Organization & Operation revisited

[CabriniGreen]

Back to Gucciardi and the Sicilians....

To clarify... you think the Sciacca family has a presence in NY? Or no?
I've always been intrigued by your take on him, and why you interpreted the info the way you did...



Do you think the Castellemare Del Golfo family has a presence? Carini? Torretta? Passo Di Rigano?

Before you answer no.... remember... we just got a whole Ndrangheta clan we wernt aware of even existing...


I'm about to argue with you over " Torretessi" ....lmao...in a good way though...

[CabriniGreen]

I bring this up now and again, but I don't have complete faith in the idea that the DeCavalcantes in the 1960s had two official underbosses. That's the impression the DeCavalcante tapes give but Sam also doesn't break it all down and put it in context for our benefit. Maybe LaSelva was the official underboss and Majuri was acting for him in NJ because LaSelva was in CT.

Or the DeCavalcantes really did have two official underbosses for a time which would make them extremely unique and even though discussion of atypical ranks tends to be controversial this one amazingly isn't.

The DeCavalcante structure apparently looked like this:

Consiglio
Boss
Underboss
?-Underboss
?-Consigliere (they definitely used the official consigliere position by the mid-1970s)
Capodecina

Chicago's use of sottocapo for acting captains should also be brought up with this in mind. Could the DeCavalcantes have used the term underboss more freely to refer to another role we typically associate with another title? Majuri does appear to function like an actual underboss but it's hard to say for sure.

I honestly don't see a big deal. How many big companies you ever saw with multiple VPs? Or a Ceo and a CFO, or COO?

Do we know what the responsibilities of each were? Was one white collar the other blue collar? Like one oversees gambling, the other labor? Is it even more basic, like there's the money guy who oversees the earners, and one who commands the muscle?(your "war capo") Was it simply a political compromise? Like there were 2 viable candidates, so they named them both and split the responsibility? So as to not cause hard feelings or resentments?

In this very thread there's the example of 2 acting co- capos of the same crew......

[B.]

Back to Gucciardi and the Sicilians....

To clarify... you think the Sciacca family has a presence in NY? Or no?
I've always been intrigued by your take on him, and why you interpreted the info the way you did...



Do you think the Castellemare Del Golfo family has a presence? Carini? Torretta? Passo Di Rigano?

Before you answer no.... remember... we just got a whole Ndrangheta clan we wernt aware of even existing...


I'm about to argue with you over " Torretessi" ....lmao...in a good way though...

Gucciardi is from Sciacca and affiliated with them so that means Sciacca does have a presence in NYC. Beyond him I don't think anyone else has been named. I don't think I've interpreted him in any way, just used the limited available intel on him which is that he is a Sicilian transplant close to Accursio Dimino who associates with high-ranking Bonanno members.

Castellammare also has a presence since the investigation into Domingo said his brother goes back and forth and seems to be involved. Stefano Turriciano was living in NJ-NYC area so he is at least a CDG associate. Nino Montagna was an apparent CDG member in NYC before he died.

You already know Torretta and Passo di Rigano have a presence.

I bring this up now and again, but I don't have complete faith in the idea that the DeCavalcantes in the 1960s had two official underbosses. That's the impression the DeCavalcante tapes give but Sam also doesn't break it all down and put it in context for our benefit. Maybe LaSelva was the official underboss and Majuri was acting for him in NJ because LaSelva was in CT.

Or the DeCavalcantes really did have two official underbosses for a time which would make them extremely unique and even though discussion of atypical ranks tends to be controversial this one amazingly isn't.

The DeCavalcante structure apparently looked like this:

Consiglio
Boss
Underboss
?-Underboss
?-Consigliere (they definitely used the official consigliere position by the mid-1970s)
Capodecina

Chicago's use of sottocapo for acting captains should also be brought up with this in mind. Could the DeCavalcantes have used the term underboss more freely to refer to another role we typically associate with another title? Majuri does appear to function like an actual underboss but it's hard to say for sure.

I honestly don't see a big deal. How many big companies you ever saw with multiple VPs? Or a Ceo and a CFO, or COO?

Do we know what the responsibilities of each were? Was one white collar the other blue collar? Like one oversees gambling, the other labor? Is it even more basic, like there's the money guy who oversees the earners, and one who commands the muscle?(your "war capo") Was it simply a political compromise? Like there were 2 viable candidates, so they named them both and split the responsibility? So as to not cause hard feelings or resentments?

