Organization & Operation revisited

[CabriniGreen]

And what the hell was the French Connection then?

[CabriniGreen]

When was Ormento... all these guys active? Pleaseant Ave, like all that?

[B.]

It must have been in the 1950s because Magaddino told Sam Pieri it went into effect while Pieri was away in prison. Many other member sources have provided the same and similar info and specifically said it was issued by the Commission.

You seem to not understand that despite the ruling there were still many members and even leaders willing to break the rule and engage in large-scale drug trafficking, which explains your examples. Just because people continued to do it has nothing to do with the rule's existence. Many members/leaders followed the rule, too, so it's not as if the mafia issued the rule and every single member was a drug trafficker, it's just that it was commonly broken and enforcement was inconsistent.

[CabriniGreen]

Like bro, I remember the Double affiliation thread. Wiseguy posted a huge list of American mafia drug guys, and I criticized it because it was Americans from the 50s and 60s. Guys like Squillante.....

Where was the Sicilian heroin in the 50s going?

[CabriniGreen]

It must have been in the 1950s because Magaddino told Sam Pieri it went into effect while Pieri was away in prison. Many other member sources have provided the same and similar info and specifically said it was issued by the Commission.

You seem to not understand that despite the ruling there were still many members and even leaders willing to break the rule and engage in large-scale drug trafficking, which explains your examples. Just because people continued to do it has nothing to do with the rule's existence. Many members/leaders followed the rule, too, so it's not as if the mafia issued the rule and every single member was a drug trafficker, it's just that it was commonly broken and enforcement was inconsistent.

Bro... I've never heard this in my life. All the 5 families were reported to have a French Connection contact, a direct line from the Corsicans. So what WAS the French Conbection then?

[CabriniGreen]

It must have been in the 1950s because Magaddino told Sam Pieri it went into effect while Pieri was away in prison. Many other member sources have provided the same and similar info and specifically said it was issued by the Commission.

You seem to not understand that despite the ruling there were still many members and even leaders willing to break the rule and engage in large-scale drug trafficking, which explains your examples. Just because people continued to do it has nothing to do with the rule's existence. Many members/leaders followed the rule, too, so it's not as if the mafia issued the rule and every single member was a drug trafficker, it's just that it was commonly broken and enforcement was inconsistent.

Lol, i DO understand this... as MANY WILL ATTEST as my post sometimes irritate them with the drug- centric nature of them. This is precisely why I said it's a myth that should be debunked. There was LARGE SCALE DRUG TRAFFICKING.... all over the place lol... I don't why this is even a dispute...

Galante and Gigante took the drug pinch with Genovese on the Cantellops thing..no? That was early 60s.


Like bro... maybe thats just Buffalo...

[CabriniGreen]

Somebody please enlighten me... didn't Detroit supply the Luchesse? In the 50s? I gotta bow out of this one until I get a clarification, lol

[B.]

It's already been clarified in my last few posts.

I'm not arguing in any way that large-scale organized drug trafficking by mafia members and leaders didn't exist after the ruling. It did, and in doing so it broke a rule that had been issued by the Commission. The rule obviously didn't prevent Cosa Nostra from engaging in narcotics but it existed back then and you don't seem to believe it.

The reason I brought it up was to show an example of the Commission issuing an operational edict in contrast with their usual function of handling organizational matters. They issued the ruling, that's my point, nothing about whether or not the rule was followed.

[B.]

I give in on all three fronts:

- The Commission never issued a rule prohibiting drug trafficking, instead they issued a rule requiring that all members participate in the French Connection.

- Gux Alex wasn't just made, he was an underboss, consigliere, and capodecina of the Chicago outfit and Giancana, Ricca, and Accardo were "with" him, not the other way around.

- Recordings of the Buffalo underboss talking to a Bonanno member should be treated the same way we treat John Alite's YouTube channel because the Buffalo Family is defunct.

[Wiseguy]

Whether you subscribe to it or not is irrelevant. You can't go into someone else's club and tell them what their rules are. It would not only be offensive and wrong, but it would be a straw man. What you are doing by altering the rules of Cosa Nostra to force fit them to your theory is making a straw man. As for practicality, there's nothing impractical about recognizing the internal rules of the organization. Law enforcement can continue to go after illegitimate operations. Moreover by recognizing the organizational aspect of the LCN, law enforcement can use RICO to charge higher ups with running a criminal enterprise. So there's no downside in recognizing the reality in which the Cosa Nostra operates.

