In light of the recent Colombo bust, my observations.

[Angelo Santino]

There is no capo who has ever called in a soldier and scolded him for not meeting his criminal quota.

Don't a lot of these guys have a "nut" they have to meet every week?

If I have a legitimate business that I as a member opened, no. If i'm involved in criminal activity and my membership gives me clout in the underworld. Yes.

But while the structure in each family is symmetrical (organizational), the operandi (operational) can be different. For instance, the Bonannos never required kick ups from its members whereas the Colombos do.

[Angelo Santino]

. They aren't gangbangers looking to control a territory. That's not mafia.

Rant over. The Colombos will be fine, want to take out the Colombos arrest all of them with crimes that stick and even then...

I would say, when the mafia had the manpower, and the contacts, they sold more drugs than anyone. Ormento was Nicky Barnes first.


https://www.maredolce.com/2021/06/08/tr ... a-polonia/


Chris, you should read this article, then I'll revisit the thread, but if no one reads the article, theres no point.
You would be amazed at the level of " gangbangerish" activity IN Sicily of all places....

Read it, good break down. I'm seeing it from a different perspective. They aren't gangmembers controlling territory but rather looking out for their economic interests revolving around an industry/activity. If I'm a member and another member from a different family moves to my block, I'm not about to start throwing up gang signs. But if I own a laundry mat and a member moves to my area and opens another one that's a problem because it impacts me. So we either work out an arrangement or things can get ugly.

[Angelo Santino]

Great discussion that fits my own view. Much more to say on this at a later time.

Speaking of the Colombos, Pennisi told an interesting story months ago that got overlooked and fits here.

He said in the 2010s Arrow Linen was involved in a location dispute with a rival linen business and because Arrow was with the Colombo family, they repped Arrow and won the sit down in Arrow's favor.

Pennisi didn't mention this but Arrow Linen is owned by elderly Colombo soldier John Magliocco, nephew of Joe Profaci and Joe Magliocco. John has never been in significant legal trouble that I know of and Arrow is a very successful company run now by his fully legitimate children. Doesn't change the fact that Arrow is owned by a legacy Colombo member and therefore have the support of the Colombo leadership.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was no "tribute" involved in the dispute and if there was it would be voluntary. When John Magliocco dies I will be curious what happens unless one of his relatives is made.

One cannot become a member without committing some type of crime nor has there ever been a member who hasn't committed a crime.

Neither of these is true, even in recent years. Just one modern example came from Gary Valenti's tapes where Asaro complained that Nana Bonventre had never committed crime and received his button because of who he is. Countless examples of this in the past and occasionally still in the present.

I would agree that by swearing an oath to commit murder they are all technically a potential criminal, as murder is the only crime the mafia consistently demands (when ordered). In terms of rackets though there are few if any demands, only guidelines and rules against certain activities.

We really need to hammer this topic home and de-Sopranoize people. This is a very important aspect that many overlook and if you want to understand the mafia you need to understand that it is not a criminal organization but an organization willing to resort to criminality. It will lead to a better understanding. If people want to combat mafia, they need to factor this aspect in.

[TommyNoto]

Nice job CC. You have just the right intellectual mind and historical knowledge for such an explanation. One question, and maybe I'm missing something by not reading in between the lines. What about those members that had solely legitimate businesses? Perry Criscitelli of the Bonanno's comes to mind. Were they brought into the family because of their business interests and welcomed the membership to further those interests?

Depends on what we consider solely legitimate. Many goes go into legitimate businesses but do they conduct themselves legitimately or use their status to gain an edge?

In terms of why seemingly legit people bring brought in could be to further those interests or could be related to bloodlines.

Almost no one is fully legitimate

If the mob isn’t shaking down their vendors , another legit company will

All these GC cheat on their worker comp insurance and taxes

Very interesting times as the mob seems to be going more legit while the govt is going more illegal ( weed , gambling, factor lending, sub prime BNPL etc )

[Angelo Santino]

Nice job CC. You have just the right intellectual mind and historical knowledge for such an explanation. One question, and maybe I'm missing something by not reading in between the lines. What about those members that had solely legitimate businesses? Perry Criscitelli of the Bonanno's comes to mind. Were they brought into the family because of their business interests and welcomed the membership to further those interests?

