in the area, Gambino/LA would probably rank at the very bottom. But I don't think Gambino wants to be a "crime boss" and I don't think he looks at his anemic setup and wishes/wants it to reflect the New York Families with 2-300 members. Maybe if he and Mancuso were swapped and it was Mikey Nose in LA he may be more aggressive. We'll never know.

Gambino appears to lead a very luxurious life, so what desire would he have to "rebuild" the family? He's got a deal with 500 CB nationwide, why would he want to start making local Italians with the intention to "take over" LA a la GTA: Vice City style? For one, it would be impossible but second, the mob doesn't work like that. Being boss involves more than sitting on a throne and having underlings bring you money, a boss is supposed to be the members' representative which means when a member of his family does something wrong or requires mediation, the boss' job is to ultimately act as his attorney, especially if its with a dispute over another family member. That said, it's why I don't think Gambino has neither the desire or inclination to make 30 guys and divide them into three decina so he can say- LA is back, baby!

This is looking at it from an organizational perspective but when it comes to viability/activity, there's no evidence that Gambino is leaving bodies in the street and trying to secure local rackets by force. Outsiders would label that a joke.

But an interesting parallel to the LA Milano years would be New Orleans of the 1960's. LA is mocked by outsiders because members of other families operated there, his own family was quite anemic by that point and had very little going on. Milano was a millionaire through his coffee shops I believe it was. Rewind back to New Orleans in 60's, very similar circumstances- members of other families operated in his area, the family was depleted and his wealth rested on his gambling operations nationally, not from envelopes from underlings. In fact, outside of the larger families, in places like Nola or Tampa or SJ, it was seen as the boss' job to help their members out, either by loans or going into business with them right down to finding them a damned dentist. They are criminals, they engage in illegal operations, but the organization behind it all is set up to really govern its members.

Despite all that, viability as a measuring tool to weigh just where they fit on the criminal scale with other ethnic groups has merit and is an important part in understanding these groups, at least through a certain lens.

Like I said before and in PM's, you're one of us. if you don't want to do an episode we'd still like you to join one of our private calls. No steamrolling, just friends and peers in this subject. Disagree all we may, we're all brothers in this. C'mon let's do a "tie in."

I digress but I personally think way more has been made out of Tommy Gambino than what it is. There's nothing to be boss of. He's not some official representative, unless he's giving vacationing mafiosi in the area advice on where to go for dinner.

What I do find very believable is that, even though he's a formally inducted member of what was once the Los Angeles LCN family, he's now effectively an an affiliate of the Gambino family. Sort of a one-man version of what the remnants of the Trafficantes were to the Gambinos in the 1990s. But even then, its largely because of his familial blood connections that is even the case. Otherwise, he'd likely be similar to Mike Esposito or Louie Caruso - made but effectively a non-entity in today's LCN.

A non-entity of today's LCN as a criminal enterprise, yes, but even if all there was left for a representative to do was to recommend dinner spots--doesn't that still mean organizationally that's just what the secret society is doing in LA these days?

It doesn't mean there's no organization from the Org & Op lens?

Organization meaning a connection between inducted members that have formal process of being connected to each other that they try to keep secret? If that's all organization means then it doesn't matter if he's recommending heroin or where to buy potato chips. Technically speaking.

And from a historian's point of view isn't it a bit strange to ignore that technicality? Just as strange as the opposite, which is to imply there's a great criminal enterprise when there isn't?

[B.]

i m so confused.

what the fuck are you guys arguing about?

Can't you at least use pedestrian writing styles==this is like reading a fucking text book.

What do yyou guys do for a living (generally) -- normally I wouldn't ask but you guys are on the youtube, showing faces, no?

I'm in the furniture and liquidation business. Organizationally I'm admin but operationally I do many things beyond my job description. Is that reponse pedestrian enough?

This is a massive myth that really needs to be debunked too... It really was all Chin, and he did it for political purposes... a quorum of the families had active Sicilian operatives with huge drug ops.... How can it be Commisioned banned, if 3 of the families are involved? Throw in Mannino and the Gambinos in Philly, and the Busico stuff with Buffalo, I would say a majority of the families on the East Coast were in the thick of it.

Also, when exactly did it get recinded to allow Gugliotti to move all the Queens cocaine? Or did they allow it because the weight all went to Europe?

