Scott article on current state of KC mob

[Pete]

Pete, why I do I have a feeling you would have a totally different response if Scott had gone in the opposite direction in his writings on Chicago?


Pogo

I've offered no opinion on this topic as I am ignorant as to what is true and what is not true I was simply referring to some people that wanna give Scott a hard time no matter what he says

[Pogo The Clown]

Right. Like you wouldn't question Scott (or as ou say giving him a hard time) if had gone to the other extreme and wrote that the Chicago Outfit was extinct.


Pogo

[Wiseguy]

I've offered no opinion on this topic as I am ignorant as to what is true and what is not true I was simply referring to some people that wanna give Scott a hard time no matter what he says

You really believe we have it out for Scott like it's some personal vendetta? Again, while I admit I was a little hard on him with his recent KC article, my original disagreements with him are well founded. But again, it's not personal.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Questioning information a reporter (with his own website) publishes is now considered 'trolling'.

This information being contrary to what LE and common consensus have said for years.
That is there is no functioning family in Kasas city.

Suddenly a reporter publishes an article to the contrary and those that question this startling revelation are now labeled haters, Internet tough guys and trolls.

How fucking absurd.


Pete et al, feel free to believe whatever you want. But when you start throwing names and accusations (trolling) back it the fuck up with evidence or politely send your Scott fan mail via PM please.

[Angelo Santino]

I'll say this: Some of you guys want to hate on me for no other reason but to hate and have something to complain about.

The Wiseguys, Pogos and Sonny Blackstein on this forum were so made at the start of this thread, waiting for their resident expert to jump on here and tear the article apart, but he backed up 95 percent of what I wrote. You guys honestly make me laugh. It's easy to be a critic and a tough guy sitting behind your keyboard.

Scott

We've been in contact on and off since 2010. I've seen you grow from Cigar City Mafia to Chicago to Philadelphia. You've made good sources and you are- I vouch for 100%- honest in your attempts to reveal the CURRENT ongoings of cities that are rarely covered. There are disagreements for sure, but this last article was a smoker, you explained everything and backed it up with sources. Despite certain people questioning your legitimacy, you're rebuttal/evolution has been to double check everything- as seen in this KC story. So Pogo and Wiseguy's (whom have the utmost honesty in their attempts) suspicion or scrutiny towards your work has made you adapt and improve on sourcing these works. That is the best I can make of it despite implications they make that you fabricate or lie about your work (they've never said this blatantly but implied it many times.) We need scrutinizing posters and they are great contributors. But you can win these frivolous arguments with the facts you have like you posted in your article. it makes you a better journalist. You may never win the argument with Pogo/Wiseguy but their Opposing Source keeps you ship shape as it should be. I hope you come around more instead of just commenting when someone says something bad against you. In a Cheech Marin accent: "Git invawlved, mayne"

That being said: some criticism: we spoke on the phone several times and I've made the point and you even agreed with me, reciting the fact that most of the 1930 Detroit players came from the Adamo-Giannola faction, hence a continuation since 1900, So nothing occured in 1930, if you continue to call Tocco/Zerilli the founding Dons is like calling Ron Reagan the first president. Influential in a turbulent era, yes. Founding- as in pulling every city Italian crook together and saying: We're now La Cosa Nostra, get in line because we're picking crews, no, Abolutely not.

Second, you've earned the stripes and sources and rights to do what you want to do. But inflating your article with buzzwords ie: "Cheesestake Family" or "midwestern Godfather" hinders the accuracy of your writing. NEVER, everrr, everrrr everrrrr everrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, was a Boss's position called "Godfather" or "Don" as a title. In your own terriitory, when Nove and the other guy were recorded in their car they never used Godfather or Don, instead they said informally: "They want to make Jackie the next Jack Tocco." We can go into the history and usage of "Don" but essentially it was a blue collar term for an Italian of prominence. It would be writing about the crips and calling them the most influential leaders the "Original Gangsters or OG's" or "Head Niggaz with an -az." It's your article and website you do with it as you'd like, but these buzzwords are blinding to the truth rather than accentuating it as most newcomers to the genre expect Michael Corleone rather than Joey Merlino. Labeling him the Godfather of Philadelphia is very misleading to the "idea" of what the general public has in their perception to the mafia "Godfather" of unlimited wealth, connections to politicians and above the law. Merlino was anyting but that. And he was probably never called Don or Godfather by his personal associates, ask what George has to stay about the matter and that term. if he doesn't say it's a media term I'd be very surprised. Philly is the most widely covered, widely recorded family, in all the bosses that came and went, they were never called by insiders the Don or the Godfather. No one went up up to Bruno and said: "Hey Docile Don..." Again, you do as you like, you've EARNED it.