Depends on what we consider solely legitimate. Many goes go into legitimate businesses but do they conduct themselves legitimately or use their status to gain an edge?

In terms of why seemingly legit people bring brought in could be to further those interests or could be related to bloodlines.

Almost no one is fully legitimate

If the mob isn’t shaking down their vendors , another legit company will

All these GC cheat on their worker comp insurance and taxes

Very interesting times as the mob seems to be going more legit while the govt is going more illegal ( weed , gambling, factor lending, sub prime BNPL etc )

The mob and its members have always tried to appear legit. Most members would rather come across as legitimate businessmen and members of society (owning businesses, having a stable family etc) rather than John Gottis or rebels without a cause. There are both but the Sicilian model was always based on conservative principles.

[Pogo The Clown]

Other organizations purely centered around crime have come and gone and/or changed over time. The Mafia has been in this country since 1850 and its structure and culture remains mostly unchanged. Crime in 1850, 1870, 1900, 20, 40, now has changed but the Mafia has an unchanged subculture involving meeting, socializing, intermarrying and its structure has remained intact. With the exception of messagero or some families not having consiglieri there's never been any major deviation from the blueprint.

Yeah but just because they hsve been doing it longer and are more successful than other groups doesn't change what they are.

They see themselves as "above the law" (ie. a second government) and will break it to suit their needs. If I'm a member and I have a pizza place, I may show up every day at that place to work, report the numbers accurately and it may not be a front in the sense that crime is committed there. On paper, I'm legitimate. But then say a competitor opens up across the street and is hurting my business, it may compel me to extort or blow up the place. Why? Because he's hurting my income. Does this make sense? I'm not waking up with an urge to commit crime but I'm not above doing it if it furthers my economic interests.

You are making my point. What you described is a crime. Even if a member has never been involved in the rackets they are knowingly using the threat of violence or some form of coercion that their membership gives them to gain an edge in the legit world. Or they are knowingly using money from illegal means to further their legitimate interests or conversely they are giving money to other members with the knowledge that that money will be used to further some type of criminal activity (Rosatti and Staluppi).


The main rule of LCN is not ratting. So in other words having knowledge of people engaging in murders, drug dealings, extortion, all manner of thievery or any other type of crime and knowingly and willing covering up for them so they can continue that activity is aiding and abetting said crime and makes you a criminal.


A requirement for membership is being willing to kill to further the interest of the organization. By definition that is a criminal organization. What would happen if someone were to say no I won't kill for you, no I won't break the law, no I won't agree to cover for you by not cooperating with LE about ongoing crime? Can such a person still become a member? Of course not. Such a person would never exist in that world to begin with let alone be around long enough and trusted enough that they reach the point of being offered membership in the organization.

Been awhile since you and me went heads up. I miss it and look forward to doing this again. Most times we agree but when we don't, that's when things get interesting. After the month I've had I feel honored to be in this position to debate with you. It's always from a place of respect and admiration. Salut.

Good to have you back.


Pogo

[SonnyBlackstein]

I see alot of talk about this being the end of the Colombos. It would be if this were purely a criminal organization. I know that sounds insane, the mafia revolves around crime from an outside perspective. Yes and no.

Let's compare any Mafia Family to another group- the cartels or even a black drug gang. With the latter they are joined together purely for one unified criminal endeavor- drugs. To run a drug gang you need leadership, lieutenants, enforcers, crew leaders, sellers, runners, lookouts all the way down the line, because the business is drug distribution. Each person has a specific job to play. A mafia family doesn't work that way. It's not primarily focused on anything, there's never been a drug Family, a casino Family, a Union family and so forth. It is not a criminal organization so much as it is an organization of people who resort to crime. In a crew person A could be involved in drugs, person B could be involved in Unions, person C dould run restaurants and have no criminal acumen but would kill a competitor if they had to. They don't have specific roles for hitmen or moneymen and those that do, like Roy DeMeo act informally. He was, in the end, a formal soldier. Not official Gambino Family Hitsquad leader.

