Organization & Operation revisited

[B.]

Going back to the topic, the problem with this subject is it is by its nature not very scientific.

I appreciate that Wiseguy has developed his own formula for viability based on public knowledge of criminal activity and the existence of confirmed members, but those are known knowns and it doesn't include known unknowns and especially unknown unknowns. He sees unknown unknowns as evidence of absence and in many cases I'd agree with his assumptions on that more than not, but we're not in a position to gauge or measure it in most cases. These aren't controlled studies and the mafia follows certain patterns but many things can't be predicted.

For example, information surfaced that Gambino-connected figures in Ontario were made into the LA Family. Nobody on here could jump in and say "I told you!" That's entirely out of left field and raises questions about LA, the Gambino Family, and exactly what is going on in Canada. One of these alleged LA members in Hamilton was murdered and we learned the Buffalo boss was upset that LA made someone in his territory without his knowledge. We have no idea what this means operationally and I'm hesitant to assume anything but organizationally there is or was something going on that doesn't fit any outsider's prediction. I don't know what Tommy Gambino is doing, who he has made, or what that Family looks like today and I wouldn't say Gambino is boss of an international underworld empire but I'm not going to dismiss various possibilities based solely on what we knew about LA twenty years ago.

If we didn't have decades of intel, we would be similarly surprised to find out that Pittsburgh-connected members in Baltimore were leaders in a Gambino crew. It turns out their criminal operations were marginal and most of the Baltimore crew was focused on legitimate food businesses, with NYC having to send someone to help organize gambling. Was Baltimore a viable crew? They didn't sustain themselves past the 1980s that we know of, but they were a decina of made members who used the organization to network in the food business. I wouldn't say they ran an impressive underworld empire in Baltimore but they weren't defunct or inactive.

--

My "Understanding Chicago" thread a few years ago caused a similar blow up on the board. I'd taken a greater interest in learning about Chicago and what I was seeing about the organization was not what had been presented. I was told that people were sending PMs mocking me, that I was trying to "Sicilianize" the outfit, that I was failing to understand concrete evidence, and that words like capodecina and mafia were completely foreign in Chicago.

Since then we've learned Chicago had a formal consiglio, that members of both mainland and Sicilian heritage come from underworld bloodlines, that some members did use terms like capodecina and mafia, that the word "outfit" was among the most common national euphemisms for a Family, and that rather than "not caring about the mafia" there was actually a highly secretive, tight-knit, and disciplined Family in Chicago that in some ways followed the tradition more than NYC while in other ways was unique. That doesn't mean the Family's operational network was limited to that and the formal organization didn't directly reflect the operations but using the Family's operational framework to define the organization is incorrect.

[chin_gigante]

My "Understanding Chicago" thread a few years ago caused a similar blow up on the board. I'd taken a greater interest in learning about Chicago and what I was seeing about the organization was not what had been presented. I was told that people were sending PMs mocking me, that I was trying to "Sicilianize" the outfit, that I was failing to understand concrete evidence, and that words like capodecina and mafia were completely foreign in Chicago.

Since then we've learned Chicago had a formal consiglio, that members of both mainland and Sicilian heritage come from underworld bloodlines, that some members did use terms like capodecina and mafia, that the word "outfit" was among the most common national euphemisms for a Family, and that rather than "not caring about the mafia" there was actually a highly secretive, tight-knit, and disciplined Family in Chicago that in some ways followed the tradition more than NYC while in other ways was unique. That doesn't mean the Family's operational network was limited to that and the formal organization didn't directly reflect the operations but using the Family's operational framework to define the organization is incorrect.

Also that the term sottocapo was used within crews to refer to acting captains until at least the 1980s, somewhat explaining the use of personal underbosses

[B.]

My "Understanding Chicago" thread a few years ago caused a similar blow up on the board. I'd taken a greater interest in learning about Chicago and what I was seeing about the organization was not what had been presented. I was told that people were sending PMs mocking me, that I was trying to "Sicilianize" the outfit, that I was failing to understand concrete evidence, and that words like capodecina and mafia were completely foreign in Chicago.