^Those are my creative and respectful arguments against. Frivolous shit aside, I'm glad you do what you do and- disagreements aside- I have the utmost respect.. Salut.

Numerous bosses have been referred to as don. "Don Carlo" gambino "don vito" genovese etc. It's not a rank simply a respectful title given to someone in a lofty position such as boss

Don was not restricted to bosses, it was used for underbosses, consiglieri, captains and even soldiers. And notice, it was "Don Carlo" not "Don Gambino." Go look at the Valachi charts, plenty of people on there with "don this or that" at the soldier level. It's not a big deal, it's just unintentionally misleading when you reserve that title for Da Boss alone. The usage "he's gonna be the Don" is a Godfather-film creation.

[Pete]

I've offered no opinion on this topic as I am ignorant as to what is true and what is not true I was simply referring to some people that wanna give Scott a hard time no matter what he says

You really believe we have it out for Scott like it's some personal vendetta? Again, while I admit I was a little hard on him with his recent KC article, my original disagreements with him are well founded. But again, it's not personal.

In a post above sonny says you he and pogo have a "personal beef" with Scott and none of you guys denied that so I will assume it's true but to be honest I wasn't even necessarily talking about you wise guy. it's fine to dispute things he says which is what you do but some other guys seem to throw in personal disrespectful jabs as well which I just don't get. thr guys a good addition to the forum with info on lesser known families which I appreciate. he doesn't need to get his balls broke every time he posts an article

[Pete]

Questioning information a reporter (with his own website) publishes is now considered 'trolling'.

This information being contrary to what LE and common consensus have said for years.
That is there is no functioning family in Kasas city.

Suddenly a reporter publishes an article to the contrary and those that question this startling revelation are now labeled haters, Internet tough guys and trolls.

How fucking absurd.


Pete et al, feel free to believe whatever you want. But when you start throwing names and accusations (trolling) back it the fuck up with evidence or politely send your Scott fan mail via PM please.

Let's not be stupid you know there's a big difference between questioning facts and giving someone a hard time. You stated above you have a personal beef with Scott so that's different than merely questioning facts. And for the record I never mentioned any names if you thought I was talking about you then there's probably a good reason for that

[Pete]

Right. Like you wouldn't question Scott (or as ou say giving him a hard time) if had gone to the other extreme and wrote that the Chicago Outfit was extinct.


Pogo

You are correct I would question him on anything that wasn't true but wouldn't turn it into the "personal beef" sonny says you guys have with him. I'd simply debate the facts

[Pogo The Clown]

I may be losing my mind but where did Sonny say that "we" (as if he would be speaking for anyone other than himself) have a "personal beef" with Scott?


Pogo

[bobbybats]

Questioning information a reporter (with his own website) publishes is now considered 'trolling'.

This information being contrary to what LE and common consensus have said for years.
That is there is no functioning family in Kasas city.

Suddenly a reporter publishes an article to the contrary and those that question this startling revelation are now labeled haters, Internet tough guys and trolls.

How fucking absurd.


Pete et al, feel free to believe whatever you want. But when you start throwing names and accusations (trolling) back it the fuck up with evidence or politely send your Scott fan mail via PM please.

Where did Scott say there was a functioning family. He said there was a boss and underboss in name only, no capos, how is that saying there is a functioning family, was it because he said there were some young wannabes in the fold, hell there are wannabes in every city that ever had a family, Is it the use of the name family which bothers you, would it have been okay had he said criminal group instead.

[HairyKnuckles]

I may be losing my mind but where did Sonny say that "we" (as if he would be speaking for anyone other than himself) have a "personal beef" with Scott?


Pogo

You´re right. He didn´t. Sonny said this: "You're right. Myself, Pogo and Wiseguy have personal beefs with you. Our criticism is not based upon your writings. Honestly? This is your considered retort? 'Haters gonna hate?'"