There is no capo who has ever called in a soldier and scolded him for not meeting his criminal quota. There are no crews that are designated to specialize in a certain racket that requires a leader and underlings. A Mafia family is more like this forum than it is a criminal organization, I'll explain. I'm a mod, my name is in green, on the pecking order I'm higher than the names in blue. I hold administrative duties with the power to ban people and if I give a decree it comes with weight. But I don't control what the names in blue do, what they post or what they focus on (outside from a few ground rules- not attacking others, no BS in the threads, no overt racism etc). I'm not about to start demanding that the posters here focus on Myer Lanksey. What you guys post about is your decision as long as you abide by the rules of the board. That's the Mafia. It's members commit crime but a capo is a representative of the members and their actions, not their crimes. They don't direct criminal activity unless a hit order comes down (the boss says a guy needs to be hit and they'd like this crew to handle it), they act as representatives of the members who commit criminal activity. And if a capo goes to prison and there's a vacancy, it doesn't disrupt anything. Solders are not in need of a leader to tell him how to coduct themselves. If a capo involved in the union thing goes down, the union activity is disrupted but there's alot more going on than unions and maybe a bookmaker with leadership skills fills the slot, the crew in question is likely diversified with each member acting as their own free agent doing legal, illegal whatever things. Mikey A becomes capo, he has the represent Mikey B, C, D, E and if Mikey B gets into a dispute with another group, he has to represent him. If Mikey E is a lunatic who is sporadic, Mikey A has to offer guidance as capo that yes, Mikey E is unreliable and not worth having around. Notice that specific crimes are not part of the discussion. That's what being amico nos comes with. You gain representation in this subculture we all follow that we know and regard as Mafia/La Cosa Nostra.

I feel this is lost, even to the most strident mafia researcher who can recite crimes and dates. It's a society of members who are willing to resort to crime more than it is a criminal society. Members don't wake up everyday thinking how to commit crimes purely for the sake of doing so, they wake up and go about their business and are willing to resort to illegal means if it will further benefit their economic interests. They don't consider themselves criminals because crime isn't their primary intention, it's a means to an end in what they are vested in. Hence why the term "soldier" is misleading because they aren't grunts awaiting command, they just don't hold any formal rank within the society.

Rather than regard a boss as a gang leader it's better to use the term representative because he represents those under him. He doesn't direct their criminal activities. He can say "let's try and focus on AC" or "no drug dealing allowed" but he's not pulling aside members and saying you do this, you do that. The mafia is an organic organization with a strong culture linked to Italian culture- social clubs, meeting compaesan, networking is all part of the noncriminal aspect. When DiLeonardo traveled to LA to meet with Milano, he was invited to meet with Frank Valenti in AZ. The meeting wasn't criminal, they weren't meeting to discuss how to do a specific crime, they were meeting as members of the society with a shared heritage- DiLeonardo is Bisacquinese and Valenti was Grottesi. They were both part of a society that is willing to resort to crime but with crime was not nor ever was the primary intention. Is what I am trying to articulate make sense?

Imagine if you had a relative who was part of a business, that business had a prerequisite which requires workers had to kill if the business warranted it. Imagine explaining that to someone, "My uncle is part of XYZed and he had to agree to kill someone if they asked but he hasn't had to." Regardless, you'd look at the relative differently... If I'm a member and I run a restaurant on Roebling and an outsider looks to open one as well and we're both competitors, doesn't it up my advantage that I'm part of the may-fia? Wouldn't it make my competitor kinda trend lightly? I'm not about to send people to kill him (most likely) but my reputation would likely make an average Joe think twice. That's the power of the mafia as reflected by its own members. It gives them an economical heads up. They aren't gangbangers looking to control a territory. That's not mafia.

Rant over. The Colombos will be fine, want to take out the Colombos arrest all of them with crimes that stick and even then...

Chris, I dont understand.


You want to open a restaurant?



Good to see you again, best, hope all is well.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Yeah but just because they hsve been doing it longer and are more successful than other groups doesn't change what they are.

This is actually quite black and white. And Chris is correct. The mafia is made up of members who are willing to commit crime, not criminals. Its an important distinction.
Joseph Massino's trial, his attorney pursed the defense of openly admitting his membership and stating quite clearly to the court that being a member is not against the law.

Being a member is not against the law. Therefor factually being a member does not equate to criminality.

[Pogo The Clown]

Yeah but just because they hsve been doing it longer and are more successful than other groups doesn't change what they are.