Since then we've learned Chicago had a formal consiglio, that members of both mainland and Sicilian heritage come from underworld bloodlines, that some members did use terms like capodecina and mafia, that the word "outfit" was among the most common national euphemisms for a Family, and that rather than "not caring about the mafia" there was actually a highly secretive, tight-knit, and disciplined Family in Chicago that in some ways followed the tradition more than NYC while in other ways was unique. That doesn't mean the Family's operational network was limited to that and the formal organization didn't directly reflect the operations but using the Family's operational framework to define the organization is incorrect.

Also that the term sottocapo was used within crews to refer to acting captains until at least the 1980s, somewhat explaining the use of personal underbosses

Yeah and their use of the term "boss" for captains is a closer translation of "capo di decina" given it means boss / chief / leader of ten men. Captain is "capitano". With that in mind, a "sottocapo" fits the idea of someone being the second-in-command of the capo di decina, it's just confusing because most Families only use it to refer to the admin rank.

The idea of a "personal underboss" wasn't unfounded it's just that Calabrese clarified it was an acting captain and not a unique position. Same thing for the idea of the "top boss" which fits the idea of a consiglio chairman/secretary which we know had certain authority even above the official boss.

It's not that anyone was completely wrong about those positions, it's just that they were actually part of the traditional mafia structure and different terms and euphemisms were used at times. No different from "outfit" being a common synonym for Family rather than a different type of entity.

[Wiseguy]

I appreciate that Wiseguy has developed his own formula for viability based on public knowledge of criminal activity and the existence of confirmed members, but those are known knowns and it doesn't include known unknowns and especially unknown unknowns. He sees unknown unknowns as evidence of absence and in many cases I'd agree with his assumptions on that more than not, but we're not in a position to gauge or measure it in most cases. These aren't controlled studies and the mafia follows certain patterns but many things can't be predicted.

Well, I'd respond that my formula isn't mine but simply going with the RICO criteria, i.e. "racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise." I didn't just come up with that, despite all the debates about if that's a proper definition, what constitutes an organization/enterprise, what rates as activity, etc.

[B.]

I appreciate that Wiseguy has developed his own formula for viability based on public knowledge of criminal activity and the existence of confirmed members, but those are known knowns and it doesn't include known unknowns and especially unknown unknowns. He sees unknown unknowns as evidence of absence and in many cases I'd agree with his assumptions on that more than not, but we're not in a position to gauge or measure it in most cases. These aren't controlled studies and the mafia follows certain patterns but many things can't be predicted.

Well, I'd respond that my formula isn't mine but simply going with the RICO criteria, i.e. "racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise." I didn't just come up with that, despite all the debates about if that's a proper definition, what constitutes an organization/enterprise, what rates as activity, etc.

Makes sense. I do consider your perspective important to this topic.

[Cheech]

I don't see the organisational/ operational distinction as a 'guess', I see it as the most useful term we have as researchers to give to an observed process or understanding within cosa nostra that has no name. And those observations are based off of collecting, comparing, and contrasting statements made (be that from witness testimony, tell-all books, wiretaps, etc) by inducted members.

The simplest example I can think of is from the commission in the early 1980s. Vincent Gigante was frustrated about being called to meetings to discuss the construction business, and felt the commission should be reserved for matters pertaining to cosa nostra. There's no name for that distinction within cosa nostra, they get it, but it's useful for us as researchers. Gigante wanted to reserve commission meetings to matters relating to cosa nostra (the organisation), not construction (an operation). I say academic because this is a conversation very much about how we conduct research and evaluate information, but organisational/ operational isn't a hypothesis or conjecture, it's a label we can apply to observed modes of activity within cosa nostra.

A more recent example I'd point to is Steven Crea's position in the Lucchese family in the 2010s. Our best source of information from that period is obviously John Pennisi since he was an inducted member who was active on the street at that time. When discussing his administration, Pennisi has made it clear that while Crea's rank and title in the organisation was official underboss, guys on the street viewed him effectively as the guy really running the family. There was even a point from 2015 to early 2017 when Crea was (in organisational terms) the highest ranking member on the street as official boss Vic Amuso and acting boss Matthew Madonna were in prison. Then from 2016 to 2017, Crea was the only administration member on the street after consigliere Joe DiNapoli was also incarcerated. But Pennisi is clear that Crea officially was the underboss during that time, he was not even granted the role of acting boss. Operationally, it's clear, Crea was the one running the family at the time and the one member that was looked to as their 'guy', but organisationally he was the underboss. Now Pennisi doesn't use the organisational/ operational term but he doesn't have to. As an insider, he comes with an intrinsic understanding of the situation and is able to keep the distinction between Crea's rank and his de facto power clear in his head. He spells it out the way he does not for his own benefit but for his audience's.

