Gangland 3/23/2023

[johnny_scootch]

Go with that then.

Seems like it's working?

At some point we just have to respectfully agree to disagree and see what the future holds.

Cheers to you

[Teflon Dom]

Need to make a separate thread about the Scott and Capeci thing. Clogs up the Gangland thread every single week, geesh. Same thing over and over.

[Pogo The Clown]

Need to make a separate thread about the Scott and Capeci thing. Clogs up the Gangland thread every single week, geesh. Same thing over and over.

Fughedaboutit


Pogo

[NorthBuffalo]

Genovese guys getting another sweet plea deal once again lol. Not to say the charges weren't total bullshit, but still - they pled to a conspiracy where they were giving away the pills, knew they were being resold for money, and never got any $ in return? Huh?

I didn't think they belonged behind bars for this personally, but that's just my bleeding heart bullshit talking... realistically anyone else (anyone younger, at least) would have gotten a lot more than community service for a repeat pattern of transferring opiates to a 3rd party for resale, with the legitimacy of their scripts having nothing to do with anything. "I was throwing out the ones I wasn't taking at the end of the month" - interesting... yet you were going back each month to get a new script? Why not have one script stretch out over 2-3 months then? Even drug illiterate housewives getting a script after surgery know how much those things are worth lol

It's just funny the mental gymnastics it took to come up with the plea deal here. Salute to them though

well said - it's amazing with the epidemic the government hypes that the DA would allow a plea deal like this. Albanese especially has an incredible record.

[Pmac2]

You think the higher ups in the family would put this 2 guys on the shelf for this or is it OK because it was there own personal medication and not really a illegal drug. IMO I bet there in ok standing. They been labeled 2 broksters that been around forever and again its kinda a fuzzy line. Not really drug dealing...

[mafiastudent]

With all due respect to Antilar, and I'm certainly not trying to start an argument on this thread - I'm giving my opinion on the story, nothing else - but while Mancuso's original VOSR charges don't encompass these current allegations, the government can file additional VOSR charges. Gene Borello's situation is a perfect example of this. And this is where, as I mentioned, the logic doesn't mesh. Because the government is allowing Mancuso to plead to lesser charges when they could very well just tack on additional charges - and these allegations are serious. I would like to think that if there is an impending war, the government wouldn't just sit idly by so they can build a case all the while putting innocent civilians at risk from random gunfire, etc. - especially when they already have an alleged perpetrator of this alleged impending war in their grasp that they could easily put in jail to keep the public safe.... while they investigate and then add new charges - or a completely separate indictment - later. But this guy is just sitting at home going about his business.

It's the lesser charges that are a stumbling block for me. Why lesser charges and not the original charges? That's a question that won't be answered until his April hearing.

Also, I don't think it's disrespectful or out of line to question aspects of a story. And as I said, I'm not arguing with anyone, just stating my objective opinion.

[TommyGambino]

You think the higher ups in the family would put this 2 guys on the shelf for this or is it OK because it was there own personal medication and not really a illegal drug. IMO I bet there in ok standing. They been labeled 2 broksters that been around forever and again its kinda a fuzzy line. Not really drug dealing...

People get put on the shelf for dealing in this day and age? Not heard that

[Antiliar]

Also, I don't think it's disrespectful or out of line to question aspects of a story. And as I said, I'm not arguing with anyone, just stating my objective opinion.

I agree that it's not disrespectful to question aspects of a story, as long as the questioning doesn't become disrespectful. To assert as an absolute fact that nothing in Scott's story is true when these things could take months or even years to verify is arrogant and ignorant. Any researcher worth his or her salt knows that it can take a long time to verify or disprove claims. For many they simply can't be verified or disproven at all, but in the meantime as long as the source is safe the information can be reported on as something that *may* be true. It also can be disrespectful when it's asserted that he lied or made up facts, or even made up sources. Or people getting angry over it instead of having a calm, rational discussion.

[NorthBuffalo]

You think the higher ups in the family would put this 2 guys on the shelf for this or is it OK because it was there own personal medication and not really a illegal drug. IMO I bet there in ok standing. They been labeled 2 broksters that been around forever and again its kinda a fuzzy line. Not really drug dealing...

People get put on the shelf for dealing in this day and age? Not heard that

Albanese was in that NYTimes article about mobsters struggling to make ends meet and selling fireworks to kids. I would wonder if he was on the shelf at that point. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/nyregion/10mob.html

[TallGuy19]

You think the higher ups in the family would put this 2 guys on the shelf for this or is it OK because it was there own personal medication and not really a illegal drug. IMO I bet there in ok standing. They been labeled 2 broksters that been around forever and again its kinda a fuzzy line. Not really drug dealing...

People get put on the shelf for dealing in this day and age? Not heard that

Albanese was in that NYTimes article about mobsters struggling to make ends meet and selling fireworks to kids. I would wonder if he was on the shelf at that point. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/nyregion/10mob.html

I doubt he was on the shelf at that point. He and Russo were photographed at a meeting with Petey Red's crew in the early 2000s.