In this very thread there's the example of 2 acting co- capos of the same crew......

The mafia doesn't work like that though. That's why it would be exceptional if they had two official underbosses.

The two Philly captains were brought up because a book gives the impression they were over the same crew but as Pogo said it's more likely they were acting for and took over different decinas. Operationally they acted like one big crew but probably weren't.

[CabriniGreen]

Back to Gucciardi and the Sicilians....

To clarify... you think the Sciacca family has a presence in NY? Or no?
I've always been intrigued by your take on him, and why you interpreted the info the way you did...



Do you think the Castellemare Del Golfo family has a presence? Carini? Torretta? Passo Di Rigano?

Before you answer no.... remember... we just got a whole Ndrangheta clan we wernt aware of even existing...


I'm about to argue with you over " Torretessi" ....lmao...in a good way though...

Gucciardi is from Sciacca and affiliated with them so that means Sciacca does have a presence in NYC. Beyond him I don't think anyone else has been named. I don't think I've interpreted him in any way, just used the limited available intel on him which is that he is a Sicilian transplant close to Accursio Dimino who associates with high-ranking Bonanno members.

Castellammare also has a presence since the investigation into Domingo said his brother goes back and forth and seems to be involved. Stefano Turriciano was living in NJ-NYC area so he is at least a CDG associate. Nino Montagna was an apparent CDG member in NYC before he died.

You already know Torretta and Passo di Rigano have a presence.

I bring this up now and again, but I don't have complete faith in the idea that the DeCavalcantes in the 1960s had two official underbosses. That's the impression the DeCavalcante tapes give but Sam also doesn't break it all down and put it in context for our benefit. Maybe LaSelva was the official underboss and Majuri was acting for him in NJ because LaSelva was in CT.

Or the DeCavalcantes really did have two official underbosses for a time which would make them extremely unique and even though discussion of atypical ranks tends to be controversial this one amazingly isn't.

The DeCavalcante structure apparently looked like this:

Consiglio
Boss
Underboss
?-Underboss
?-Consigliere (they definitely used the official consigliere position by the mid-1970s)
Capodecina

Chicago's use of sottocapo for acting captains should also be brought up with this in mind. Could the DeCavalcantes have used the term underboss more freely to refer to another role we typically associate with another title? Majuri does appear to function like an actual underboss but it's hard to say for sure.

I honestly don't see a big deal. How many big companies you ever saw with multiple VPs? Or a Ceo and a CFO, or COO?

Do we know what the responsibilities of each were? Was one white collar the other blue collar? Like one oversees gambling, the other labor? Is it even more basic, like there's the money guy who oversees the earners, and one who commands the muscle?(your "war capo") Was it simply a political compromise? Like there were 2 viable candidates, so they named them both and split the responsibility? So as to not cause hard feelings or resentments?

In this very thread there's the example of 2 acting co- capos of the same crew......

The mafia doesn't work like that though. That's why it would be exceptional if they had two official underbosses.

The two Philly captains were brought up because a book gives the impression they were over the same crew but as Pogo said it's more likely they were acting for and took over different decinas. Operationally they acted like one big crew but probably weren't.

The big difference is I think it possible the Torreta contingent is organizational, not operational.

I think Sicilian faction and Sicilian mafia get used interchangeably when they shouldn't. One is Ops, the other is Orgs.

On Gucciardi, I was always intrigued with your description of his operations being an " International gambling operation"...

[CabriniGreen]

Also B.
We've seen capos with no crew, powerful crews lead by non- capos, families with no underboss, families with panels functioning for admin positions...

I know the mafia is the mafia. But the core principles thst make the mafia work don't have really anything to do with the specific ranks. You could call a guy Chief Seashell if you wanted to. It's just a method of organizing and regulating resources and contacts. Like they said in the Sixth Family, Ndrangheta CONSTANTLY tinker with their ranks. Master of the Day, Ndrine, Capoststone, Locale, Capo- Locale, Santa, Vangelo, Trequartino, ect... I think they made up a new one every few years since the 90s... and they have constantly grown...


I know it wasn't anything official, but JD had the Bonnanos with TWO WHOLE administrations... at the same time...

It's politics...