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.

Well surmised. I think this best sums it up.
First time going through the thread. A lot of great info from really intelligent people.

Not that it matters and he doesnt need defending and he might not like me saying this but Ive known Ang in real life lol for sometime now (years) and he’s always played it straight with me and Ive never seen him throw his weight around here ever. We dont always agree. I disagree w him and the scott/mancuso thing but thats the world. Doesnt change my opinion of him just my opinion of his opinion on it (org vs op?) lol
My two bits.

[Cheech]

I get the viability factor. For clarity sake, viability defined would be how criminally active a group is? Would everyone agree with that?

WG, then points out a list of families with ranks that don't appear to be doing "anything."

Which would mean that viability isn't the end-all, and for that matter neither is Org/Op. These are different lens we can use to form the larger picture.

Gambino of LA, Iaccobacci of CL and D'Elia of Scranton fit within the confines of Org/Op. They were part of the organization regardless of what outsiders think of them. But in terms of criminal viability, no one is going to suggest they have more muscle or power than other ethnic or non-ethnic criminal organizations in the area. This matters because, stepping outside of our mafia-centric focus, it's beneficial to compare them to the larger world around.

But let's break it down and say that out of 300 Genovese members that 50 of them aren't engaged in any criminal activity. Would someone argue that the Genovese remains 84% viable?

But I would again state that these groups don't have an agenda to be the biggest and bestest criminal outfit in their areas. They have their own operations going on and there's overlap, but they don't set out to "conquer" things outside of their sphere. Gambino is just fine with his wine and water business ventures, if a Lucchese member moved to LA or anywhere, opened a restaurant and wanted bottled water for it, Gambinos would be an option. This is a network first and foremost. These guys are not joined solely for the purpose of crime, like say the cartels.

When a cartel member is no longer active in the operation, he's effectively out. When a mafia member is no longer active in an operation he's still a member in good standing. There's no criminal quota. That's org. But take this inactive member and put him alongside a Lombardozzi and yeah, the latter is likely going to have more influence, that's op.

Agree. I think that sums it up pretty well and I think thats what we are seeing more of present day. Its fascinating to me to see someone like Porky leaving Staten Island to go on some protocol mission still in this day and age. It was important for the organization so he did it. I doubt he was excited to do it lol

[Cheech]

I've read and reread the posts in this thread forwards and backwards.

The post below, on p. 5, was the first volley in the war:

You entered my thread and responded to me, not the other way around. I don't go into your Chicago fantasy threads and argue with you. You then tried to take us down a rabbit hole on Saint Gus Alex as a shield for your belief that Chicago is "different," that it doesn't follow the mafia structure, when the made members of that family and others providing info on Chicago don't make any reference to the things you are claiming. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Good day to you.

Ever since I read that post, I've contemplated directly reporting it to Sol because Angelo is a moderator of this main forum, but it's always wise to see how a thread with flame posts develops. Later I realized I would also definitely need to report a number of Villain's posts, as well as some others'. Then I reminded myself that if I report these posts, Sol is going to tell me he doesn't appreciate my telling him how to run his site.

Villain's response to Angelo's insults has been disproportionate, both in this thread and in "The Mob Archeologists Podcast hosted by Antiliar, B, Tony and myself" thread. Conversely, Villain has been accused of having a "hostile attitude" and being a "bullshit artist," with his accusers -- who forgot what gave rise to his insults -- being given the benefit of the doubt.

I am somewhat friendly with a few posters here on TBHF but for the most part I make the effort not to be sociable with people on organized-crime forums. I especially discourage posters from sending me PMs with particular insights and questions about crime figures, murders, attempted murders, etc. Those who are knowledgeable with my posts over the years know I have contacted law-enforcement agencies with details that might help them with their investigations of murders, for example.

