You're right, it isn't clear so how can you arrive at the conclusion that "they were not kicking up or acting on behalf of the enterprise"? You admit there are still made guys in Buffalo and Kansas City right? So unless these life long criminals all the sudden decide they no longer want what is rightfully theirs ( tribute $) I would safely say the accused were kicking up and therefore at least to some extent acting on behalf of a criminal enterprise.
Finally do you not agree that anyone made guy or associate operating in these supposed "non viable" areas loves the perception that the mafia is dead in their area?
I know your formula for indicating where viable families still are based on FBI indictments and statements makes sense on paper but to think that all FBI agencies operate on the same level with the same priorities in every city is horribly flawed. To draw the conclusion that Detroit or Buffalo is extinct because they don't have the amount of mafia indictments as NY or CHicago is the same as saying "the Detroit FBI branch allocates the same amount of resources and priority to mafia activity as the FBI in NYC does and since they do not have the same number of indictment the mafia must be non viable in Detroit".
Now I do not know in which cities the mafia is still active in, but IMO your formula in which you use to base your conclusions is seriously flawed.
I've heard these same arguments from others.
First, it's not
my formula. It's not like I've come up with my own 50 point checklist of what makes a viable family. I'm going by the minimal RICO criteria that defines organized crime - which only requires two things.
Again, neither Buffalo or Kansas City has been included on any official list of viable families for over a decade now. Detroit is on some but not on others. And the mob cases in all three cities have been few and far between for years now. What we see in these areas is more a case of residual activity from remnants of families that once were.
