Question about The Comission 1959-1984

[BeatiPaoli]

To Everyone: I thought Raymond Patriarca had a seat on the Commission at one point.

Regards,
Beati Paoli

[Lupara]

Interesting stuff about LA/Lucchese/Bonanno. I was under the impression that family had always been under the thumb of Chicago.

[Stroccos]

didnt John Scalish have A seat on the commission.

[Angelo Santino]

Interesting that after the 1960s out of the Five Families only the Genovese Family represented other Families on the Commission. Wonder why that was?

I thought about this too and I am guided by Joe Bonanno's thoughts on those years. He describes post-Appalachin as a time where the leadership went dormant and didn't resume another meeting until 1963 (and JB would argue that the commission was illegitimate since it wasn't reratified in 1961 as it had been every 5 years starting in '31.) For all intents and purposes, the general assembly/national conventions of bosses (not just commission members) meeting along with their underlings ended in 1957.

From 1931 to 1957, it appears bosses from other cities had commission members as their rep if any issues were to arise. Families didn't send other families money to represent them on the commission. However Chicago has been said to receive tribute from Milwaukee, Madison but who knows. I don't. Point is, bosses didn't wait every five years to meet nationally to iron problems out. So with the loss of the assemblies the mob fall back on that representational system. And it's possible that certain families switched representatives. Take LA, in it's early history it was Corleonesi linked to both NO and NY and the Gagliano/Luccheses were repping later on, after the 1960's Chicago seems to have taken on that role.

Also, in the late 1960's to the late 1970's there was a LARGE drop off with members who had been around since the 1900's-1940's who died and with that went alot of nationally linked connections. This generation, went back to the 1920's when Italian OC rackets spanned multi-states. The next generation of members were more localized and didn't have those national links, not to the extent that the previous did. And with that, the need for a national governing body became irrelevant and potentially dangerous. Remember, the LCN prior to the 1960's mostly had to cope with state law enforcement, the national Top Hoodlum Program and the FBN which dealt in narcotics. The game changed after 1963.

I could be wrong, other thoughts/additions welcome.

[DPG]

I've never understood the whole "every 5 years" concept. Like Gov said if their was an issue that was important it wasmore than likely ironed out in a more timely fashion.
What could be so important and unimportant at the sametime that it could wait until the next meeting? Policy changes? Give me a break. Each boss did what he wanted. Almost seems like these conferences were setup simply to stroke the egos of the newly appointed bosses. By the time someone became boss they were well known to the others, so its not like they had to be introduced to the others but more like they would want to be "officially" introduced to everyone as the boss. So my question is: What's the point? Major mob conferences kill me it that authors and documentaries basically decide what was discussed at the meetings based on events that happen in the years that follow, but they really don't have a clue if the guys had a circle jerk or talked about the Yankees game. So my next question: Outside of Joe(I haven't read his book so I don't know if he went into detail)and Bill Bonanno, has an attendant of a major mob meeting(the ones we know about) ever discussed openly and in detail what actually was discussed? For example the meeting in Havana, I'm pretty sure no one has ever talked openly about the agenda but books and documentaries act like they know exactly what was discussed as well as decisions that were made, I mean no disrespect to the authors on the board and I hope you all know how much I enjoy your work. I know you have put in time and money towards your publications, I dont think anything I've said above is in relation to any of you fellas work I just want to be sure I don't step on any toes with my inquiry.