Objective posters like me see why this thread was created in the first place, and we scratched our heads because we see that a moderator is allowed to criticize Scott Burnstein in his OP -- is Angelo himself accusing Scott of lying? -- while the considerable number of posters who have been critical of Scott just recently learned that they have to tone down such criticism. And of course Pogo and Wiseguy were singled out by Sol for their posts. Scott and I follow each other's accounts on Twitter. I advised him to contact the owner of Gangster BB so that the posts over there, where Scott's Gangster Report articles are copy-pasted in their entirety, get taken down -- I even provided Scott with the site owner's email address.

From my standpoint, which I think is objective, the reason for the creation of this thread seems mostly to be about a beef between PolackTony and Villain in another thread. Up until recently, Tony had last visited the site on February 20, and I genuinely worried that he was done with this place or that some unfortunate event or circumstance in his life had befallen him. But he emerged again when this current thread became contentious. On a number of levels, the optics don't look right all around. I see a concerted effort to run Villain off the board.

I will be reporting this whole thead, as well as "The Mob Archeologists Podcast hosted by Antiliar, B, Tony and myself" thread, to Sol. In doing so, I might get clipped -- I see this almost as a foregone conclusion -- but being banned is a risk I'm willing to take. Before I send a message to Sol, I'm not going to pull a JD move by deleting all my posts. And if this current post of mine is my last ever on TBHF, I'll bid you all adieu.

Thats brave and im with you, meaning you should report all of the posts (including mine) 100% and lets finish this once and for all.

I wanted to do the same because a mod threatened me with a ban (allegedly through a joke) because I went against his claims, but I changed my mind (same as you) and deleted my msg to Sol....but dont forget, theres a ruling panel on this forum and all of the guys are friends.

You brought up being banned and then Ang made a joke yet you continue to push this agenda he threatened to ban you. Why? Its not true.
You then continued to belittle him by calling him angelina and referencing hes a woman “ladies first”.
Kinda odd. Why all the hatred?
Going at johhny_scootch seemed odd as well. What gives?

[CornerBoy]

i dont have the slightest fucking clue what you guys are fighting about. Ain't that serious.

This isn't Accenture or Booz Allen that we're talking about. I'm sure a lot of this shit is subject to change at any given time

Unless there is an employee handbook that I'm not aware of....??

[CornerBoy]

Scott has said certain Detroit members had ranks that Angelo disagrees with and it's not that Scott's POV is entirely baseless, it's that he's referring to the operational power someone has. Whitey Besase is the best example, as Scott has said he was a captain and Angelo found evidence that Besase was a soldier with operational authority over Toledo. Angelo defends Scott when his character and credibility are attacked, he just happens to prioritize formal details which shouldn't be surprising considering one of his goals is to create accurate organizational charts of all US Families. He's also made operational charts and sees the value in representing these groups from both POVs (see his Cleveland charts earlier in this thread).

I believe Angelo started this thread in response to a podcast Scott did where he made some statements about Chicago which naturally intersect with other narratives about Chicago found on this board and elsewhere. Some board members have invested themselves emotionally into Chicago and treat these discussions like an extension of themselves and those discussions are inevitably unproductive at best and destructive at worst.

It's interesting what provokes people and what doesn't. Chin recently found info that Michael Mancuso may not have been the official acting boss and that goes against the belief many of us have had. Chin's findings show that Mancuso was operationally the one in charge on the street so you could say the distinction is academic but why then did they not give him the title? That's what makes org vs. op interesting to some of us, that there's usually a reason why the formalities are set up the way they are and they don't always reflect what's taking place on an operational or de facto level.

I'm sure I've posted before that Mancuso was the acting boss in the mid-2000s but I'm not married to the idea. When Chin posted that this might not be fully true, my response wasn't "Fuck you, Mancuso was the acting boss." It's actually more interesting that we might have to revise our understanding of the situation. Scott might have rolled his eyes about the Besase thing but I know he handles those sorts of interactions very well and knows Angelo's interest is sincere. It shouldn't be any different for Gus Alex or Vito Rizzuto.

Even if one knows captains from every family or bosses for that matter as well as the SAC of NY office, none of this can be "proven" in my opinion
I have no dog in this fight mostly due to my inability to discern what fuck you are beefing over

[CornerBoy]

This list apparently has to be taken out and dusted off every so often because people have short, selective memories.


