Organization & Operation revisited

[OcSleeper]

I'll put it on my list. Thanks.

Not to stray too far off topic but here it is online for free.
https://publicism.info/crime/mafia/index.html

[Angelo Santino]

Guys, the last book I purchased was mob prince by burnstein. I dont read books.

But between you guys telling me to read this and the Chicago guys telling me to read Family Secrets, I will take the time to do so.

Truth is, I'm so far off the beaten path that the books I have I refer to for information. They are highlighted and underlined w notes written on them. But I will check out these two books.

Thank you all for taking the time to recommend them to me.

Last night Rick, Tony, Eric and Snakes recorded a Chicago 1970s to 80s episode. I was on but wasn't there because i have nothing to add. I found listening to them riveting and I'm sure everyone else will once its released.

[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...

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.

Yall take this shit too serious sometimes. The Seashell thing was a joke. And yes, a crew like Nicky Scarfo, or Ruggianos crew which was said to be huge. They were lead by soldiers. Just like you can have a guy like... was it DB from the fist who got upped to capo? But no crew, right?

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

Nah....lol I'm not letting you off THAT easy my friend. We still gotta have a Orgs and Op convo about that Comito- Corigliano clan on Long Island....

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.

Nah... it was more recent with guys like Vinny TV... gotta check it but yeah......

I honestly think 2 Consiglieri would be weirder. The "Musical Consigliere" thing comes to mind. Hell, I would almost categorize Castellano and Dellacroce before Carlos death as unofficial Co - underbosses.

[PolackTony]

I honestly think 2 Consiglieri would be weirder. The "Musical Consigliere" thing comes to mind. Hell, I would almost categorize Castellano and Dellacroce before Carlos death as unofficial Co - underbosses.

Why would having two consiglieri be particularly weird? Buscetta testified that Families in Sicily could have up to three official consiglieri. Further, Families using a Consiglio distributed the function of the consigliere across a body of multiple men.

The Feds carried Ricca and Accardo as co-consiglieri during the Giancana era (which as we’ve seen wasn’t unfounded in that both men served on the Consiglio). While one may have been official consigliere (I.e. Chairman of the Consiglio), both men may have shared that position. The fact that both subsequently served as co-acting bosses during Giancana’s exile further suggests that they may have been serving in a shared position before.

Since you brought up Castellano and Dellacroce, from an operational perspective Aiuppa and Cerone may have acted like de facto co-bosses, though we know for a fact that Aiuppa was official boss and Cerone was official UB. Cerone was alleged to have been asked to take the top spot before Aiuppa and turned it down (presumably due to worries over catching heat, not that it wound up doing him any good in the long term), and this is a case where in terms of stature and clout, the UB was certainly the de facto equal of the boss (hence the misinformed 1980s chart published in the Tribune that depicted Aiuppa and Cerone as coequal “operating bosses”).

[Angelo Santino]

Yall take this shit too serious sometimes. The Seashell thing was a joke. And yes, a crew like Nicky Scarfo, or Ruggianos crew which was said to be huge. They were lead by soldiers. Just like you can have a guy like... was it DB from the fist who got upped to capo? But no crew, right?

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

Nah....lol I'm not letting you off THAT easy my friend. We still gotta have a Orgs and Op convo about that Comito- Corigliano clan on Long Island....

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.

Nah... it was more recent with guys like Vinny TV... gotta check it but yeah......

I honestly think 2 Consiglieri would be weirder. The "Musical Consigliere" thing comes to mind. Hell, I would almost categorize Castellano and Dellacroce before Carlos death as unofficial Co - underbosses.

There can and have been capos without a crew, one reason for that which I already pointed out with the Luccheses.

Crews of non-members can answer to soldiers. You do not see crews of soldiers answering to another soldier within the realms of organizational. That soldier is either acting/capo or those under him are not made.

I don't know anything about the Comito-Corigliano clan on long island. If it's a cell or ndrina it would be organizational, whatever they are involved in is operational.

Does JD even cover the modern stuff? 2000's seems pretty late for him.

There have been multiple consiglieri, nothing prohibits that, you generally see it with families that have consiglio.

