just for curiosity, how can the fbi knows exactly the number of made members?

If we're talking total manpower - members and associates - then it's probably a max of around 150. 28 guys who are considered made plus a little over 100 others, according to the FBI.

heres a recent case involving the decavalcantes.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/warren_county_pizza_parlor_is.html

why are pizzerias such prime targets for extortion than other businesses. theres been a few indictments where pizza places have been shaken down.

If you believe that the Outfit has 28 made members left, why do you consider them to be stronger than the Decavalcantes?

Damn, ChicagoDon got banned pretty fast. Was it BridgeportVet in a Groucho Marx mask or what?

You are right they do not have 75 members. They have many more than that. Things have changed with them and they are going by the rules of the old country again.

Things are changing for the DeCavalcante's Sam Jr is bringing in some big business out of Florida.

1 genovese
2 gambino
3 lucchese
4 bonnano
5 columbo
6 chicago
7 patriarca
8 philly
9 decalvacante
10 detroit
11 buffalo
12 kansas city
13 everybody else

what does everybody think? the top six are pretty clear, but 7-9 are very close imo. yeah i know the bottom rung arent viable families(10-12) but i added them just to give perspective.

The days of the outfit having any real polical power are long gone

That pretty much ended with GAMBAT nearly 30 years ago, didn't it?

Five Felonies' rankings are right. And it's not that the DeCavalcantes are a strong family. It's just that all the families below them, including Detroit and Buffalo, are not what some still believe them to be.

Of course not because if they were stronger the FBI would have more indictment against them. We all know the FBI knows everything and always wins against the criminals (sarcasm). If the FBI doesn't know about it, it can't be true!!

No recent indictments? No viable family! That's how efficient the FBI is.

ive been reading your last few posts and ive held back, but not anymore. im getting sick and tired of people giving ivy shit because of his willingness to go on what the fbi says. is he, or the fbi right 100% of the time? of course not. is he right on the ball? almost always! the guy has been posting here and on the other forum for a long time, and has had to sift through alot of bullshit. it seems like the most effective way to sort through said bullshit is not to go on the many "insider claims" that ive seen in my few months on this site alone, but rather to at least try to get some kind of an official idea of whats going on. i am no fan of the us government or the fbi for that matter and i think that they have plenty of problems, but to discount thier oc assesment seems very short sighted. if certain people want to disagree about the viability of a certain family, than great! but if they choose to do so without any facts to back up thier claims and get upset when people call them out on it then they should just stay out of the conversation.

So who are you? The great defender of grown men I have a different opinion than? Thanks for your input.

Furthermore I don't discount what the US government but I am not about to take everything they say as gospel like ivy does. I have nothing against him personally but it gets rather annoying when every time someone mention a family he deems as "nonviable" he chimes in with something to the effect of "blah blah, the fbi hasn't released a chart on them in 10 years, blah blah there have been no recent indictments, therefor they are not viable".

Then he posts a list of recent mafia drug indictments on which Kansas City and Buffalo are listed multiple times so I called him out. Get over it. His response was something to the effect of "those were just individual members or associates" as if in other mob busts the accused is named "The Gambino Family" and not just an individual lol. Get over it already mr great defender of grown men I offend.

There was a time when I'd be inclined to argue with you beyond this point. However, I've learned through long experience that there's no use trying to use facts with people who don't care about them. There's no use trying to reason with people who are going more on wishful thinking than objective observation. If you want to believe there are still viable families in Buffalo, Kansas City, etc., be my guest. But going by your criteria does bring up questions...


Does the late Jimmy Caci doing time back in 2001 for selling counterfeit travelers checks mean there's still a viable family in Los Angeles?

Does Billy D'Elia getting busted on assorted charges back in 2003 show the Bufalino family is still around? Of course, he later agreed to testify against DeNaples. But I think Charlie "Lips" is still alive, although he's doing life in prison.

Does Russell Massetta's company being raided back in 2008 demonstrate a viable family in Cleveland?

When John "Duffy" Conley was busted for back in 2006 for running multi-million dollar bookmaking and video poker operations in Pittsburgh, should that be a sign that there's still a hierarchy there?

Does the fact that John Mamone and several other people were busted in 2004 for running a multi-million dollar marijuana ring prove the Tampa family is still alive and well?

I'd say the outfit is under gambino at number 3 cuz the Genovese is listed as 300 made members est but he gambino's and the outfit have 200-250 est making them at odds in a way with the two

Wishful thinking? I couldn't care less if there are viable families in these places or not, just pointing out that the formula you use is flawed and and lack of indictments or articles is not necessarily indicative of the family being non-viable. For the formula to work you would have to prove that every branch of the FBI in every city has the same priorities and allocate the same % of resources to mafia investigation, which you can't.

You put so much weight in your formula you believe it to be more accurate than the hypothesis of a guy on the other board who spent hundred of hours researching the Detroit family including interviewing member of LE and former members of OC and concluded they were still very active.

The Outfit has that many members? I thought they had around 50 or so made guys.

You would maybe have a point if I was just going on the last few years. Or the last 5. Hell, even the last 10. But you can even go back into the 1990's with these families we're talking about. The last major cases involving the Kansas City mob was in the 1980's. By the 1990's it was just residual stuff. The last major case involving Buffalo was when Laborers Local 210 was put under federal oversight in 1996. Since then, residual stuff. I'd be willing to bet we won't see another case in Detroit like the big one in 1996. Going by your logic, I suppose I shouldn't write off the Milwaukee family yet, huh? Even though they haven't been heard from in over 25 years. Bottom line, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, lack of evidence is evidence. Especially when you're looking over a long period of time.



One of the authors of the Sixth Family, Lee Lamothe, used to post on the RD now and again. One time he made what I thought was a rather telling statement. He said, "No one wants to write a book called The Story of the Maybe the Third Most Powerful Crime Figure in a Small Neighbourhood in Brookyn for Six Months in 1995." In hindsight, we can see why they sort of blew the Rizzutos out of proportion in that book. In my opinion, mcscott hasn't been very different in regards to Detroit, all the valuable information he does provide notwithstanding. It's what many authors do. Or many directors in movies.

And you can keep going on and on about "my" forumla. But it's not "my" formula, nor is it a case of me vs. mcscott. I take everything he says and add it to everything else when I weigh it all in the balance. But what he says isn't the end all for me. I also take note of what other OC experts, journalists, and, yes, the indictments (or lack thereof) say as well.