In the 1970s, Jimmy Frattiano said there was no organized crime in San Francisco. Just four old guys with Lanza. They were still considered Cosa Nostra members but apparently Frattiano no longer considered the family to still be around.

In the 1980s, Angelo Lonardo testified there was no family in Cleveland and that it had been destroyed. This despite the fact he knew there were still about a dozen living members (only 2 active), John Tronolone was the boss, and they had dealings with New York.

In the 1990s, Paul Villano was named boss of Denver despite there only being a few inactive members still alive.

In the 1990s, Anthony Carolla and Frank Gagliano were named boss and underboss in New Orleans, despite there only being a handful of members still alive and only a few of them active. They also had dealings with two NY families in the video gambling bust.

In the 1990s, William D'Elia was named boss of the Bufalino family despite there being only about a dozen members alive with all of them old, inactive, or in prison. He was recognized by the NY and Philadelphia families, though Ralph Natale apparently considered the family finished.

In the late 1990's/early 2000's, Tommy Gambino was promoted to underboss in the Los Angeles family. They also had two captains - Jimmy Caci and Louie Caruso. In addition, Milano inducted about a half dozen new members in the 1990s. Looking at things in retrospect I don't think anyone would say now that LA was a resurging family or even a viable family. More like the last remnants going through the motions. There was no real organization to speak of and very little criminal activity with only a few members involved in very minimal activities.

In 2000, Thomas Marotta was referring to himself as the boss in Rochester, inducted a new member (informant Anthony Delmonti), referenced another active member "Joe T" (likely Rochester member Joseph Triesti). The family had about 20 members remaining but only a handful were active. Marotta's drug operation had ties to to NY and Delmonti had dealings with members in Cleveland. But it was just the last remnants.

anyone know where tommy gambino lives in the city of angels?

[B.]

The plan from the beginning was to lure CornerBoy into this thread and get him banned. Everyone else was just collateral damage.

[Villain]

Wow. Two pages of explanations LOL. Parlare, parlare.....

Love it.

[CornerBoy]

does someone feel like bullet pointing all the gus alex and rest of thsi shit, I"ll pay them if I have to. very interesting but so hard to keep track of and understand lol

[HairyKnuckles]

This list apparently has to be taken out and dusted off every so often because people have short, selective memories.


In the 1970s, Jimmy Frattiano said there was no organized crime in San Francisco. Just four old guys with Lanza. They were still considered Cosa Nostra members but apparently Frattiano no longer considered the family to still be around.

In the 1980s, Angelo Lonardo testified there was no family in Cleveland and that it had been destroyed. This despite the fact he knew there were still about a dozen living members (only 2 active), John Tronolone was the boss, and they had dealings with New York.

In the 1990s, Paul Villano was named boss of Denver despite there only being a few inactive members still alive.

In the 1990s, Anthony Carolla and Frank Gagliano were named boss and underboss in New Orleans, despite there only being a handful of members still alive and only a few of them active. They also had dealings with two NY families in the video gambling bust.

In the 1990s, William D'Elia was named boss of the Bufalino family despite there being only about a dozen members alive with all of them old, inactive, or in prison. He was recognized by the NY and Philadelphia families, though Ralph Natale apparently considered the family finished.

In the late 1990's/early 2000's, Tommy Gambino was promoted to underboss in the Los Angeles family. They also had two captains - Jimmy Caci and Louie Caruso. In addition, Milano inducted about a half dozen new members in the 1990s. Looking at things in retrospect I don't think anyone would say now that LA was a resurging family or even a viable family. More like the last remnants going through the motions. There was no real organization to speak of and very little criminal activity with only a few members involved in very minimal activities.

In 2000, Thomas Marotta was referring to himself as the boss in Rochester, inducted a new member (informant Anthony Delmonti), referenced another active member "Joe T" (likely Rochester member Joseph Triesti). The family had about 20 members remaining but only a handful were active. Marotta's drug operation had ties to to NY and Delmonti had dealings with members in Cleveland. But it was just the last remnants.

anyone know where tommy gambino lives in the city of angels?

I can only find a street name when looking for him, Gayley Avenue (no number). It appears he leases an office on 1015 Gayley Avenue. He is listed as Director, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Royal Entertainment Inc. He used to live in Beverly Hills.