Regarding Castellano/Dellacroce. We know that Carlo was boss, Paul acting boss and Dellacroce Underboss, this is organizational. How they functioned unofficially as almost co-Underbosses is another example of operational. Carlo Gambino didn't regard them as his co-underbosses.

[B.]

I guess I don't see the need to describe guys as unofficial co-captains or co-underbosses if they weren't. There are duos who would seem like co-captains like DeCarlo/Rega and Corozzo/DiMaria because they were best friends, partners in everything, made together, etc. They weren't co-captains though, they just operated that way to some degree and maybe in some cases one of them acted for each other. Castellano and Dellacroce directed different factions but why call them unofficial co-underbosses when you could call them by their official titles which describe their roles more accurately.

Neil Dellacroce was described by Angelo Bruno as a "capodecina di capodecina" because he represented a faction of other captains but he wasn't officially that. When someone was making a formal introduction they wouldn't say "Joe meet Neil, capodecina di capodecina". But in conversation Bruno wanted to communicate that Dellacroce had a representational role over a group of captains and Magaddino indicated Tommy Rava previously had the same role over the same faction. Nick Gentile wasn't a captain but him being named sostituto over multiple Agrigento decine in the same Family is similar.

Basically the Gambinos gave certain factions their own de facto leader and for Dellacroce it became even more concrete when he became underboss and repped them on the admin. You also see this with Vito Genovese when Costello was boss. You don't see this with Profaci/Magliocco or Bonanno/Garofalo/Morales where the boss and underboss came from the same faction. Another side of the organizational vs. operational discussion that hasn't been brought up much in this thread is politics. Politics often relect formal org titles but politics also go outside of it.

Like the above guys said, there is organizational precedence for a group of consiglieri. Buscetta and Calderone said it existed in Sicily and it was all over the historic US. It wasn't because they all operated as advisors -- it was because the organization formally elected/appointed them. This disappeared over time but we're at a point where many of us aren't surprised to find out a given US Family had a consiglio.

That's why it's exceptional the DeCavalcantes allegedly had two underbosses or there is more to it that wasn't put in context (i.e. Majuri was acting for LaSelva because he was on Connecticut). We don't see Cosa Nostra Families with two underbosses and it would mean the DeCavalcantes truly were "different" as some people try to make other Families out to be. If we had wiretaps of Giancana that made reference to two underbosses it would be taken as evidence that Chicago was fundamentally different but because it's the good old DeCavalcantes it's treated with a shrug. "So they might have had two underbosses, okay let's talk about John Gotti."

One reason I question the info about the DeCavalcantes is a city like Chicago where it was believed they had a very different version of sottocapo that was taken to mean "personal underboss". Nick Calabrese put this to rest by stating explicitly in court that they used sottocapo to mean acting capodecina. This isn't that weird, as the shortened term "capo" is traditionally a term for the Family boss himself and a century ago it would be out of place to call a capodecina a "capo" even though it's just a shortened version. If you told a mafioso in 1915 that a Family had multiple people with the title of "capo" they would be confused and think there were multiple bosses not unlike us being confused about Chicago's use of sottocapo. But if you explained to a 1915 mafioso what you meant by "capo" he'd immediately understand that you meant capodecina.

What's important organizationally is the meaning intended, not the term. This has been a constant source of confusion/debate on the boards over the years. "Oh these guys call themselves a borgata but these other guys call themselves an outfit, they must be a different thing." I mean Joe Bonanno hated the term "boss" and felt it was an improper interpretation of the traditional role but he understood what people were referring to when they said it. Because his Family mainly called him a "Father" it doesn't mean he was something different from a boss/capo/rappresentante. "Father" is no different from the euphemism "the Man" when that's been used but these still refer to something formal and it is more confusing than it is helpful to assign "unofficial" versions of formal titles to people even if it's only us obsessives that care.

[CabriniGreen]

I guess I don't see the need to describe guys as unofficial co-captains or co-underbosses if they weren't. There are duos who would seem like co-captains like DeCarlo/Rega and Corozzo/DiMaria because they were best friends, partners in everything, made together, etc. They weren't co-captains though, they just operated that way to some degree and maybe in some cases one of them acted for each other. Castellano and Dellacroce directed different factions but why call them unofficial co-underbosses when you could call them by their official titles which describe their roles more accurately.