The Commission banned drug trafficking in the 1940s or 50s. Yes, there was hypocrisy and breaking of the rule but they still issued that rule and there was pressure in some cases to ban / limit narcotics. Gigante had nothing to do with it and wasn't close to being a boss when it happened nor is there any evidence the decision was anti-Sicilian in nature.

Accardo also told Giancana on who were the bosses that the Chicago fam was able to relay on, which means there was some type of benefit. So Chicago possibly or probably had some benefit from mediating in Philly. Chicago's problem with Bonanno was both organizational and operational. Giancana wanted for Bonanno to be removed as boss or to be killed (organizational), and they also had problems with him in Arizona (operational).

This means that IF Bonanno was killed (organizational), the Chicago fam was going to push for a new boss who was going to be their ally (organizational) (benefit) and let them control all of Arizonas rackets (operational). I think similar thing happened with Philly.

Looks like org and op cant be separated again.

Hey was wondering in all your research did you come across any info verifying what Chicago's benefit in mediating w/ Philly was?

There was no direct material benefit to Chicago being part of the Commission meetings that helped resolve the dispute between Domenico Pollina and Angelo Bruno. It was required of them as national representatives of Cosa Nostra. It was an organizational dispute and an organizational meeting designed to prevent murder, warfare, and stabilize the Philadelphia Family.

The Bonanno War was not about Arizona rackets even if there was tension between Joe Bonanno and Chicago about Arizona.

Buster Wortman was an associate of the Chicago admin and also very close to the St. Louis admin. He was "part of the Family" and "on record" but not a member.

[Villain]

And btw no one said the Bonanno war was about Arizona

[Guest]

i m so confused.

what the fuck are you guys arguing about?

Can't you at least use pedestrian writing styles==this is like reading a fucking text book.

What do yyou guys do for a living (generally) -- normally I wouldn't ask but you guys are on the youtube, showing faces, no?

I'm in the furniture and liquidation business. Organizationally I'm admin but operationally I do many things beyond my job description. Is that reponse pedestrian enough?

This is a massive myth that really needs to be debunked too... It really was all Chin, and he did it for political purposes... a quorum of the families had active Sicilian operatives with huge drug ops.... How can it be Commisioned banned, if 3 of the families are involved? Throw in Mannino and the Gambinos in Philly, and the Busico stuff with Buffalo, I would say a majority of the families on the East Coast were in the thick of it.

Also, when exactly did it get recinded to allow Gugliotti to move all the Queens cocaine? Or did they allow it because the weight all went to Europe?

The Commission banned drug trafficking in the 1940s or 50s. Yes, there was hypocrisy and breaking of the rule but they still issued that rule and there was pressure in some cases to ban / limit narcotics. Gigante had nothing to do with it and wasn't close to being a boss when it happened nor is there any evidence the decision was anti-Sicilian in nature.

Accardo also told Giancana on who were the bosses that the Chicago fam was able to relay on, which means there was some type of benefit. So Chicago possibly or probably had some benefit from mediating in Philly. Chicago's problem with Bonanno was both organizational and operational. Giancana wanted for Bonanno to be removed as boss or to be killed (organizational), and they also had problems with him in Arizona (operational).

This means that IF Bonanno was killed (organizational), the Chicago fam was going to push for a new boss who was going to be their ally (organizational) (benefit) and let them control all of Arizonas rackets (operational). I think similar thing happened with Philly.

Looks like org and op cant be separated again.

Hey was wondering in all your research did you come across any info verifying what Chicago's benefit in mediating w/ Philly was?

There was no direct material benefit to Chicago being part of the Commission meetings that helped resolve the dispute between Domenico Pollina and Angelo Bruno. It was required of them as national representatives of Cosa Nostra. It was an organizational dispute and an organizational meeting designed to prevent murder, warfare, and stabilize the Philadelphia Family.

The Bonanno War was not about Arizona rackets even if there was tension between Joe Bonanno and Chicago about Arizona.

Buster Wortman was an associate of the Chicago admin and also very close to the St. Louis admin. He was "part of the Family" and "on record" but not a member.