[mafiastudent]

Also, I don't think it's disrespectful or out of line to question aspects of a story. And as I said, I'm not arguing with anyone, just stating my objective opinion.

I agree that it's not disrespectful to question aspects of a story, as long as the questioning doesn't become disrespectful. To assert as an absolute fact that nothing in Scott's story is true when these things could take months or even years to verify is arrogant and ignorant. Any researcher worth his or her salt knows that it can take a long time to verify or disprove claims. For many they simply can't be verified or disproven at all, but in the meantime as long as the source is safe the information can be reported on as something that *may* be true. It also can be disrespectful when it's asserted that he lied or made up facts, or even made up sources. Or people getting angry over it instead of having a calm, rational discussion.

I don't think I ever said anyone "lied" or "made up facts." In fact, I'm speaking solely on one aspect of the story as it relates to Mancuso's VOSR.

[Antiliar]

Also, I don't think it's disrespectful or out of line to question aspects of a story. And as I said, I'm not arguing with anyone, just stating my objective opinion.

I agree that it's not disrespectful to question aspects of a story, as long as the questioning doesn't become disrespectful. To assert as an absolute fact that nothing in Scott's story is true when these things could take months or even years to verify is arrogant and ignorant. Any researcher worth his or her salt knows that it can take a long time to verify or disprove claims. For many they simply can't be verified or disproven at all, but in the meantime as long as the source is safe the information can be reported on as something that *may* be true. It also can be disrespectful when it's asserted that he lied or made up facts, or even made up sources. Or people getting angry over it instead of having a calm, rational discussion.

I don't think I ever said anyone "lied" or "made up facts." In fact, I'm speaking solely on one aspect of the story as it relates to Mancuso's VOSR.

I never claimed you did. I was making a general statement.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Also, I don't think it's disrespectful or out of line to question aspects of a story. And as I said, I'm not arguing with anyone, just stating my objective opinion.

I agree that it's not disrespectful to question aspects of a story, as long as the questioning doesn't become disrespectful. To assert as an absolute fact that nothing in Scott's story is true when these things could take months or even years to verify is arrogant and ignorant. Any researcher worth his or her salt knows that it can take a long time to verify or disprove claims. For many they simply can't be verified or disproven at all, but in the meantime as long as the source is safe the information can be reported on as something that *may* be true. It also can be disrespectful when it's asserted that he lied or made up facts, or even made up sources. Or people getting angry over it instead of having a calm, rational discussion.

I appreciate your detailed responses.
I'd reply in detail to your points in the above and previous. But I'm a little pressed for time.

My only assertion is great claims require great evidence. Great claims were made and there's been zero corroboration from very very important parties. Two of which, Capeci and LE, have been silent on the issue for over 2 months. And this whilst the principle is in court, with no mention by prosecutors and his charges reduced.

I don't think my position is illogical or unreasonable. I am not calling Scott anything. I am simply stating articles he published appear to likely be false, given the above.

I get annoyed when it appears legitimate or justified criticism is seen as off limits due to it being interpreted (incorrectly) as personal. Perhaps we can agree on that?

But good dialogue. Always enjoy mature engagement. Cheers ears.

@Johnny: Cheers and respect bud.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Need to make a separate thread about the Scott and Capeci thing. Clogs up the Gangland thread every single week, geesh. Same thing over and over.

Fair call.

Though the issue at hand is the largest LCN news since Cali got clipped. So it's not unreasonable to expect it gets discussed.

[Antiliar]

Also, I don't think it's disrespectful or out of line to question aspects of a story. And as I said, I'm not arguing with anyone, just stating my objective opinion.

I agree that it's not disrespectful to question aspects of a story, as long as the questioning doesn't become disrespectful. To assert as an absolute fact that nothing in Scott's story is true when these things could take months or even years to verify is arrogant and ignorant. Any researcher worth his or her salt knows that it can take a long time to verify or disprove claims. For many they simply can't be verified or disproven at all, but in the meantime as long as the source is safe the information can be reported on as something that *may* be true. It also can be disrespectful when it's asserted that he lied or made up facts, or even made up sources. Or people getting angry over it instead of having a calm, rational discussion.

I appreciate your detailed responses.
I'd reply in detail to your points in the above and previous. But I'm a little pressed for time.

My only assertion is great claims require great evidence. Great claims were made and there's been zero corroboration from very very important parties. Two of which, Capeci and LE, have been silent on the issue for over 2 months. And this whilst the principle is in court, with no mention by prosecutors and his charges reduced.

I don't think my position is illogical or unreasonable. I am not calling Scott anything. I am simply stating articles he published appear to likely be false, given the above.

I get annoyed when it appears legitimate or justified criticism is seen as off limits due to it being interpreted (incorrectly) as personal. Perhaps we can agree on that?

But good dialogue. Always enjoy mature engagement. Cheers ears.

@Johnny: Cheers and respect bud.

Alright, fair enough. Please just keep in mind that confirmation for these things can take a long time. Not just a couple months, but years or even decades. The other thing is that lack of confirmation or corroboration does not mean they never happened. I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm speaking from experience.