This is actually quite black and white. And Chris is correct. The mafia is made up of members who are willing to commit crime, not criminals. Its an important distinction.
Joseph Massino's trial, his attorney pursed the defense of openly admitting his membership and stating quite clearly to the court that being a member is not against the law.

Being a member is not against the law. Therefor factually being a member does not equate to criminality.

Yes and when they engage in said crime that makes them criminals. Joe Massino was a criminal and he never could have become a member of the Bonanno family had he not committed a crime.


Like I said what would happen if someone were to say no I won't kill for you, no I won't break the law, no I won't agree to cover for you by not cooperating with LE about ongoing crime? Can such a person still become a member? We all know the answer to that.


Pogo

[Angelo Santino]

Other organizations purely centered around crime have come and gone and/or changed over time. The Mafia has been in this country since 1850 and its structure and culture remains mostly unchanged. Crime in 1850, 1870, 1900, 20, 40, now has changed but the Mafia has an unchanged subculture involving meeting, socializing, intermarrying and its structure has remained intact. With the exception of messagero or some families not having consiglieri there's never been any major deviation from the blueprint.

Yeah but just because they hsve been doing it longer and are more successful than other groups doesn't change what they are.

It changes the type of group they are and makes them more than "just" a gang or criminal organization.

They see themselves as "above the law" (ie. a second government) and will break it to suit their needs. If I'm a member and I have a pizza place, I may show up every day at that place to work, report the numbers accurately and it may not be a front in the sense that crime is committed there. On paper, I'm legitimate. But then say a competitor opens up across the street and is hurting my business, it may compel me to extort or blow up the place. Why? Because he's hurting my income. Does this make sense? I'm not waking up with an urge to commit crime but I'm not above doing it if it furthers my economic interests.

You are making my point. What you described is a crime. Even if a member has never been involved in the rackets they are knowingly using the threat of violence or some form of coercion that their membership gives them to gain an edge in the legit world. Or they are knowingly using money from illegal means to further their legitimate interests or conversely they are giving money to other members with the knowledge that that money will be used to further some type of criminal activity (Rosatti and Staluppi).


The main rule of LCN is not ratting. So in other words having knowledge of people engaging in murders, drug dealings, extortion, all manner of thievery or any other type of crime and knowingly and willing covering up for them so they can continue that activity is aiding and abetting said crime and makes you a criminal.


A requirement for membership is being willing to kill to further the interest of the organization. By definition that is a criminal organization. What would happen if someone were to say no I won't kill for you, no I won't break the law, no I won't agree to cover for you by not cooperating with LE about ongoing crime? Can such a person still become a member? Of course not. Such a person would never exist in that world to begin with let alone be around long enough and trusted enough that they reach the point of being offered membership in the organization.

We are describing different aspects of criminality. You are saying the mafia's main purpose is to commit crime and I'm saying it's not, but rather a byproduct of the mafia's existence. And like B. said, that oath to kill if asked makes every one of them a potential criminal. But the organization as a collective group doesn't have a purpose beyond furthering and protecting the economic interests of its members. It's different than a drug cartel which has a very specific purpose and its members with specific tasks.

In terms of informing, yes, that's a byproduct of being a secret society, every one that's existed, legitimate and non have a secrecy rule.

Drawing back to what I initially said, it remains more than a criminal organization because of the subculture surrounding it. Solely "Criminal groups" don't intermarry among each other and see their group as a longstanding tradition. Most other ethnic groups came and went- the Irish, the Jews, etc because they were based solely around crime and had no traditional background. Even within the mafia we see this element at work. There are families like the Asaros, Gambinos, Inzerillos who were involved 100 years ago and likely will be 100 years from now, while your one-offs, those without the bloodlines like Capones, Gottis, even Luciano didn't stay involved for more than a generation.

I'm not trying to argue away the criminal aspect of the Mafia, I'm only illustrating that there's more factors to take into account than ranks and crime.

[Wiseguy]

Seems to me one side is trying to explain how the Mafia is theoretically supposed to work (incidentally the ones who are most interested in the Mafia's history) while the other side is explaining how it actually works in practical terms. As "a strident mafia researcher who can recite crimes and dates," I lean toward the latter. Yes, the Mafia has a certain subculture, hierarchy, etc. that has given it longevity over other criminal groups. However, in practical terms, it's still a criminal organization itself. With a criminal subculture. Maybe what the Mafia theory side is describing was the case at one time. But that's not the LCN of today and hasn't been for a long, long time. You can find exceptions that prove the rule but do any of us really believe that most made guys have not been involved in crime as part of their membership in the Mafia? And where did the idea come from the Bonannos never required kick ups from it's members? Vitale testified taking tribute from his underlings was how Massino got rich.