I'm not telling them what their rules are. I'm saying those rules aren't always reflective of reality, especially within the context of debates on this forum.

I brought your approach up not because of circumstances where one ancient member is remaining, a situation that we probably view more similarly than not, but because of examples like Buffalo-Ontario where you dismiss concrete organizational info and disrespect people who see things differently from you when it conflicts with your understanding or assumptions. I say that not to call you out, it's just a description of how you frame your arguments.

Nobody denies the remnants of the LCN in Buffalo/Ontario have a boss, underboss, a captain, and several inactive soldiers.

In fact, when the Buffalo arguments first started, Pogo pointed out several times that in 2000 you had the boss of the Rochester family cought on tape inducting a new member (Anthony Delmonti). Rochester still had several living members still alive at the time and Marotta had ties to Bonanno and Cleveland members. Marotta was busted for drug trafficking and other crimes. And the last member to be indicted in Rochester before him was over a decade prior.

See my point?

[B.]

I brought your approach up not because of circumstances where one ancient member is remaining, a situation that we probably view more similarly than not, but because of examples like Buffalo-Ontario where you dismiss concrete organizational info and disrespect people who see things differently from you when it conflicts with your understanding or assumptions. I say that not to call you out, it's just a description of how you frame your arguments.

Nobody denies the remnants of the LCN in Buffalo/Ontario have a boss, underboss, a captain, and several inactive soldiers.

In fact, when the Buffalo arguments first started, Pogo pointed out several times that in 2000 you had the boss of the Rochester family cought on tape inducting a new member (Anthony Delmonti). Rochester still had several living members still alive at the time and Marotta had ties to Bonanno and Cleveland members. Marotta was busted for drug trafficking and other crimes. And the last member to be indicted in Rochester before him was over a decade prior.

See my point?

You have been inconsistent about Buffalo's existence since Otremens came out. Sometimes you insist they aren't a Family, are defunct or dead, while other times you acknowledge their formal existence while aggressively insisting they have no operational viability. Otremens proved the Family is structured under a Buffalo boss, viable in Hamilton, recognized by other Families, engaged in organizational protocol and politics, and we don't know the extent of what's taking place in Buffalo proper but you insist there is nothing that meets your pseudo-scientific standards.

You also insist Violi's claim of 30 members is an absurd distortion and belittle people who consider the possibility, claiming the Family is limited to the 13 members publicly identified. Even a reference to a possible member fuels your anger against people. A reasonable way to synthesize the info if you don't believe it is to simply say "Violi was recorded saying there were 30 members and only 13 are publicly confirmed." Instead you use the latter number as an absolute fact about the Family's membership rather than one piece of evidence.

Rochester is an interesting example because they were never fully recognized as a national Family despite operating as one. They're not directly comparable to Buffalo given Buffalo was and is a recognized Family that met all criteria.

[Wiseguy]

You have been inconsistent about Buffalo's existence since Otremens came out. Sometimes you insist they aren't a Family, are defunct or dead, while other times you acknowledge their formal existence while aggressively insisting they have no operational viability. Otremens proved the Family is structured under a Buffalo boss, viable in Hamilton, recognized by other Families, engaged in organizational protocol and politics, and we don't know the extent of what's taking place in Buffalo proper but you insist there is nothing that meets your pseudo-scientific standards.

You also insist Violi's claim of 30 members is an absurd distortion and belittle people who disagree, insisting the Family is limited to the 13 members publicly identified in years past. A reasonable way to synthesize the info if you don't believe it is to simply say "Violi was recorded saying there were 30 members and only 13 are publicly confirmed." Instead you use the latter number as an absolute fact about the Family's membership rather than one piece of evidence.

Rochester is an interesting example because they were never fully recognized as a national Family despite operating as one. They're not directly comparable to Buffalo because of that.

I have been nothing but consistent. Lest there is still confusion, after all this time, let me say it again: there is no viable family in Buffalo. Period.