[Angelo Santino]

I've never understood the whole "every 5 years" concept. Like Gov said if their was an issue that was important it wasmore than likely ironed out in a more timely fashion.
What could be so important and unimportant at the sametime that it could wait until the next meeting? Policy changes? Give me a break. Each boss did what he wanted. Almost seems like these conferences were setup simply to stroke the egos of the newly appointed bosses. By the time someone became boss they were well known to the others, so its not like they had to be introduced to the others but more like they would want to be "officially" introduced to everyone as the boss. So my question is: What's the point? Major mob conferences kill me it that authors and documentaries basically decide what was discussed at the meetings based on events that happen in the years that follow, but they really don't have a clue if the guys had a circle jerk or talked about the Yankees game. So my next question: Outside of Joe(I haven't read his book so I don't know if he went into detail)and Bill Bonanno, has an attendant of a major mob meeting(the ones we know about) ever discussed openly and in detail what actually was discussed? For example the meeting in Havana, I'm pretty sure no one has ever talked openly about the agenda but books and documentaries act like they know exactly what was discussed as well as decisions that were made, I mean no disrespect to the authors on the board and I hope you all know how much I enjoy your work. I know you have put in time and money towards your publications, I dont think anything I've said above is in relation to any of you fellas work I just want to be sure I don't step on any toes with my inquiry.

According to JB: The 5 year national assemblies served as a townhouse for the national mafia leadership to meet and effectively reelect certain families on the commission. This is hypocritical since NY has been at the epicenter of national Mafia leadership since 1890. Later on the Bon. were kicked off of the commission but it took NY to do that, had SJ beefed to Gam. about JB it would have had no impact on the Bonanno's retaining their commission seat in the 1950's...

And no, not every boss did as they wanted. They all adhered to a national recognized system of leadership: bosses were compatible with other bosses, same with captains, soldiers, etc. Any varients were restricted to the individual families. Pittsburgh could have a accountant, Genoveses could have a messaegero. No one outside of that family has to recognized such ranks outside of the traditional mob system. But internally, that doesn't take away the influence and prestige that a Dominick Cirllo had in his mes. role in the 1990's.

Bill Bonnano is a half-a-bullshit artist. He (and to an extent his father) wrote books to rewrite history on themselves. They put out 3-4-5 books and were involved in a mini-seriies. They were vain and proud people and took pride in dropping little known info, but they set out to outGodfather the Godfather, BBon even said in Bound By Honor he was basis for Michael Corleone. What fucking bullshit. And his take on Roselli. Don't even get me started on Roselli getting angry and dramatically admitting to Bill in prison that he was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll and that Sam Giancana is a prick for making him do it. Fratianno knew Roselli for the last 30 years of his life and he and Giancana were nothing but friends.

We researchers cant tell the entire story or ever hope to know all, not even close, but we can call bullshit on certain things. I get what your way of thinking but remember, the may-fia - the LCN was founded on a system that dates back to the 1700's. And if you think their codes are old-fashioned we haven't even discussed the mainlanders who had sword duels until the 1910's. That's another story entirely. The bottomline was that this was a society slash network of a transported system from Italy which was renovated as the era seen fit. Notice, the mafia was never a counterfeiting org or a bootlegging org, they went with the times and brought in the top criminal element of the day. If the color pink became illegal tomorrow and eventually you'd have the mafia bringing in top moneymakers who happen to be pinklegging. That's how it works. Not as some grand scheme but as a natural evolution of the times. Being made 'honorable and loyal' are very broad requirements.

[DPG]

I realize my post was not really part of this discussion and I guess I also didn't explain what I was trying to get across that well either. Thank for the reply Gov.

[Angelo Santino]

I realize my post was not really part of this discussion and I guess I also didn't explain what I was trying to get across that well either. Thank for the reply Gov.

Well do try and get across what you were trying to again. I value your insight and glad your back posting. If you disagree with anything said here don't hold back on making a case.

Is that avatar buffalo chicken wings in purgatory?

[B.]

NYC has always been the powerhouse on the Commission, but Buffalo was up there with them when Magaddino was alive.

I kind of take for granted the fact that Magaddino was so influential nationally... how did he get to be that way? Philadelphia and the DeCavalcante bosses never had anything close to his level of input on the Commission. Patriarca was pretty respected nationally but still not at Magaddino's level. Magaddino was an important member under Schiro before he fled to Niagara Falls, but he came up in Buffalo very fast seemingly without relying on Schiro, Maranzano (his rival), and Bonanno (he takes responsibility for Bonanno's quick rise).

