Kansas City Mob Today

[Wiseguy]

This is a deflection. The feds brought it up. This is not a could be. I didn’t look for it to support my narrative. I follow the case. My question to you is the same. Why would the Feds introduce this evidence into the record if they aren’t concerned with the mafia/OMC and the violence toward prosecutors, judges, and witnesses? That is a reasonable question to ask. IMHO it is unreasonable not to ask it, which is what it appears you do. You are only interested in the information that supports your views and jettison and ignore everything else.

The difference between me and you is it appears to me that you actively try to suppress evidence contrary to your opinions by belittling and mocking while I encourage everyone present what they think is important for people to know. The more info the better… I trust people to develop their own opinions it appears to me that you fear people coming to a different opinion than you hold and don’t trust people with information.

I'm not trying to supress anything and it would be impossible for me to do so. But it does seem you are creating a scenario where, if I can't explain the strategy of the prosecution in bringing these things up, that must mean there's at least plausible evidence to suggest there is still an an active mob family in Buffalo. I can't pretend to know what is going on in the heads of the prosecutors and don't accept the premise of your argument.

How many years have you been saying this?

You said this after the Violi busts…

Then Masecchia was charged… and you said it again…

Then Bongo was charged and you said it again…

Then Gerace was charged and you said it again… and etc …

Can you admit you were wrong each time you suggested nothing else would come up about the Buffalo mob in the news and then it did?

If not, how many more times will you do this?

This is so dishonest and misleading. You talk as if these are not all interconnected coming out of the same investigations. These aren't separate cases over an extended period of time demonstrating continuing racketeering activity overseen by an LCN family. Nice try though.

Deflection… you know that your answers will show the world you allow your presupposition to rule your thought process and will never change your mind no matter what.

Nickle is a guy who started with a desired outcome in mind when it comes to Buffalo and works backwards to realize that outcome. There's no reasoning with someone like that because it's not about the evidence for them, as much as they pretend otherwise.

Pot calling the kettle black. You are the one that starts with a desired outcome and works backward. This just shows you will not deviate from your presuppositions or you would answer the questions.

When have I ever deflected anything? While I'm usually willing to engage in debate, to a fault, even I have my limits. And on the subject of Buffalo, the outcome was determined a long time ago by far more people than just me who are in a position to know.

A major contributor to this controversy is not just misunderstanding Buffalo but ignorance of the LCN overall in the 21st century. A family in the U.S. isn't going to resurrect itself. Two-thirds of a 30+ member family aren't going to fly under the radar of law enforcement. Time and again it has been shown to you and others how what we've seen in Buffalo in recent years is not unlike what we've seen in other cities with a defunct family. This isn't just about "evidence" but being able to read that evidence in its proper context. I come to the conclusion I do, not because I want a certain outcome, but because we've seen the same general trends and outcomes in LCN families across the nation over the past 40 years. And you can't look at Buffalo apart from or in isolation from that.

Now, if you want to take the academic position some here have (and it's one of the stronger ones because it changes the debate) that a family exists down to literally the last member, even if he's inactive and never committed a crime in his life, because he's recognized as part of this traditional network; that's one thing. But that doesn't seem to be what you and others are saying.

[NickleCity]

... But it does seem you are creating a scenario where, if I can't explain the strategy of the prosecution in bringing these things up, that must mean there's at least plausible evidence to suggest there is still an an active mob family in Buffalo. I can't pretend to know what is going on in the heads of the prosecutors and don't accept the premise of your argument.

But Wiseguy you don't have to pretend to know what is going in the heads of the federal prosecutors... Let's use the feds own words, after all you love to use their own words and throw out the FBI's Ahearn and Cohen's words out all the time... they have "information" that has led to their "belief" and then they go into the mafia's history of violence to silence witnesses.

"...Upon information and belief..."

So why do you discount their information and their belief?

Do you think their information is wrong?

Do you think their belief is wrong?