[Angelo Santino]

Since this thread talked about people wanting to assign "capo" or "like a capo" status to certain people, where do you think that started?

I've always seen it as a Sopranos era thing. The Sopranos did for the word capo what the Godfather did for consigliere. Older books, articles, or charts might occasionally mislabel someone as a captain / capodecina / capo but they didn't seem overeager to throw the term around. Post-1999 some people are eager to use the word, as if they just like the sound of it.

Many sites / books when the Sopranos was on air started calling all kinds of people "capos" who weren't. Oh him? He's a capo. Capo. Let's talk about the capos. My favorite is Selwyn Raab describing Scarpa as a "war capo" and Phil Carlo stealing it in at least one of his books. Having a problem? Better call the local war capo.

Maybe it makes a mob figure sound more attractive to read / talk about if you can call him a capo. Oh he was just a soldier or associate? No thank you. Capo? Tell me all about him.

--

Contrast this with Chicago or Canada, where some people are averse to calling an actual capodecina by his formal rank as if it devalues his role. The irony is that overuse of "capo" comes from the idea that a capodecina is a highly esteemed position whereas the Chicago / Canada issue is that it doesn't sound esteemed enough to some.

I believe there's a sort of mafia-specific autism that also wants to assign formal ranks to everyone even when it doesn't apply. You used to see lists or charts where the Lucchese NJ crew had a boss, underboss, and consigliere. You see it with Montreal. Obviously people have created fantasy ranks and positions for Chicago. The overuse of "capo" and "consigliere" plays into this. It's not enough for someone to be an operational powerhouse, he must be a capo. Someone can't be a trusted advisor or mediator, he must be a consigliere. One captain is more important than another? There must be different tiers of captains.

The truth is the mafia has a very set structure that doesn't change much if at all, like Angelo said, and you don't see Families improvise with new positions in the structure. What makes the mafia dynamic and interesting is the operation / function of things in and around that structure. That aspect of the mafia is extremely flexible but the structure doesn't change nor do the specific ranks that exist. It comes down to whether he was formally given that rank or not.

I'm not sure where it started but the Sopranos certainly didn't help matters in terms of accuracy. I reckon things just snowballed and outsiders trying to describe a "smaller boss" within the organization just went with it. But it's gotten so convoluted that anyone who doesn't fit the description of a lowly hood is "like a capo." It's become ingrained in peoples' thinking to the point where they don't even know that they are doing it.

Look at this visual:
The chart is accurate but look at the visuals: The "Don" followed by the Under sitting in a chair, the consig is standing stoutly, the capos authoritative and the soldiers with their hands in their pockets like they could pull out a gun at any minute. You look at that chart and it's hard to imagine Johnny Roselli, Spilotro or any other influential soldier in that "role." And the associates look "nothing special." Imagine Joe Watts, Gus Alex, Hugh McIntosh or any other influential associate in such a role. The visual is misleading.

Chicago is another matter, the misunderstanding there predates the Sopranos by decades. I tried reading Kobler's Life and World of Al Capone as well as a few Roemer books. The problem stems from a lack of insider information, the first member to publicly inform was Calabrese in the Family Secrets trial in the 2000's, informant members prior to that were off the record and weren't compelled to provide info. The family made it 130 years prior to that.

[Angelo Santino]

Back to Gucciardi and the Sicilians....

To clarify... you think the Sciacca family has a presence in NY? Or no?
I've always been intrigued by your take on him, and why you interpreted the info the way you did...



Do you think the Castellemare Del Golfo family has a presence? Carini? Torretta? Passo Di Rigano?

Before you answer no.... remember... we just got a whole Ndrangheta clan we wernt aware of even existing...


I'm about to argue with you over " Torretessi" ....lmao...in a good way though...

I think "presence" is a good way to describe it. If a Gam member moves from NY to Montana, he takes his affiliation with him. Outsiders want to call him an "area boss" but perhaps he runs a club, may or may not do some book, but remains in contact with his NY family and/or members from other families. In this theoretical, the Gams have a "presence" in Montana.

[Angelo Santino]

Also B.
We've seen capos with no crew, powerful crews lead by non- capos, families with no underboss, families with panels functioning for admin positions...