[Pogo The Clown]

Yeah but just because they hsve been doing it longer and are more successful than other groups doesn't change what they are.

It changes the type of group they are and makes them more than "just" a gang or criminal organization.
[/quote]

Drawing back to what I initially said, it remains more than a criminal organization because of the subculture surrounding it. Solely "Criminal groups" don't intermarry among each other and see their group as a longstanding tradition. Most other ethnic groups came and went- the Irish, the Jews, etc because they were based solely around crime and had no traditional background. Even within the mafia we see this element at work. There are families like the Asaros, Gambinos, Inzerillos who were involved 100 years ago and likely will be 100 years from now, while your one-offs, those without the bloodlines like Capones, Gottis, even Luciano didn't stay involved for more than a generation.

Not really. It makes them more successful and resilient but at the end of the day they are atill criminal gangs. No different than the Japanese Yakuza, the Chiniese Triads or the Russian Thieves in Law. All groups that have had similar success in their area and similar if not longer longitivity than LCN.


Criminality is what gives purpose to their structure and is what sustains them as families. We have seen in areas where there was limited criminal opportunity or where the rackets have dried up the structure breaks down and the family soon dies off. While in areas with a high level of criminal activity the structure and the ranks can be destroyed again and again by prosecution, death and defections but the group continues because they have a reason to do so.


Pogo

[B.]

And where did the idea come from the Bonannos never required kick ups from it's members? Vitale testified taking tribute from his underlings was how Massino got rich.

We've gone over it before but for those interested:

- Vitale said Massino never asked for tribute from him but he voluntarily gave him half of his earnings anyway as a sign of appreciation for bringing him into the life. Massino himself said aside from Christmas and the boss's birthday members weren't expected to pass up money from rackets, crimes, business, etc. This includes Montreal, who was only asked for Christmas tribute like the New York crews

- Massino did institute a war chest asking for a relatively small monthly payment from members which Vinnie Asaro angrily protested as it went against the traditional MO (he complained that a mafia member shouldn't have to pay to remain a member in good standing), another sign that the family didn't traditionally demand money be passed up. Asaro was in a position to know the organization's history given he was a 4th generation Bonanno member in direct succession.

- When Peter Zuccaro was a Bonanno associate in the 1970s he testified Frank Bonomo (old time member made before 1931) didn't ask for tribute and simply represented him in disputes when he needed it. One time he inquired about what Zuccaro made from a robbery but even then didn't ask for money. Other Bonanno informants spanning years have made similar comments.

We really need to hammer this topic home and de-Sopranoize people. This is a very important aspect that many overlook and if you want to understand the mafia you need to understand that it is not a criminal organization but an organization willing to resort to criminality. It will lead to a better understanding. If people want to combat mafia, they need to factor this aspect in.

I'll send you something in the near future related to this. I've found a way of describing (rather than "explaining") what the organization is that doesn't rest on "theory" nor does it dismiss criminality. Impossible to have a black and white argument about it.

What I keep coming back to, like you, is that murder is the only consistent crime they ask of members. However they don't view murder as a "crime" but as a legal punishment in their own system. I agree with Pogo this makes them all potential criminals in a larger society that only authorizes police/military to kill people (a "monopoly on violence"), but his statement that all members are and have been criminals isn't correct.

A theoretical argument is that taking a blood oath to commit murder makes all members potential criminals, but it's not a theoretical argument to say there are members who weren't criminals and the organization has a built-in capacity for these types of members -- that's just a fact.

The mafia is much more like a real estate agency who employs licensed realtors that are "with" the agency but technically independent contractors when it comes to producing income. The agency sometimes helps with leads but for the most part it is up to the agent how and what they decide to sell and how often. There is no quota an the agency has no right to pressure agents to sell houses. Unlike the mafia, though, these agencies do ask for "tribute" from sales 100% of the time.