Explain why you take Ahearn and Cohen's old statements as gospel, but not the feds in this case?

This is why I believe your are being disingenuous and only use the feds words when they agree with your opinion. Your start with your premise and ignore everything else.

A much more genuine approach would be to acknowledge what the feds said and make your argument why this doesn't mean there is a viable Buffalo family. One approach you could have taken is to acknowledge the feds words that this Kingsmen member made connections with high ranking mafiosos while in BP custody, but say we don't know who these mafioso were.. You could suggest these mafioso could have been from another family... I would respect that ... I don't respect what you just did... which was to deflect from my questions and pull this I cant' know what is in their mind crap... when they explained what was in their mind.

BTW if one did use this argument another could respond... but why would another mafia family be concerned about silencing witnesses in Buffalo and threatening the administrative judge and the prosecutor in the Gerace/Bongi case(s).

I am out of time and will respond to the rest of what you wrote at later.

[Newyorkempire]

He just got caught in his own lies about 10 times in his last 3 posts. Admits he can't convince anyone of anything but yet still trying to form a consensus for the reason that no one knows. Real sick puppy

[Wiseguy]

But Wiseguy you don't have to pretend to know what is going in the heads of the federal prosecutors... Let's use the feds own words, after all you love to use their own words and throw out the FBI's Ahearn and Cohen's words out all the time... they have "information" that has led to their "belief" and then they go into the mafia's history of violence to silence witnesses.

"...Upon information and belief..."

So why do you discount their information and their belief?

Do you think their information is wrong?

Do you think their belief is wrong?

Explain why you take Ahearn and Cohen's old statements as gospel, but not the feds in this case?

This is why I believe your are being disingenuous and only use the feds words when they agree with your opinion. Your start with your premise and ignore everything else.

A much more genuine approach would be to acknowledge what the feds said and make your argument why this doesn't mean there is a viable Buffalo family. One approach you could have taken is to acknowledge the feds words that this Kingsmen member made connections with high ranking mafiosos while in BP custody, but say we don't know who these mafioso were.. You could suggest these mafioso could have been from another family... I would respect that ... I don't respect what you just did... which was to deflect from my questions and pull this I cant' know what is in their mind crap... when they explained what was in their mind.

BTW if one did use this argument another could respond... but why would another mafia family be concerned about silencing witnesses in Buffalo and threatening the administrative judge and the prosecutor in the Gerace/Bongi case(s).

I am out of time and will respond to the rest of what you wrote at later.

I've gone back and reviewed what you posted three times now and I still can't determine what exactly is supposed to be supporting the contention there is a present day mob family in Buffalo. At least directly. Most of it is insinuation at best. Even you leave a good portion of it open ended and in question rather than anything conclusive. Nobody is denying individuals may have made threats, engaged in witnesses tampering, etc. All things the Mafia has traditionally done. But 1 + 1 does not = 5.

Seriously, how the hell does one even comment on someone "meeting high ranking mafiosi while in BP custody" when we don't even know who they were? What exactly am I supposed to do with that question? I deal with the known facts and don't delve much info conjecture because it doesn't do much good.

You'll notice that much of the government's case since the beginning, at least when it comes to proving a present day mob family in Buffalo, has been more smoke than fire. We've seen allegations of people with historic ties to the mob in the past, people who are blood relatives to the few remaining Buffalo members still living, and people that could best be said to have loose mob connections.

Isn't it interesting that the government has used the term "IOC" or "Italian Organized Crime?" When have we seen that before (other than in the general sense in OC reports) in indictments against a mob family? Could it be because drug dealers (who happen to be Italian) engaged in an organized crime activity don't automatically constitute an LCN family?

From a prosecutorial standpoint, it makes sense to draw whatever connections or parallels to "the Mafia" you can but, since the start, it's been telling what they've said and what they haven't said. At least in the Violi case, as much of an outlier as he is, you were dealing with an actual made guy who could be alleged to be part of the mob structure. Ahearn's and Cohen's statements on the issue at hand here were pretty direct and to the point. Has there been anything from the prosecution in these cases that have been as direct? Not that I recall.