I can´t see it in any other way than it just being meant sarcastically.

And Sonny is correct (or whoever said it), ANY writer who can´t cope with or can´t stand criticism, probably should change profession. Especially those who can´t show any evidence backing their facts up.

[Angelo Santino]

I may be losing my mind but where did Sonny say that "we" (as if he would be speaking for anyone other than himself) have a "personal beef" with Scott?


Pogo

You´re right. He didn´t. Sonny said this: "You're right. Myself, Pogo and Wiseguy have personal beefs with you. Our criticism is not based upon your writings. Honestly? This is your considered retort? 'Haters gonna hate?'"

I can´t see it in any other way than it just being meant sarcastically.

And Sonny is correct (or whoever said it), ANY writer who can´t cope with or can´t stand criticism, probably should change profession. Especially those who can´t show any evidence backing their facts up.

There's a difference between asking amicably and being downright bashful. Instead of; "Scott, what are your sources for this?"... "No sources, then nothing you say can be substantiated."... "Based on the lack thereof you are full of shit.".......Instead I see: "KC law enforcement consider whoever the fucks to be boss and under in a nominal way." and the responses are: "He's bullshitting, he's inflating, etc etc." In case you didn't notice, ever since he got lambasted for the exuberant amount of members on the Detroit LCN Family, he's been more careful to put out what can be proven vs his own personal beliefs. That occurred because of the blowback he caught from Pogo/Wiseguy/naysayers of what Scott has to say. Fair enough. They kept Scott on his toes to be more accurate than he everrrrrrrr expected an audience to be. That's a great and beautiful thing. Actually I agree with them/don't agree with Scott on some things. And that's the question: how do we deal with incorrect or misleading info? Call him a piece of shit or try and explain the truth with him?(???????)

Scott's not a liar, you might disagree with him but bottomline: he's published, he's connections, he's earning his name in this genre. And at the end of the day he's published and we're a bunch of bickering assholes on a forum. We know our shit! The Black Hand stands out for that. We are quality over quantity. And Soliai will agree we want to expand (not bringing you into this.) I'm TELLING YOU Scott is an amicable guy. He is NOT a bullshit artist. All the names he mentioned exist, there's never been an "Angelo Molistani moment."

1) He would never CONJURE up a fake name.
2) He would never CLAIM something he THOUGHT/KNEW was untrue.
3) He would never pick a name at random because he has a cool nickname (Scott loves him some nicknames) and say this guy is "considered" boss based on "an inside source." HE WOULD NEVER DO THAT!

Some of you guys have a difference of opinion. The KC article read objectively, but for some reason people took it as Scott was accentuating the Kansas City Crime FAMILY in order to be considered an expert, make money, or make things up for his own musings, Scott backed up all his sources and Bats confirmed/agreed with most of it. That's not a pro-Scott fact that is simply a fact

As far as taking heat for a project, there's a big reactional difference between: "Scott is in fantasy world, he makes claims that aren't there" and "Scott, what are your sources for this or that?"

Someone said the former about anything I wrote, I'd say go fuck yourself too. Personally, to assume that I would make anything up, to cherry-pick my narrative or in this for the money, would be insulting. Considering the money I've spent (wasted) acquiring all this shit and doing my own research and documenting it before I make a conclusion... After I go through all that, you can disagree but don't ever call me a fraud. Make money off of this shit? What fucking reality are you living in? If I'm wrong on something it's one of my limitations due from a misunderstanding or not having access to information that someone else found. I've never claimed to the definitive expert and neither has Scott Burnstein. He's a lawyer. His passion is this bullshit. He's giving up alot. (And he's Jewish, he's like Evan Handler from Sex and the City: he's well connected, but instead he chooses to cover "disa lifea" when he could be banging Brooke on Park Avenue.) He's building a base, he's writing articles, he's expanding his knowledge. He's never came out said: "I, Scott Burnstein am the final definitive source on Detroit or anywhere else." Instead he's a searcher for knowledge and we have his ear and if he's proven incorrect, he'll adjust his info if we prove to him why he's mistaken or not seeing something. He and whoever might not always agree but, at the end of the day: god-fucking-dammit Scott approaches his the best way he can as honestly as possible. Perfect no, neither is anyone here. The different is we're assholes on a forum, Scott is published. We could have his ear and influence his accuracy if we approached it the right way.