Neil Dellacroce was described by Angelo Bruno as a "capodecina di capodecina" because he represented a faction of other captains but he wasn't officially that. When someone was making a formal introduction they wouldn't say "Joe meet Neil, capodecina di capodecina". But in conversation Bruno wanted to communicate that Dellacroce had a representational role over a group of captains and Magaddino indicated Tommy Rava previously had the same role over the same faction. Nick Gentile wasn't a captain but him being named sostituto over multiple Agrigento decine in the same Family is similar.

Basically the Gambinos gave certain factions their own de facto leader and for Dellacroce it became even more concrete when he became underboss and repped them on the admin. You also see this with Vito Genovese when Costello was boss. You don't see this with Profaci/Magliocco or Bonanno/Garofalo/Morales where the boss and underboss came from the same faction. Another side of the organizational vs. operational discussion that hasn't been brought up much in this thread is politics. Politics often relect formal org titles but politics also go outside of it.

Like the above guys said, there is organizational precedence for a group of consiglieri. Buscetta and Calderone said it existed in Sicily and it was all over the historic US. It wasn't because they all operated as advisors -- it was because the organization formally elected/appointed them. This disappeared over time but we're at a point where many of us aren't surprised to find out a given US Family had a consiglio.

That's why it's exceptional the DeCavalcantes allegedly had two underbosses or there is more to it that wasn't put in context (i.e. Majuri was acting for LaSelva because he was on Connecticut). We don't see Cosa Nostra Families with two underbosses and it would mean the DeCavalcantes truly were "different" as some people try to make other Families out to be. If we had wiretaps of Giancana that made reference to two underbosses it would be taken as evidence that Chicago was fundamentally different but because it's the good old DeCavalcantes it's treated with a shrug. "So they might have had two underbosses, okay let's talk about John Gotti."

One reason I question the info about the DeCavalcantes is a city like Chicago where it was believed they had a very different version of sottocapo that was taken to mean "personal underboss". Nick Calabrese put this to rest by stating explicitly in court that they used sottocapo to mean acting capodecina. This isn't that weird, as the shortened term "capo" is traditionally a term for the Family boss himself and a century ago it would be out of place to call a capodecina a "capo" even though it's just a shortened version. If you told a mafioso in 1915 that a Family had multiple people with the title of "capo" they would be confused and think there were multiple bosses not unlike us being confused about Chicago's use of sottocapo. But if you explained to a 1915 mafioso what you meant by "capo" he'd immediately understand that you meant capodecina.

What's important organizationally is the meaning intended, not the term. This has been a constant source of confusion/debate on the boards over the years. "Oh these guys call themselves a borgata but these other guys call themselves an outfit, they must be a different thing." I mean Joe Bonanno hated the term "boss" and felt it was an improper interpretation of the traditional role but he understood what people were referring to when they said it. Because his Family mainly called him a "Father" it doesn't mean he was something different from a boss/capo/rappresentante. "Father" is no different from the euphemism "the Man" when that's been used but these still refer to something formal and it is more confusing than it is helpful to assign "unofficial" versions of formal titles to people even if it's only us obsessives that care.

Bro... I can't lie. This post cracked me up.

You say " Why call them unofficial underbosses when their official Caporegime title is more accurate?" Understand, I didn't say they were both Underboss. I gave essentially a shorthand description of how they functioned within the family.

You follow this up with a giant explanation on how they WERE essentially special capos, complete with Bruno calling him what... " Caporegime of capiregimes?"....
An unofficial title...... similar to an underboss? It's like, a fucking sitting boss of the Commision gave him a made up rank. Yall take this shit more serious than the ACTUAL MAFIA!!!



I've noticed these type of interactions before where I'm not even sure what the disagreement is......


And I DID make a comment that the dual underboss thing is probably a creature of politics more than operation. Unless they had a " White Collar/ Castellano, Blue collar/ Dellacroce situation. Thsts why I brought them up.

It's like... by your guys logic, DeLeo was boss, and the Persicos are under him. THE CHART SAYS SO!! Lol...

[Angelo Santino]

You say " Why call them unofficial underbosses when their official Caporegime title is more accurate?" Understand, I didn't say they were both Underboss. I gave essentially a shorthand description of how they functioned within the family.