He just got caught in his own lies about 10 times in his last 3 posts. Admits he can't convince anyone of anything but yet still trying to form a consensus for the reason that no one knows. Real sick puppy

I'd ask you to identify what lies those were but know you can't. You're just piggybacking on other people's post like a chickenshit, as you usually do. You're like a toadie who sticks his head out from behind the main guy and talks smack.

[pat_marcy]

How about that Kansas city family eh? . What a thread

[Newyorkempire]

But Wiseguy you don't have to pretend to know what is going in the heads of the federal prosecutors... Let's use the feds own words, after all you love to use their own words and throw out the FBI's Ahearn and Cohen's words out all the time... they have "information" that has led to their "belief" and then they go into the mafia's history of violence to silence witnesses.

"...Upon information and belief..."

So why do you discount their information and their belief?

Do you think their information is wrong?

Do you think their belief is wrong?

Explain why you take Ahearn and Cohen's old statements as gospel, but not the feds in this case?

This is why I believe your are being disingenuous and only use the feds words when they agree with your opinion. Your start with your premise and ignore everything else.

A much more genuine approach would be to acknowledge what the feds said and make your argument why this doesn't mean there is a viable Buffalo family. One approach you could have taken is to acknowledge the feds words that this Kingsmen member made connections with high ranking mafiosos while in BP custody, but say we don't know who these mafioso were.. You could suggest these mafioso could have been from another family... I would respect that ... I don't respect what you just did... which was to deflect from my questions and pull this I cant' know what is in their mind crap... when they explained what was in their mind.

BTW if one did use this argument another could respond... but why would another mafia family be concerned about silencing witnesses in Buffalo and threatening the administrative judge and the prosecutor in the Gerace/Bongi case(s).

I am out of time and will respond to the rest of what you wrote at later.

I've gone back and reviewed what you posted three times now and I still can't determine what exactly is supposed to be supporting the contention there is a present day mob family in Buffalo. At least directly. Most of it is insinuation at best. Even you leave a good portion of it open ended and in question rather than anything conclusive. Nobody is denying individuals may have made threats, engaged in witnesses tampering, etc. All things the Mafia has traditionally done. But 1 + 1 does not = 5.

Seriously, how the hell does one even comment on someone "meeting high ranking mafiosi while in BP custody" when we don't even know who they were? What exactly am I supposed to do with that question? I deal with the known facts and don't delve much info conjecture because it doesn't do much good.

You'll notice that much of the government's case since the beginning, at least when it comes to proving a present day mob family in Buffalo, has been more smoke than fire. We've seen allegations of people with historic ties to the mob in the past, people who are blood relatives to the few remaining Buffalo members still living, and people that could best be said to have loose mob connections.

Isn't it interesting that the government has used the term "IOC" or "Italian Organized Crime?" When have we seen that before (other than in the general sense in OC reports) in indictments against a mob family? Could it be because drug dealers (who happen to be Italian) engaged in an organized crime activity don't automatically constitute an LCN family?

From a prosecutorial standpoint, it makes sense to draw whatever connections or parallels to "the Mafia" you can but, since the start, it's been telling what they've said and what they haven't said. At least in the Violi case, as much of an outlier as he is, you were dealing with an actual made guy who could be alleged to be part of the mob structure. Ahearn's and Cohen's statements on the issue at hand here were pretty direct and to the point. Has there been anything from the prosecution in these cases that have been as direct? Not that I recall.

He just got caught in his own lies about 10 times in his last 3 posts. Admits he can't convince anyone of anything but yet still trying to form a consensus for the reason that no one knows. Real sick puppy

I'd ask you to identify what lies those were but know you can't. You're just piggybacking on other people's post like a chickenshit, as you usually do. You're like a toadie who sticks his head out from behind the main guy and talks smack.