[Wiseguy]

And where did the idea come from the Bonannos never required kick ups from it's members? Vitale testified taking tribute from his underlings was how Massino got rich.

We've gone over it before but for those interested:

- Vitale said Massino never asked for tribute from him but he voluntarily gave him half of his earnings anyway as a sign of appreciation for bringing him into the life. Massino himself said aside from Christmas and the boss's birthday members weren't expected to pass up money from rackets, crimes, business, etc. This includes Montreal, who was only asked for Christmas tribute like the New York crews

- Massino did institute a war chest asking for a relatively small monthly payment from members which Vinnie Asaro angrily protested as it went against the traditional MO (he complained that a mafia member shouldn't have to pay to remain a member in good standing), another sign that the family didn't traditionally demand money be passed up. Asaro was in a position to know the organization's history given he was a 4th generation Bonanno member in direct succession.

- When Peter Zuccaro was a Bonanno associate in the 1970s he testified Frank Bonomo (old time member made before 1931) didn't ask for tribute and simply represented him in disputes when he needed it. One time he inquired about what Zuccaro made from a robbery but even then didn't ask for money. Other Bonanno informants spanning years have made similar comments.

We really need to hammer this topic home and de-Sopranoize people. This is a very important aspect that many overlook and if you want to understand the mafia you need to understand that it is not a criminal organization but an organization willing to resort to criminality. It will lead to a better understanding. If people want to combat mafia, they need to factor this aspect in.

I'll send you something in the near future related to this. I've found a way of describing (rather than "explaining") what the organization is that doesn't rest on "theory" nor does it dismiss criminality. Impossible to have a black and white argument about it.

What I keep coming back to, like you, is that murder is the only consistent crime they ask of members. However they don't view murder as a "crime" but as a legal punishment in their own system. I agree with Pogo this makes them all potential criminals in a larger society that only authorizes police/military to kill people (a "monopoly on violence"), but his statement that all members are and have been criminals isn't correct.

A theoretical argument is that taking a blood oath to commit murder makes all members potential criminals, but it's not a theoretical argument to say there are members who weren't criminals and the organization has a built-in capacity for these types of members -- that's just a fact.

The mafia is much more like a real estate agency who employs licensed realtors that are "with" the agency but technically independent contractors when it comes to producing income. The agency sometimes helps with leads but for the most part it is up to the agent how and what they decide to sell and how often. There is no quota an the agency has no right to pressure agents to sell houses. Unlike the mafia, though, these agencies do ask for "tribute" from sales 100% of the time.

I think you guys are over-pushing the exceptions to make an argument for the theoretical Mafia you're describing. Even if the Bonanno leadership didn't demand regular tribute (it was at least expected at Christmas), they are the exception, not the rule. In practical terms, mob underlings are generally expected to kick up a portion from their earnings. Corallo and Amuso went over this in the Jaguar, even saying a member's legitimate interests fell under the authority of the boss most of the time. Likewise, even if there are some members out there who haven't directly committed any crimes (i.e. only involved in legitimate business before and after being made, at most know of the crimes committed by others, and have only sworn to be willing to kill for the organization), again, they are the exception, not the rule. I don't know how well you can describe the nature of the Mafia - at least today - when you're referring to a relatively small minority of a family.

[B.]

Joe Profaci was said to have provoked the revolt in his family by demanding tribute in the 1950s, which sources say went against the way the Profacis and other families operated up to that point. There isn't much evidence that most other US families demanded much if any tribute either, most of them being closer to their Sicilian roots.

A distinction also has to be made between asking for tribute from members vs. extorting/taxing associates and outsiders. The DeCavalcantes for example demanded tribute from construction contractors but despite the extensive DeCavalcante tapes there isn't much evidence the members themselves were "kicking up" to the admin. Most of them weren't involved in criminal activity.

I don't know how well you can describe the nature of the Mafia - at least today - when you're referring to a relatively small minority of a family.

I'm not using a minority of the family as a representation of the entire mafia, but in order to understand the entire organization from past to present you can't ignore the role this non-criminal element has consistently played. It's arguable whether or not they were traditionally a "minority" but I agree the criminals have always been dominant. The non-criminal element is inducted "in spite" of their non-criminality, but because the organization has always had a built-in capacity for them and allows them to pursue any rank.