The key word is functioned (operational). In the secret society faction that is called the Gambinos they have one single underboss. Not two. We, as outsiders don't get to create ranks. During the Bush Admin, the VP was Dick Cheney. Labeling Donald Rumsfelt as Co-VP might be right descriptively but officially, the USA during that era had one Vice President and it was Dick Cheney.

You follow this up with a giant explanation on how they WERE essentially special capos, complete with Bruno calling him what... " Caporegime of capiregimes?"....
An unofficial title...... similar to an underboss? It's like, a fucking sitting boss of the Commision gave him a made up rank. Yall take this shit more serious than the ACTUAL MAFIA!!!

He isn't though. You are putting weight on someone describing a situation and trying to make it official. There is no rank as "capodecina di capodecina." He was speaking figuratively. Most people don't talk like they are testifying in a courtroom.

Are we going to argue that the official structure of the Gambino family is
-Boss
-Under
-Con
-Capodecina di Capodecina
-Capodecina
-Soldier?

If someone does, we can reach out to DiLeonardo and ask him if such a rank existed.

Now the response may be that no one was saying they made it an official rank. Ok, then we're talking about operational and we have no disagreement.

I've noticed these type of interactions before where I'm not even sure what the disagreement is......

The disagreement is over how much to measure outsider interpretations to the actual organization. We'll use the Castellano-Dellacroce co-underboss thing as an example. The mafia has a formal system, it works for its insiders, it doesn't need to explain itself to outsiders because its not for public consumption. Castellano was appointed acting boss and Dellacroce was underboss. That's it. Cut and dry, organization. In this scenario let's say Castellano spent his time in the mansion all day with his maid while Dellacroce functioned more as "the boss" and Gambino watched Days of Our Lives on television, that doesn't change their hierarchy. We, as outsiders don't get to say that Dellacroce was the actual boss because Gambino and Castellano did nothing. We can describe the operation but we don't get to define their hierarchy with our outsider observations. This is a very big deal.

And I DID make a comment that the dual underboss thing is probably a creature of politics more than operation. Unless they had a " White Collar/ Castellano, Blue collar/ Dellacroce situation. Thsts why I brought them up.

That may be true on an operational level. But organizationally, everyone knew who the acting boss and underboss was. If people doubt that, I'll get Michael DILeonardo on to discuss it. I'm not asking anyone to take my word on it.

It's like... by your guys logic, DeLeo was boss, and the Persicos are under him. THE CHART SAYS SO!! Lol...

No charts ever claimed that DeLeo had replaced the Persicos. B. doesn't care what a chart says, however if there was a wiretap from a Colombo member stating: "The man from Boston replaced the Snake as our official Boss" then Eric would take that serious.

The mafia is their organization. Like a co-underboss, like a capo, like a soldier etc stem from outsiders describing how people act operationally. But no member is going to be confused by this. Gotti calls a meeting of capos, no one is going to ask where Joe Watts is because he's "like a capo" nor is there going to be a special seat for a "capodecina di capodecina."

To quote Phil Leonardo, "It either has meaning or no meaning."

[CabriniGreen]

You say " Why call them unofficial underbosses when their official Caporegime title is more accurate?" Understand, I didn't say they were both Underboss. I gave essentially a shorthand description of how they functioned within the family.

The key word is functioned (operational). In the secret society faction that is called the Gambinos they have one single underboss. Not two. We, as outsiders don't get to create ranks. During the Bush Admin, the VP was Dick Cheney. Labeling Donald Rumsfelt as Co-VP might be right descriptively but officially, the USA during that era had one Vice President and it was Dick Cheney.

You follow this up with a giant explanation on how they WERE essentially special capos, complete with Bruno calling him what... " Caporegime of capiregimes?"....
An unofficial title...... similar to an underboss? It's like, a fucking sitting boss of the Commision gave him a made up rank. Yall take this shit more serious than the ACTUAL MAFIA!!!

He isn't though. You are putting weight on someone describing a situation and trying to make it official. There is no rank as "capodecina di capodecina." He was speaking figuratively. Most people don't talk like they are testifying in a courtroom.