I know the mafia is the mafia. But the core principles thst make the mafia work don't have really anything to do with the specific ranks. You could call a guy Chief Seashell if you wanted to. It's just a method of organizing and regulating resources and contacts. Like they said in the Sixth Family, Ndrangheta CONSTANTLY tinker with their ranks. Master of the Day, Ndrine, Capoststone, Locale, Capo- Locale, Santa, Vangelo, Trequartino, ect... I think they made up a new one every few years since the 90s... and they have constantly grown...


I know it wasn't anything official, but JD had the Bonnanos with TWO WHOLE administrations... at the same time...

It's politics...

There are members promoted to capo despite having no crew, this is largely political and symbolic. The Lucchese's have a rule that before someone is brought into the admin they must hold the rank of capo first. So if they want someone in the admin they make him a capo first. As much as it defeats the purpose of the rule it still shows that the rule is followed/adhered to.

Crews headed by a non-capo? Unless they are direct with someone in the admin, they would likely be a crew of associates who answer to a soldier.

Yes, over the course of history there have been families without under or consig or captains. But they don't make up entirely new ranks like Chief Seashell or General or Tenente.

N'drangheta is an entirely different beast than the mafia, organizationally they share very little in common.

The situation JD was referring to was during the 60's Bonanno war if I'm not mistaken, that was an extenuating circumstance. During the 90's the Colombos had two admins when they were in dispute. In both cases, it was temporary.

-

Drawing back to the "like a business" idea. It's really not. It's a system of representation. There is no "finance capo" or "Bookmaking capo," there can be captains who are especially good at finance or book but there is no special organizational position for that. These guys can do their thing (op) but as captains they represent the members under them (org.) The DeMeo Crew was a thing, it existed. But organizationally, he was a soldier under Nino Gaggi.

[Don_Peppino]

The level of respect giving to an associate lives and dies (literally) with their sponsor/who they're on record with. That's why on a operational chart, the associates should be placed at the level of their sponsor. Now, a novice would persume that the associate higher on the chart would be more important than those lower on the chart. That's purely functional. In most cases, that associate could be replaced easier than a soldier of less stature because of the added politics. Bugsy Siegel, Jimmy Hoffa, Gus Greenbaum etc are all examples of influential associates who outlived there usefulness, were killed and replaced. Lansky, Alex and Humphreys are exception to the rule. We all can agree, if you ran afoul of the Chicago Outfit, you would be gone. They obviously remained useful. Lansky was probably the only assocoate with a true halo of protection.

[stubbs]

Montreal under Vito Rizzuto is a good example of Org vs Op.

Organizationally Rizzuto was a soldier in the Bonanno family, but operationally he was like a boss over Montreal. Even though he was only officially a soldier within the Org, operationally from the perspective of power he had around twenty different made men in Montreal who were under him.

Like Chicago historically, that whole era in Montreal is another example where there’s been next to zero informants from the Montreal side of the Bonannos, so all we have is a bunch of hype and speculation around how things are structured.

There’s been some good reporting and books written, but there’s also been sensationalist stuff calling them the “sixth family”. Because of the hype, there’s seriously people on Reddit who will try to argue that the Rizzutos are or were more powerful than the New York Bonannos. Or, they’ll claim that the Bonannos were the most powerful family because of their connections to Montreal and Sicily.

It doesn’t compute to some people that the Rizzuto group was organizationally a Bonanno crew, and that Vito was only a soldier.

And obviously Vito had his reasons why he didn’t want to become a captian.

[Angelo Santino]

Just to say, I'm really glad the way this thread has turned out. As turbulent as it was, there are people who see what I am trying to articulate and going forward, I hope the Org/Op can serve as a measuring tool when it comes to understanding these little nuances. It puts a smile on my face like a proud papa when posters like Chin and others and just now stubbs are "seeing it" and making connections and observations that fall far away from my area of expertise. In a way many people already knew this, the members themselves know it, but this was an attempt formally contextualize the phenonemon.

It's like this forum, Sol is the boss, he has mods, we regulate the rules (very loosely), that's the organizational aspect of this. But then you have the operational- the daily posters on this board. Wiseguy isn't a mod but is regarded as a very influential poster. Same with B, antimafia and a host of other members here. Technically they are just "members" but what they bring and contribute to the board is invaluable, and they don't need to hold rank to do it. The Admin and mods don't "set the stage," we're not pulling members aside and telling them what to post ("Ok boys, we gotta start more threads on Meyer Lanksy") or demanding they post more ("Hey givememysocks, you only posted twice last week.") We have a few set rules and it's it. As hokey as it sounds, it's a fair analogy to the LCN.
-

In regards to the Sixth Family. I enjoyed the book by Lee LaMothe but I find the narrative misleading. Everything the Rizzutos did is portrayed as some Machiavellian 3d chess scheme. The events and happenings are correct, but it wasn't a conceived ultra-conspiracy like the book would have you believe. But it's forgivable because the authors had no informants, they were outsiders looking in and trying to connect the dots. It's still a very good book.