Just an an addendum, the comment about Wortman here was from longtime Chicago associate Teddy DeRose, who while not a member was the first source that we have access to who gave detailed and explicit info about the Chicago Family (and he explicitly stated that organization was known to him as “the Family” or “the Life”) from an organizational perspective. DeRose was specific that Wortman was not a member of the Family and could not be, as members (and DeRose also used the term “made”, so it is clear that he understood “membership” in the Family as consisting of formally inducted members of the mafia) could only be Italians; he put Wortman in the same class as guys like Alex and Humphreys, who DeRose also was careful to state were not members but were “used” by the Family because of their expertise in specific areas or activities. Like Alex and Humphreys, DeRose stated that Wortman reported directly to the Family’s ruling Council in an “advisory capacity”, as he was not actually a member of the Family or Council, and was recognized as having control over rackets in the East St Louis area.

[PolackTony]

i m so confused.

what the fuck are you guys arguing about?

Can't you at least use pedestrian writing styles==this is like reading a fucking text book.

What do yyou guys do for a living (generally) -- normally I wouldn't ask but you guys are on the youtube, showing faces, no?

I'm in the furniture and liquidation business. Organizationally I'm admin but operationally I do many things beyond my job description. Is that reponse pedestrian enough?

This is a massive myth that really needs to be debunked too... It really was all Chin, and he did it for political purposes... a quorum of the families had active Sicilian operatives with huge drug ops.... How can it be Commisioned banned, if 3 of the families are involved? Throw in Mannino and the Gambinos in Philly, and the Busico stuff with Buffalo, I would say a majority of the families on the East Coast were in the thick of it.

Also, when exactly did it get recinded to allow Gugliotti to move all the Queens cocaine? Or did they allow it because the weight all went to Europe?

The Commission banned drug trafficking in the 1940s or 50s. Yes, there was hypocrisy and breaking of the rule but they still issued that rule and there was pressure in some cases to ban / limit narcotics. Gigante had nothing to do with it and wasn't close to being a boss when it happened nor is there any evidence the decision was anti-Sicilian in nature.

Accardo also told Giancana on who were the bosses that the Chicago fam was able to relay on, which means there was some type of benefit. So Chicago possibly or probably had some benefit from mediating in Philly. Chicago's problem with Bonanno was both organizational and operational. Giancana wanted for Bonanno to be removed as boss or to be killed (organizational), and they also had problems with him in Arizona (operational).

This means that IF Bonanno was killed (organizational), the Chicago fam was going to push for a new boss who was going to be their ally (organizational) (benefit) and let them control all of Arizonas rackets (operational). I think similar thing happened with Philly.

Looks like org and op cant be separated again.

Hey was wondering in all your research did you come across any info verifying what Chicago's benefit in mediating w/ Philly was?

There was no direct material benefit to Chicago being part of the Commission meetings that helped resolve the dispute between Domenico Pollina and Angelo Bruno. It was required of them as national representatives of Cosa Nostra. It was an organizational dispute and an organizational meeting designed to prevent murder, warfare, and stabilize the Philadelphia Family.

The Bonanno War was not about Arizona rackets even if there was tension between Joe Bonanno and Chicago about Arizona.

Buster Wortman was an associate of the Chicago admin and also very close to the St. Louis admin. He was "part of the Family" and "on record" but not a member.

Just an an addendum, the comment about Wortman here was from longtime Chicago associate Teddy DeRose, who while not a member was the first source that we have access to who gave detailed and explicit info about the Chicago Family (and he explicitly stated that organization was known to him as “the Family” or “the Life”) from an organizational perspective. DeRose was specific that Wortman was not a member of the Family and could not be, as members (and DeRose also used the term “made”, so it is clear that he understood “membership” in the Family as consisting of formally inducted members of the mafia) could only be Italians; he put Wortman in the same class as guys like Alex and Humphreys, who DeRose also was careful to state were not members but were “used” by the Family because of their expertise in specific areas or activities. Like Alex and Humphreys, DeRose stated that Wortman reported directly to the Family’s ruling Council in an “advisory capacity”, as he was not actually a member of the Family or Council, and was recognized as having control over rackets in the East St Louis area.

JFC, the forum has been logging me out in the middle of writing a post, so when the post is submitted it shows as “Guest” and then I can’t delete and repost. This has happened several times to me recently but never happened in the past, not sure if something changed with the servers or something.

[B.]