Are we going to argue that the official structure of the Gambino family is
-Boss
-Under
-Con
-Capodecina di Capodecina
-Capodecina
-Soldier?

If someone does, we can reach out to DiLeonardo and ask him if such a rank existed.

Now the response may be that no one was saying they made it an official rank. Ok, then we're talking about operational and we have no disagreement.

I've noticed these type of interactions before where I'm not even sure what the disagreement is......

The disagreement is over how much to measure outsider interpretations to the actual organization. We'll use the Castellano-Dellacroce co-underboss thing as an example. The mafia has a formal system, it works for its insiders, it doesn't need to explain itself to outsiders because its not for public consumption. Castellano was appointed acting boss and Dellacroce was underboss. That's it. Cut and dry, organization. In this scenario let's say Castellano spent his time in the mansion all day with his maid while Dellacroce functioned more as "the boss" and Gambino watched Days of Our Lives on television, that doesn't change their hierarchy. We, as outsiders don't get to say that Dellacroce was the actual boss because Gambino and Castellano did nothing. We can describe the operation but we don't get to define their hierarchy with our outsider observations. This is a very big deal.

And I DID make a comment that the dual underboss thing is probably a creature of politics more than operation. Unless they had a " White Collar/ Castellano, Blue collar/ Dellacroce situation. Thsts why I brought them up.

That may be true on an operational level. But organizationally, everyone knew who the acting boss and underboss was. If people doubt that, I'll get Michael DILeonardo on to discuss it. I'm not asking anyone to take my word on it.

It's like... by your guys logic, DeLeo was boss, and the Persicos are under him. THE CHART SAYS SO!! Lol...

No charts ever claimed that DeLeo had replaced the Persicos. B. doesn't care what a chart says, however if there was a wiretap from a Colombo member stating: "The man from Boston replaced the Snake as our official Boss" then Eric would take that serious.

The mafia is their organization. Like a co-underboss, like a capo, like a soldier etc stem from outsiders describing how people act operationally. But no member is going to be confused by this. Gotti calls a meeting of capos, no one is going to ask where Joe Watts is because he's "like a capo" nor is there going to be a special seat for a "capodecina di capodecina."

To quote Phil Leonardo, "It either has meaning or no meaning."

It's getting to the point that I don't know what you are talking about.

First off, would you please stop with this condescending outsiders shit? Lol, like seriously. No one is claiming to be an insider. By continually saying this,It's like you imply that YOU are an insider.

Second, B. found some info from the files that had the Decalvs with 2 underbosses. You guys went on at length at how the mafia doesn't change structure or invent new ranks. So I wasn't understanding why he was seeing this as some revolution in mafia organization, when there's probably a practical explanation. I gave a couple ideas, like maybe it's a creature of politics vs operation. Or maybe it's more generic, like Castellano/ White Collar, Dellacroce/ bluE collar. Jesus, no one said so and so was a finance capo or whatever... like what? It could have been Old Timers/ Young Turks, partly geographic, any multitude of criteria to DISCUSS.


You are talking about people making up ranks and misreading situations. It's like you are replying to things no one brought up. Nobody made up any ranks. I just made a comment on Brunos unofficial designation for Dellacroce. Is "Caporegime of Capiregimes" BETTER than.."Hes like an underboss".... to me they are roughly equivalent statements. Yall argue like lawyers, fighting over the definition of the word " The".

To me, Galante " operating" as boss is an organizational matter precisely because the whole organization went along with it. It took the Commision, the highest organizational body to fix it. Rastelli, IF he had the power COULD have just shelved him. Badalamenti was Chairman of the Cupola. They didn't just demote him from the Cupola, or make him abdicate his position as a family capo. They kicked him OUT THE MAFIA! They wernt " operating" as the Cupola leaders. THEY WERE THE LEADERS!! Yall probably think Greco was in charge and not the Corleonesi too.


You can't tell me the Cammaranno thing..... is operational. Because he was acting boss. That's an organizational issue. He took a vote to take over.... he doesn't do thst if he's JUST performing a function for the boss.

[Angelo Santino]

It's getting to the point that I don't know what you are talking about.

First off, would you please stop with this condescending outsiders shit? Lol, like seriously. No one is claiming to be an insider. By continually saying this,It's like you imply that YOU are an insider.