The Mafia as an entity is conceived of members who all contribute to the "the beast." It needs to be fed. There is, very rarely, some over arching leader who determines destiny. The mafia bosses of the 1900's didn't issue a decree to get into counterfeiting, or black hand extortion in the 1910, or bootlegging in the 20's and so on. The mob brings in the top players of the day who just so happen to be involved in these things. If in 10 years, the color pink was made illegal, the mafia would bring in people or have pre-existing members who see the lucrative potential of pink-legging. But behind it all, there is the organization. It largely remains unchanged for the better part of 200 years.(Or since 1860 since before that point the information is very very limited, but I'm of the belief that it has changed very little, others may disagree.)

[Wiseguy]

In regards to the Sixth Family. I enjoyed the book by Lee LaMothe but I find the narrative misleading. Everything the Rizzutos did is portrayed as some Machiavellian 3d chess scheme. The events and happenings are correct, but it wasn't a conceived ultra-conspiracy like the book would have you believe. But it's forgivable because the authors had no informants, they were outsiders looking in and trying to connect the dots. It's still a very good book.

"I read the 6th Family and my takeaway was that Nick Rizzuto had a biopic arm and Vito controlled the G8 Summit."

About sums it up.

[motorfab]

Angelo, you need to read Mafia Inc., same subject but very different. I prefer this one to The Sixth Family (very personal opinion here but the book is ok). But The Sixth... was released in 2006 and Mafia Inc in 2010, so obviously it's not exactly the same point of view

[Angelo Santino]

I'll put it on my list. Thanks.

[CabriniGreen]

Angelo, you need to read Mafia Inc., same subject but very different. I prefer this one to The Sixth Family (very personal opinion here but the book is ok). But The Sixth... was released in 2006 and Mafia Inc in 2010, so obviously it's not exactly the same point of view

Nah...lol he's gonna hate that one too...

First off it's named Mafia Inc, and he hates the business comparison. Then there's the first few pages where they describe the structure.....

From the book....




The Rizzuto organization comprises three tiers of authority. At the top is what might be termed the senior executive: the Mannos, Rendas and Rizzutos, linked by blood ties as well as marriage. The family’s broad criminal strategies are mapped out at this level.


Marital connections also extend to the second level of the organization: the lieutenants, some of whose children are married to those of the top-level bosses. From this level, all criminal operations are coordinated and carried out. The third level comprises a wide array of associates, not necessarily all of Italian origin, but who have expertise in a particular sphere of activity, either criminal or legal. Lawyers, financiers and front men of all stripes place their know-how in the service of the organization, helping it launder the staggering amounts of money generated by criminal activities.


Now... this is precisely how I described the structure of the Naples clans like The Casalesi or Secondigliano awhile back. If you take out the ranks, it's basically how Ndrangheta clans are organized too. And if you look closely, it's basically how the Gambino- Spatola- Inzerillo- DiMaggio is too. It's through observation that I noticed the Manninos had kinda moved into the " Executive Branch" so to speak. And if you read felices info on the Gambinos, it seems the Zitos have been chafing for awhile too. And the Davis are just as prominent, they are sub- clans with top tier level power and resources. And I believe this is the source of the " constant, yet bloodless conflict" described in another thread.


Miriarchi wasn't said to be made. It was said he married into apowerful Ndrangheta clan. These people make MARRIAGES. Its the family who rules. It may be entirely possible THIS IS WHAT THEY REBELLED AGAINST UP THERE. The structure is closer to Succesion than Sopranos in an operational sense. A crime corporation run by family. This is why I say he will hate the comparison, lol.

The Persicos today are actually similar. They are the shareholders, the ranks of the family are so under their control they put DeLeo in there to " operate" as boss. This worked with him, he had no agency of his own. Orena? Different story entirely.... thats all organizational...