Been calling you out for years. Youre just getting exposed more and more this year. You saying I havent independently is a lie in itself. Youre a liar bottomline. Take your medicine, again. No one gives a fuck about your attempts to convince or your opinions and interpretations as if youre some good Samaritan trying to balance out this forum. Many people dont believe you. Its a fact

[scott22]

Ok. Let’s move to KC.

What do people think of the Simone fight last Christmas at Cascone’s ?

What does it say about the organization? Was it really about Gilhoolies shutting down ?

Scott

[CornerBoy]

But Wiseguy you don't have to pretend to know what is going in the heads of the federal prosecutors... Let's use the feds own words, after all you love to use their own words and throw out the FBI's Ahearn and Cohen's words out all the time... they have "information" that has led to their "belief" and then they go into the mafia's history of violence to silence witnesses.

"...Upon information and belief..."

So why do you discount their information and their belief?

Do you think their information is wrong?

Do you think their belief is wrong?

Explain why you take Ahearn and Cohen's old statements as gospel, but not the feds in this case?

This is why I believe your are being disingenuous and only use the feds words when they agree with your opinion. Your start with your premise and ignore everything else.

A much more genuine approach would be to acknowledge what the feds said and make your argument why this doesn't mean there is a viable Buffalo family. One approach you could have taken is to acknowledge the feds words that this Kingsmen member made connections with high ranking mafiosos while in BP custody, but say we don't know who these mafioso were.. You could suggest these mafioso could have been from another family... I would respect that ... I don't respect what you just did... which was to deflect from my questions and pull this I cant' know what is in their mind crap... when they explained what was in their mind.

BTW if one did use this argument another could respond... but why would another mafia family be concerned about silencing witnesses in Buffalo and threatening the administrative judge and the prosecutor in the Gerace/Bongi case(s).

I am out of time and will respond to the rest of what you wrote at later.

I've gone back and reviewed what you posted three times now and I still can't determine what exactly is supposed to be supporting the contention there is a present day mob family in Buffalo. At least directly. Most of it is insinuation at best. Even you leave a good portion of it open ended and in question rather than anything conclusive. Nobody is denying individuals may have made threats, engaged in witnesses tampering, etc. All things the Mafia has traditionally done. But 1 + 1 does not = 5.

Seriously, how the hell does one even comment on someone "meeting high ranking mafiosi while in BP custody" when we don't even know who they were? What exactly am I supposed to do with that question? I deal with the known facts and don't delve much info conjecture because it doesn't do much good.

You'll notice that much of the government's case since the beginning, at least when it comes to proving a present day mob family in Buffalo, has been more smoke than fire. We've seen allegations of people with historic ties to the mob in the past, people who are blood relatives to the few remaining Buffalo members still living, and people that could best be said to have loose mob connections.

Isn't it interesting that the government has used the term "IOC" or "Italian Organized Crime?" When have we seen that before (other than in the general sense in OC reports) in indictments against a mob family? Could it be because drug dealers (who happen to be Italian) engaged in an organized crime activity don't automatically constitute an LCN family?

From a prosecutorial standpoint, it makes sense to draw whatever connections or parallels to "the Mafia" you can but, since the start, it's been telling what they've said and what they haven't said. At least in the Violi case, as much of an outlier as he is, you were dealing with an actual made guy who could be alleged to be part of the mob structure. Ahearn's and Cohen's statements on the issue at hand here were pretty direct and to the point. Has there been anything from the prosecution in these cases that have been as direct? Not that I recall.

He just got caught in his own lies about 10 times in his last 3 posts. Admits he can't convince anyone of anything but yet still trying to form a consensus for the reason that no one knows. Real sick puppy

I'd ask you to identify what lies those were but know you can't. You're just piggybacking on other people's post like a chickenshit, as you usually do. You're like a toadie who sticks his head out from behind the main guy and talks smack.