Hardly. I say "we as outsiders" and "their organization," not "you outsiders" and "my organization." I need to keep emphasizing that it's a secret society because people either don't appreciate that or wish to ignore that point because that pulls the rug out from people who want to create weird hierarchies or argue that de facto overrules de jure and I'm saying that it doesn't. I'm not trying to be condescending at all.

Second, B. found some info from the files that had the Decalvs with 2 underbosses. You guys went on at length at how the mafia doesn't change structure or invent new ranks. So I wasn't understanding why he was seeing this as some revolution in mafia organization, when there's probably a practical explanation. I gave a couple ideas, like maybe it's a creature of politics vs operation. Or maybe it's more generic, like Castellano/ White Collar, Dellacroce/ bluE collar. Jesus, no one said so and so was a finance capo or whatever... like what? It could have been Old Timers/ Young Turks, partly geographic, any multitude of criteria to DISCUSS.

He didn't say that. He was making a point that observers seen that FBI report and thought nothing about it, whereas if that same report mentioned certain other cities that it would be used as proof that the city's Family in question is "different."

Going back to Castellano and Dellacroce... should we discount what's already been established and confirmed and make a whole new chart with Dellacroce and Castellano on the same level with "Blue Collar Underboss" and "White Collar Underboss?" That wasn't the set up, that's not the organization. Operationally, Castellano as AB may have headed up a white collar faction and Dellacroce as Under a blue collar one. That changes nothing within the organizational structure. It would, however show how flexible the mafia is when it comes to operational, and why it has existed in the US for 180 years.

You are talking about people making up ranks and misreading situations. It's like you are replying to things no one brought up. Nobody made up any ranks. I just made a comment on Brunos unofficial designation for Dellacroce. Is "Caporegime of Capiregimes" BETTER than.."Hes like an underboss".... to me they are roughly equivalent statements. Yall argue like lawyers, fighting over the definition of the word " The".

You may not be, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth, I'm not. But there are others who do. Someone has used "Finance capo" in the past, not you.

I would disagree on likening capodecina di capodecina to like an Underboss. CDC would be more like a speaker of the house while the Under a Vice President.

If we're acting like lawyers it's because we're making an attempt at contextualizing this stuff. We're not sitting here shooting the shit over our favorite mobster. Yeah, we take this stuff seriously, I can't apologize for that.

To me, Galante " operating" as boss is an organizational matter precisely because the whole organization went along with it. It took the Commision, the highest organizational body to fix it. Rastelli, IF he had the power COULD have just shelved him. Badalamenti was Chairman of the Cupola. They didn't just demote him from the Cupola, or make him abdicate his position as a family capo. They kicked him OUT THE MAFIA! They wernt " operating" as the Cupola leaders. THEY WERE THE LEADERS!! Yall probably think Greco was in charge and not the Corleonesi too.

Informant Sal Vitale already stated that Galante was never the official boss. He may have tried to take it over but was unsuccessful and his supporters were demoted afterwards.

People get demoted. The boss' power isn't absolute. In SF, the consigliere had the power to go to New York and get the SF boss removed. Does this mean the boss wasn't really the boss or that we should change SF's structure as

Consigliere
Boss
Under?

You can't tell me the Cammaranno thing..... is operational. Because he was acting boss. That's an organizational issue. He took a vote to take over.... he doesn't do thst if he's JUST performing a function for the boss.

On the flipside one could ask, if the organization doesn't mean anything, that it's just some criminal operation then why would Cammarano take a vote? Why not just "take over?" The fact that he put it to a vote shows that there's a protocol within the organization that is still followed.

[B.]

You're the one who sounds like a lawyer, Cabrini. "These two guys were both under the boss, weren't they? You might say they were both unofficially underbosses then, right?"

I just don't see the point in assigning ranks to guys when they don't have them. It takes away from our understanding of what their actual rank can entail. When someone says a certain soldier is "like an unofficial captain" I know what they mean but it also leads to misconceptions about the range of what a soldier can be. People say someone is "like a capo" in part because they assume soldier is a more lackluster position than it is.