At what point did he become so influential? Was it from the time he became boss in the 1920s? After Maranzano died? Later on in the 1940s or 1950s once he had cemented himself as one of the longest tenured bosses? All I know is that by the 1950s, but probably earlier, he was as influential on the Commission as the NYC bosses, if not more than a couple of them.

[phatmatress777]

Why did leonetti claim that scarfo had a seat on the conmision ? Was that just a lie or was it something that scarfo told people and they believed it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HairyKnuckles]

So my next question: Outside of Joe(I haven't read his book so I don't know if he went into detail)and Bill Bonanno, has an attendant of a major mob meeting(the ones we know about) ever discussed openly and in detail what actually was discussed? For example the meeting in Havana, I'm pretty sure no one has ever talked openly about the agenda but books and documentaries act like they know exactly what was discussed as well as decisions that were made

Joe B and his son are the only confirmed sources on what was going on at some of those Commission meetings. Appalachin (which was not a Commission meeting and neither was the Havanna Conference btw) and what was going on there comes from informants with no direct access to what was being discussed at the meetings. That´s why I´m extremely skeptical to books like the dreadful Mafia Summit for example.

When the Commission was formed, It was decided to implement a mandatory meeting every five years so the chairs could be ratified. Of course, the bosses also met in between any time high level problems needed to be sorted out.

[DPG]

I may need to start another thread with all this but we'll see how it goes.

@CC Those wings had just received their final rites.

@B What role if any do you believe drug trafficking from Canada played in Magaddino's power?

@HK Thank you for comfirming my thoughts about the sources. I'm aware of the difference in a commission meetings, high level sitdowns and what some would call National Crime Syndicate meetings, such as the AC conference. I referrenced the Havana meeting due to its popularity in books and docs, there aren't to many people writting about commission meetings of 36 and 46, which IMO should get more attention considering events of those years.

[DPG]

My thoughts:

1. I guess tradition is what kept the every 5 years thing going but at that rate I don't see what could be accomplished at the meeting.

2. The bosses seemed to meet a lot back in the early days, Raab talks about frequent dinner parties the bosses had. So why go out the way to meet again and take the chance of being caught again. Tradition and ego stroking is all I can think of.

3. Ok this goes off subject a little and goes into contradicting views of what happened at certain meetings. The best example I can think of is the combo of the Hotel des Palmes and Appalachian.
This comes down to a matter of opinion but I would like to hear everyone's. So on one side of the ocean we have drug routes being setup and then a month later some of the same guys are in upstate NY declaring a drug ban? Some of this stuff just kills me. Like I said I know that no one really knows what went down at these meetings but these are two widely published theories.

P.S. To bad you uncle isn't here, him and wise can go round after round on the drug ban.

[Antiliar]

NYC has always been the powerhouse on the Commission, but Buffalo was up there with them when Magaddino was alive.

I kind of take for granted the fact that Magaddino was so influential nationally... how did he get to be that way? Philadelphia and the DeCavalcante bosses never had anything close to his level of input on the Commission. Patriarca was pretty respected nationally but still not at Magaddino's level. Magaddino was an important member under Schiro before he fled to Niagara Falls, but he came up in Buffalo very fast seemingly without relying on Schiro, Maranzano (his rival), and Bonanno (he takes responsibility for Bonanno's quick rise).

At what point did he become so influential? Was it from the time he became boss in the 1920s? After Maranzano died? Later on in the 1940s or 1950s once he had cemented himself as one of the longest tenured bosses? All I know is that by the 1950s, but probably earlier, he was as influential on the Commission as the NYC bosses, if not more than a couple of them.

I'd say Magaddino rose up in influence under Schiro. He did something to prove himself in the eyes of his superiors and was aggressive in defending the "honor" of their "tradition." He was the one who attacked Bart Fontana and had to get knocked on the head by the police to stop.

[DPG]

Pardon my ignorance but who is Bart Fontana?