THE PROSECUTORS ARE TOO DUMB TO GET HIGHPAYING JOBS AS DEFENSE LAWYERS

[scott22]

Nobody wants to talk KC?

Scott

[NickleCity]

I've gone back and reviewed what you posted three times now and I still can't determine what exactly is supposed to be supporting the contention there is a present day mob family in Buffalo. At least directly. Most of it is insinuation at best. Even you leave a good portion of it open ended and in question rather than anything conclusive. Nobody is denying individuals may have made threats, engaged in witnesses tampering, etc. All things the Mafia has traditionally done. But 1 + 1 does not = 5.

That's because you ignore information that doesn't fit your tiny little threshold to consider. Yes nothing proves there is a Buffalo crime family... but when you weigh all the evidence it suggests the likelihood that the Buffalo mob exists it greater than it not existing.

Even in this once small document I shared the government has information that makes them believe the mafia is playing a role in these threats against witnesses, judges, and prosecutors. Why else do they bring up a whole section on the mafia and how it works to silence witnesses. If they didn't believe it was relevant, they wouldn't have put it in their motion.

Which mafia are they talking about? You are right they don't state that it is the Buffalo mob... But if one engages his or her critical thinking skills it has to be the Buffalo mob or another mafia family/group that worries them.

So I ask why would another mafia group be involved in protecting Grerace et. al.?

Because mafia members/associates are working together with Gerace either functionally in this drug/sex operation. Or Gerace et. al. has invited them to help for silence these witnesses for a price. They are not going to do this if it doesn't benefit them in some way.

I guess this could suggest Gerace could be a member or an associate of another family, but the feds identified him as a member or associate of the Buffalo family. So, that is not a good option.

Occam's razor in this case suggests the Buffalo mob is active and is working to silence witnesses or has engaged the services of another family to help them silence witnesses. If the mafia was not involved the government would not have brought up the mafioso or written about how the mafia worlds to silence witness.

Seriously, how the hell does one even comment on someone "meeting high ranking mafiosi while in BP custody" when we don't even know who they were? What exactly am I supposed to do with that question? I deal with the known facts and don't delve much info conjecture because it doesn't do much good.

You are right, it doesn't do much good for you. Translation you jettison anything that does't fit your understanding. I mean why would you deal with information that seems to contradict your opinion when you don't have to deal with it.

You'll notice that much of the government's case since the beginning, at least when it comes to proving a present day mob family in Buffalo, has been more smoke than fire. We've seen allegations of people with historic ties to the mob in the past, people who are blood relatives to the few remaining Buffalo members still living, and people that could best be said to have loose mob connections.

Well it is your opinion that it is more smoke than fire. And even if it is more smoke than fire... this has historically been the case with most mafia cases in Buffalo... Never a RICO according to the Buffalo News. So your line of reasoning is would suggest the Buffalo mob never existed. And if you say otherwise, then you are using other information to add it all together like you accuse me of doing with the Buffalo crime family today.

Isn't it interesting that the government has used the term "IOC" or "Italian Organized Crime?" When have we seen that before (other than in the general sense in OC reports) in indictments against a mob family? Could it be because drug dealers (who happen to be Italian) engaged in an organized crime activity don't automatically constitute an LCN family?

That could be a good question and decent argument if it wasn't for the other evidence that you ignore.
1. Masecchia is identified as a made member or associate.
2. Serio asked Masacchia how he could become a made man.
3. Masecchia introduced Serio to Butch Bifulco in Canada because Serio wanted the Buffalo mobs drug contacts there so he could control drug market with Masecchia in WNY.
4. Lou Salva indicated that Masecchia was a made man.
5. Joe Bella is identified as a made member or associate.
6. Joe Bella was not part of this case but a separate case that dealt with covid fraud and collections scams which the government indicated most if not all run these collections scams run under the preview of the Buffalo mob.
7. Gerace is identified as made man or associate of the Buffalo mob
8. Gerace has claimed to be a made man.
9. Anthony Gerace is serving time for drugs and had evidence of book making, sports gambling, and utilized the services of former boxer to collect debts.
10. When Bongiovanni's home was raided one of the first things LE told him to do was, "Tell us what you know about the mafia."