That's all I'm saying

Does he inflate Detroit numbers? Is he incorrect on the Chicago hierarchy? Does he use this term instead of that term? There's a way to be civil about it. The guy is quite open, he will share why he believes what he believes based on information. If you question it, ask him for it see what he says. For what it's worth, Scott tries to be as factual as possible to the point where he argued with Leonetti about what could be confirmed.) Do you think Ed Scarpo argued with Dominick Cicale over anything he said? His photo in a suit is next to Luciano, Capone, Castellano, Cirello, Colombo and Gigante on the cover for god's sake. Did Scott do that with the Leonetti book?

Everyone's imperfect, respect Scott's and try and help him see the truth. He's not a "fuck you I know because I KNOW" kinda guy. " Not at all.

[Angelo Santino]

And to Pogo, Wiseguy and Sonny, who I'm on good terms with and respect. This isn't a this side or that side argument. If you guys don't agree with him, state your argument why: "Scott says Detroit has 300 members when in 1995 the indictment said only 24, Scott what are your sources for the 276 additional members?" That's not kissing his ass, that's getting him in a gotcha to prove his shit or head for the hills. An operandi I agree with... Rick, Lennert and I expected alot of blowback like "prove it/sources?!" when we wrote our article basically boldly laying out the origins of the 5 families in a way that was never descruived before. Instead we got "Great article" and "makes sense." This isn't a suck-me-off-moment but rather, a good researcher/journalist should be ready to back up his statements with evidence and we were/are prepared to do that... We all agree- Pogo, Wiseguy, Sonny, me, Antilliar, JCB, Lennert, we approach this as best we can and as honesty we I can. I happen to know to Scott does the same.

You don't have to treat the guy with kid gloves, in the end, facts outweigh everything! We all agree on that and let's work backwards from the methodology which is getting the truth out as accurate as possible. We're all good people, we all have the BEST intentions. Scott too.

[Five Felonies]

Make money off of this shit? What fucking reality are you living in?

this right here is a great point. does anybody really have a clue how much traffic a website needs to generate to make it a legit source of income? just a quick fyi...people who have monetized their youtube videos earn an average 1/10 of a cent per view, so unless they are getting millions of views they aren't quitting their day jobs. i can't imagine it's that much different for banner adds on websites. ditto for authors, try making money with a print copy of a book on any topic in the digital age, much less a fringe topic like the mob that only a small group of miscreants really care about.

[HairyKnuckles]

Good posts Chris. I´m not the type of poster who knows current stuff. If somebody asks me who all the captains are today in the Genovese Family, I´d say I really don´t know. My strenght is the history of the Mafia because to me, it´s hell more interesting than the current stuff going on. In many cases, I can show my sources or direct someone to a specific source. I try to do that when the source is available to me, or when somebody asks me to. And then it´s up to the reader to digest or to believe the source. With Scott´s stuff, he can´t do that (read reveal) for obvious reasons so right from the start his stuff is going to be viewed with skepticism. I have absolutely nothing against Scott, he seems to be a fair and cool guy. I don´t think I have ever interacted with him and that´s nothing else but due to our different fields of interests. Scott is welcome to post here anytime he feel like it. In fact I want him posting here more! I know he´s an amicable guy, he doesn´t start shit with anybody. But I doubt very much that those mentioned above have a personal beef with HIM. The way I see it, it´s his opinions and facts they have a problem with. And when is difference in opinion something that should be okay surpressing? Never!

My post above was more directed to Pete than Scott. And I just made a statement that what Sonny said was not something out of a "persoanl beef" but rather something that was said sarcastically. I´m convinced that Pete misinterpreted Sonny´s intentions. And that´s that.

I know that nobody´s here on this forum for the purpose of making money. There is no money in this. Ask Rick or David Critchley for example. Scarpo is another deal lol. (I can´t go on his site anymore without my computer crashing...well or slowing down considerably atleast... because of all the adds and comercials he´s got going.) I´ve got nothing agianst him. There´s been examples of posters who have tried to come in JUST for the purpose of promoting a book. But those examples are few and far between. Thank god for that!

At the end of the day, it´s up to the reader to decide what to believe and what not to believe. Asking a poster for sources goes hand in hand with learning. And it shouldn´t be discouraged no matter who the poster is.