Wortman and his associates were used as liaisons between Chicago and St. Louis, plus the St. Louis leadership served as pall bearers at his funeral. He was the operational boss of East St. Louis but not a member in any capacity even though he was highly trusted and respected by official leaders in multiple Families. St. Louis was ultra Sicilian but acknowledged the influence of non-Italians like many Families did. This included powerful Syrian gangsters in St. Louis, which brings to mind the Family's "sister" relationship to Detroit who also had significant Syrians in their midst. I've spoken to both Scott Burnstein and Jimmy Buccellato about Detroit's relationship to non-Italians and even though Detroit had the mentality of a Sicilian cosca they were very open to non-Italians who proved trustworthy and beneficial to the Family.

[B.]

There was no real operational purpose to closing the books. CIs said proposed members were still to be treated with the respect of a member and these associates ran major businesses and rackets. When they opened the books in 76 it allowed them to have more authority and claim associates but there wasn't an explosion of new members taking over rackets. The mafia didn't become weaker operationally between 1957-1976 and it didn't become stronger after 1976. There were no racket wars because new members got made in the 1970s and 80s. Problems came about due to organizational power struggles which informed operations but weren't based on them. Closing the books was designed to maintain the formal organization's status quo.

Most high-level murders are organizational in nature as well. Very rarely do we hear from member sources that a high-ranking member was killed over rackets or business. Sometimes they are but it isn't anywhere near as common as the public thinks.

[Wiseguy]

A non-entity of today's LCN as a criminal enterprise, yes, but even if all there was left for a representative to do was to recommend dinner spots--doesn't that still mean organizationally that's just what the secret society is doing in LA these days?

It doesn't mean there's no organization from the Org & Op lens?

Organization meaning a connection between inducted members that have formal process of being connected to each other that they try to keep secret? If that's all organization means then it doesn't matter if he's recommending heroin or where to buy potato chips. Technically speaking.

And from a historian's point of view isn't it a bit strange to ignore that technicality? Just as strange as the opposite, which is to imply there's a great criminal enterprise when there isn't?

I understand that, according to that theory, all it takes for an organization to still exist is those in question 1) being alive, and 2) them holding a rank.

But if we're talking about 4 remaining members - Tommy Gambino and Michael Esposito in California, Louie Caruso in Arizona, and Russell Masetta in Ohio - most or all of whom are not active on any level and who probably have no interaction with each other, can "the organization" still be said to exist?

I'd argue that while a handful of individual members of the Los Angeles LCN still exist, the organization itself is long gone.

[Antiliar]

A non-entity of today's LCN as a criminal enterprise, yes, but even if all there was left for a representative to do was to recommend dinner spots--doesn't that still mean organizationally that's just what the secret society is doing in LA these days?

It doesn't mean there's no organization from the Org & Op lens?

Organization meaning a connection between inducted members that have formal process of being connected to each other that they try to keep secret? If that's all organization means then it doesn't matter if he's recommending heroin or where to buy potato chips. Technically speaking.

And from a historian's point of view isn't it a bit strange to ignore that technicality? Just as strange as the opposite, which is to imply there's a great criminal enterprise when there isn't?

I understand that, according to that theory, all it takes for an organization to still exist is those in question 1) being alive, and 2) them holding a rank.

But if we're talking about 4 remaining members - Tommy Gambino and Michael Esposito in California, Louie Caruso in Arizona, and Russell Masetta in Ohio - most or all of whom are not active on any level and who probably have no interaction with each other, can "the organization" still be said to exist?

I'd argue that while a handful of individual members of the Los Angeles LCN still exist, the organization itself is long gone.

Then you would have a really bad argument. The Cosa Nostra doesn't exist to appease the viewpoints of outside observers. It has its own rules, policies and traditions whether or not you agree with them. Michael made it clear that a borgata exists until the last member is gone. There shouldn't be an issue here.

[Wiseguy]

Then you would have a really bad argument. The Cosa Nostra doesn't exist to appease the viewpoints of outside observers. It has its own rules, policies and traditions whether or not you agree with them. Michael made it clear that a borgata exists until the last member is gone. There shouldn't be an issue here.

Again, I don't subscribe to the "it's their organization" theory. I look at it as an outsider, with a practical point of view. The Mafia can recognize a 100 year old, last surviving member who has an incontinence problem as "a family" or "a borgata" but that's not really reflective of reality from where I'm standing.