People call Vito Rizzuto a mafia boss because they either don't know better or think being an acting captain and soldier denigrates his true role in some way. Available info shows him to be an acting captain or soldier with a significant leadership role in the network he was part of. It takes nothing away from him, it only makes his story more impressive as his operational influence didn't directly mirror what people expect of members with his rank. Part of that is because of what he brought as an individual but it's also because positions like acting captain or soldier are more flexible than most people assume.

[Angelo Santino]

I was considering starting another thread on this but I'll do it here.

There were two main theories on the LCN/Mafia in this country.

1 Alien Conspiracy Theory: The Mafia was purposely imported into this country to dominate it and that its headquarters were in Palermo. This theory was in popular demand during the communism scare in the middle of last century.

2 Ethnic Succession Theory: The American syndicate was formed by poverty-stricken Italians who combined family tradition and the darkside of American Capitalism. This theory is the one that's been more widespread. You see it with Luciano founding the modern American Mafia in 1931 just as Al Capone who "molded the factions into a singular menacing organism (Coen)" in Chicago.

--

We can discount 2. We know that the American Mafia was imported from Sicily and that each and every Mafia Family that existed in the US was founded by Sicilian mafiosi. Theory 1 is more accurate but not without its flaws. The Mafia's arrival in this country had more to do with chain migration and economy rather than a conspiracy to take over the US by an entity with HQ's in Palermo.

[Don_Peppino]

You're the one who sounds like a lawyer, Cabrini. "These two guys were both under the boss, weren't they? You might say they were both unofficially underbosses then, right?"

I just don't see the point in assigning ranks to guys when they don't have them. It takes away from our understanding of what their actual rank can entail. When someone says a certain soldier is "like an unofficial captain" I know what they mean but it also leads to misconceptions about the range of what a soldier can be. People say someone is "like a capo" in part because they assume soldier is a more lackluster position than it is.

People call Vito Rizzuto a mafia boss because they either don't know better or think being an acting captain and soldier denigrates his true role in some way. Available info shows him to be an acting captain or soldier with a significant leadership role in the network he was part of. It takes nothing away from him, it only makes his story more impressive as his operational influence didn't directly mirror what people expect of members with his rank. Part of that is because of what he brought as an individual but it's also because positions like acting captain or soldier are more flexible than most people assume.

When the term "high ranking member" comes up in reference to a soldier or member whose specific rank is unknown, I take it to mean either he is close in promixty to the boss or has access to a operation that is lucrative to multiple individuals.

[Don_Peppino]

I was considering starting another thread on this but I'll do it here.

There were two main theories on the LCN/Mafia in this country.

1 Alien Conspiracy Theory: The Mafia was purposely imported into this country to dominate it and that its headquarters were in Palermo. This theory was in popular demand during the communism scare in the middle of last century.

2 Ethnic Succession Theory: The American syndicate was formed by poverty-stricken Italians who combined family tradition and the darkside of American Capitalism. This theory is the one that's been more widespread. You see it with Luciano founding the modern American Mafia in 1931 just as Al Capone who "molded the factions into a singular menacing organism (Coen)" in Chicago.

--

We can discount 2. We know that the American Mafia was imported from Sicily and that each and every Mafia Family that existed in the US was founded by Sicilian mafiosi. Theory 1 is more accurate but not without its flaws. The Mafia's arrival in this country had more to do with chain migration and economy rather than a conspiracy to take over the US by an entity with HQ's in Palermo.

I would liken it to the immigration of the Founding Fathers coming from England to America in the 1700s. The early mafiosi probably had aspirations that couldn't be accomplished in Sicily, that already had its "ruling class".

[CornerBoy]

Guys, the last book I purchased was mob prince by burnstein. I dont read books.

But between you guys telling me to read this and the Chicago guys telling me to read Family Secrets, I will take the time to do so.

Truth is, I'm so far off the beaten path that the books I have I refer to for information. They are highlighted and underlined w notes written on them. But I will check out these two books.

Thank you all for taking the time to recommend them to me.

Last night Rick, Tony, Eric and Snakes recorded a Chicago 1970s to 80s episode. I was on but wasn't there because i have nothing to add. I found listening to them riveting and I'm sure everyone else will once its released.

Hi Angelo-- how do you get all this info without reading books? Thanks!