I could keep going but 10 is enough because your are just going to ignore this anyway.

From a prosecutorial standpoint, it makes sense to draw whatever connections or parallels to "the Mafia" you can but, since the start, it's been telling what they've said and what they haven't said.

Yes, Vilardo has limited what the prosecutors can and cannot say. They are only trying to prove Bongi believed he was protecting people in the mafia. Yes the indictment says IOC... so they did lower the standard by using that verbiage. You believe this is because the Buffalo mob doesn't exist. I believe it is because they don't have a member informant so they are using what they think they can prove verses what they know to be true.

At least in the Violi case, as much of an outlier as he is, you were dealing with an actual made guy who could be alleged to be part of the mob structure. Ahearn's and Cohen's statements on the issue at hand here were pretty direct and to the point. Has there been anything from the prosecution in these cases that have been as direct? Not that I recall.

You are right, but Ahearn was retired when he made those statements. Once can make the case that he didn't know. Cohen is a better argument for you. Here is the issue ... is succinct words are old (March of 2017) whereas the information I consider, but you don't, brings our understanding to today and reflects what the government and LE agencies are trying to prove today.

Now... why did I bring this Buffalo stuff to a KC thread... because you and Pogo did. My issue is not with your argument when it comes to other allegedly dead families... it has to do with using the Buffalo in that mix when the circumstances are completely different and reasonable people can disagree when it comes to this family. Buffalo does not prove your argument. Instead it muddies the waters in the argument you are making.

Additionally, I am of the firm belief that it is hurtful to the people of Buffalo to continue the Buffalo mob is dead narrative. That is exactly the narrative that the Buffalo mob worked to create and is doing their best to defend. It is the big reason Joe Todaro was so upset with Violi and why his uncles had to smooth things over for hime with Todaro as Burnstein reported.

[scott22]

So we don’t want to discuss KC on the KC thread ?

I thought we were ruining the thread arguing about Buffalo ? No ?

I’ll ask again :

What do we make of the Simones’ fight last Christmas at Cascones?

Did it have something to do with Gilhoolies closing ?

Scott

[Tocco686]

So we don’t want to discuss KC on the KC thread ?

I thought we were ruining the thread arguing about Buffalo ? No ?

I’ll ask again :

What do we make of the Simones’ fight last Christmas at Cascones?

Did it have something to do with Gilhoolies closing ?

Scott

Scott,

I know this comes off as cryptic and bad, but here’s what I’ve been told. I travel to KC quite a bit for family friends. The person I know is deeply connected with the late Morentina who owned the Caddyshack (Super nice guy btw) and the Simone family. He never elaborates on anything, but when I brought this up after reading your article I had to ask him. He told me it’s not over a restaurant, but something personal. He told me the Simone’s own so many things in KC and surrounding area they wouldn’t worry about revenue from just one place. Again, he wouldn’t go into anymore detail. I’ve got to hang out with a few of these guys at a club I believe is called the Shady Lady or something like that. The older Simone is a real prick when he drinks. Morentina was always cool as hell. Every time I came into town I would get pizza from there. Really good.

[scott22]

Tocco686!

I love it !!!!! You don’t come off as a cynic . I love true discourse. This is awesome . Great response . Sincerity. Telling anecdote from a morentina for sure either way!

Scott

[scott22]

I heard the same regarding Pete Simone when he gets liquified up . That’s what happened last December . And it escalated . Allegedly.

Scott

[scott22]

Why doesn’t anybody want to discuss KC?

What do people make of Rudy Fratto s first cousin coming into town every month and having a crash pad there ? I hear he’s with little Chuckie Morgan a lot . Thoughts ?

Scott