A few guys, among maybe a dozen, having middle or upper ranks doesn't equate to there being a cohesive hierarchy. Let alone ongoing racketeering activity. Examples of this in remnants of other families (not just Rochester) have been given - and ignored - over and over again.

I disagree with the inflated membership numbers for Buffalo for the same reason I disagree with the inflated numbers that get pushed on this forum about Detroit and Chicago. You look at the FBI's figures in past years and the number of members who have died during the time in question, and 30+ members for Buffalo, 25 members for Detroit, and 50 or so for Chicago simply don't add up. Furthermore, in pretty much every family outside the NY families, the vast majority of the members can be identified and the figures match up with the latest official estimates. But somehow we're supposed to believe some 20 members in Buffalo (two-thirds of the family) is unknown and flying under the radar. That's a fantasy.

As the Rochester comparison shows, which you seem eager to gloss over, the OTremens case has to be looked in the proper context. And frankly, too many here have failed to do that and come away with false ideas about Buffalo today.

[Villain]

I give in on all three fronts:

- Gux Alex wasn't just made, he was an underboss, consigliere, and capodecina of the Chicago outfit and Giancana, Ricca, and Accardo were "with" him, not the other way around.

We are a little bit out of line here, right?!

[InCamelot]

You have been inconsistent about Buffalo's existence since Otremens came out. Sometimes you insist they aren't a Family, are defunct or dead, while other times you acknowledge their formal existence while aggressively insisting they have no operational viability. Otremens proved the Family is structured under a Buffalo boss, viable in Hamilton, recognized by other Families, engaged in organizational protocol and politics, and we don't know the extent of what's taking place in Buffalo proper but you insist there is nothing that meets your pseudo-scientific standards.

You also insist Violi's claim of 30 members is an absurd distortion and belittle people who disagree, insisting the Family is limited to the 13 members publicly identified in years past. A reasonable way to synthesize the info if you don't believe it is to simply say "Violi was recorded saying there were 30 members and only 13 are publicly confirmed." Instead you use the latter number as an absolute fact about the Family's membership rather than one piece of evidence.

Rochester is an interesting example because they were never fully recognized as a national Family despite operating as one. They're not directly comparable to Buffalo because of that.

There is no viable family in Buffalo. Period.

A few guys, among maybe a dozen, having middle or upper ranks doesn't equate to there being a cohesive hierarchy. Let alone ongoing racketeering activity. Examples of this in remnants of other families (not just Rochester) have been given - and ignored - over and over again.

From a historical standpoint on guys following these structures, does there have to be racketeering for there to be hierarchy?

And by viable did you also mean racketeering?

[B.]

Since Cabrini is interested in the drug side, the Pizza Connection is a great example of org vs. op.

- There are operational charts that accurately represent the roles of the participants and their relationships but it's only relevant to this particular operation. If this was a gang exclusively based around drug trafficking, this would be the organization but it's not.

- Everyone in the Pizza Connection belonged to different Families and held different ranks. Giuseppe Ganci was a captain in the San Giuseppe Iato Family but worked for/with Sal Catalano and was with him every day but Catalano was a Bonanno captain / admin. Other guys involved were made with different groups and Catalano wasn't their Cosa Nostra superior, he was the operating manager of their heroin partnership.

- Contorno said he was recruited as a partner by the Bagheria members because he was a made member and they felt this ensured trust. They used the organization to form the operation but the operation didn't become the organization or define it. There was an operating hierarchy to the Pizza Connection but it was different from the organizational hierarchy of the groups involved.

- There's also Badalamenti who was no longer a recognized boss but held a major role in the network. I doubt Badalamenti was seen as the partners' "boss" and it seemed like they were cautious when dealing with him. He played an important operational role in this particular trade though.

- The heroin operation was very important to the partners but it didn't negate or replace their organizational affiliation. Sal Catalano and others were still heavily involved in org politics that had nothing to do with heroin or this set of relationships.

If Pizza Connection was in 1920 and all we had was newspaper accounts, we'd probably think the NYC-NJ side of the case was one organization and assume a certain formal pecking order but we'd be wrong. Fortunately this happened in the 1980s when we had enough intel to make these distinctions.