You are right!

Hey Camarel,what do you think about the Chicago outfit,aside the 5 fam.There was a post here and it was explained that the capos in Chi aint like the capos in NY,they are more of a..like local bosses so they are all under one boss right?!like in the Accardo years

It seems the Chicago outfit is alot different than ny their capos are almost like bosses themselves since they have a number of Lieutenants under them who in turn have soldiers under them. So you're kinda right i think it goes associate>soldier>lieutenant>capo>boss.

hairy massino claimed the last time the commission met was in 1985. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-16/news/29453013_1_joe-waverly-gambino-boss-joseph-massino he does mention the meeting of 2000 but that only a handfull of guys showed up.

What Massino meant about the meeting in 85 was that it was the last time the 5 official bosses met yigido.

I think I read somewhere that the Commission met in 2000. And that Massino presided over the meeting. (Doesn´t make him a boss of bosses though... ) I remember thinking to myself that the source seems reliable. But I can´t say where I read it.

Carlo Gambino held that position. You know the guy's hopes and dreams that took him along before emmigrating to the U.S. How powerful he wanted to be, and that he had to have Anastasia murdered as he felt time was passing him by.

Any proof of this? Please share. Don´t be shy.

Just my opinion but i don't think Gambino was ever officially the Boss Of bosses. But i do think after Genovese got put away and up to his death that Gambino was the most powerful mobster around and had tremendous power to sway commision votes his way.

It's a self induced belief. Just like the other poster saying that Salvatore Maranzano was the one and only Boss of Bossses. Also, he doesn't have proof that Maranzano was the one and only in that position. The older mob history is more hazy then todays, so who really knows what happened.

We all go by what we read.

Also a self belief was the poster who created those mob charts. He placed Vincent Asaro as captain and Vincent Badalamenti as acting boss. My belief is that Asaro, Badalamenti and Vito Grimaldi are candidates, with all three possibly running the Bonanno family until one is chosen.

Cheers to this poster - he said exactly what I wanted to say. Though I refer to Gambino as Boss of Bosses, other people here shouldn't feel the need to correct me. If I am wrong about something, then through sources and my book writing on the mob, I will learn the truth and correct myself. Others correcting me only strengthens my need to believe something false.

Everything you said is correct but the boss of bosses doesn't need to sway votes his way there's no votes he decides everything which is why there hasn't been one since Maranzano.

You don't need proof to correct this simple discussion. Luciano killed Maranzano because he held the postition of Capo di tutti Capi, and changed he mafia by changing the structure of the american mafia to have a commission. Ok, maybe Carlo Gambino was in his time the most influencial and powerful boss in America but he still was not the Boss os Bosses, simply because that position has not existed since 1931.

"It's a self induced belief. Just like the other poster saying that Salvatore Maranzano was the one and only Boss of Bossses. Also, he doesn't have proof that Maranzano was the one and only in that position. The older mob history is more hazy then todays, so who really knows what happened."

DeMeo, nobody here said that Maranzano was the one and only boss of bosses. But he was the last one.
And actually, there are a lot of accounts of what happened during the early history of the mob. I´m sure you have heard about Joe Valachi, right? Nicolo Gentile? Joe Bonanno? Mike Dash? David Critchley? John Dickie? The FBI???

Who's Joe Valachi? Did he flip on Joey Massino?

Exactly but there's no accounts of anyone since Maranzano being boss of bosses. Since Maranzano it's been a position the media has bestowed upon the most powerful boss of that time.

Yeh he was 101 years old

Correct. He was not the Boss of Bosses but he was the most powerful mobster on the commision from the time Genovese was locked up until his death. IMHO after Lucchese died no one had the juice Gambino had.

Carlo even had influence with Lucchese, their children married each other.

if their was a boss of bosses position their would be much more conflicts between the five families.

their would be people using violence to get this position. how men like gotti and genovese aimed for the boss position. wouldnt matter how much influence you had a bullet is enough.

so this also proves that such a position never existed maybe before the 30's but then again i aint know

The title "boss of bosses" is mostly potrayed by the media in the past(even now) with articles like"They killed Galante,Boss of Bosses"...but yet theres always the most powerful,supreme crime boss on the table(even if its only for a short time)

The funniest thing about the media saying that is Galante wasn't the most powerful boss the other families didn't even recognize him as boss but of course attaching boss of bosses to his name makes it seem much more important .

In this thread, the Commission meeting of 2000 is discussed.

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post658324

Interesting comment written by some dude on yahoo groups-american mafia.....

I can understand a respected Mob pioneer like Morello being called in to
arbitrate out of town squabbles, but how could he possibly be expected to fairly
arbitrate beefs in New York where he had a stake. Suppose someone had a beef
with Morello. It would be like having issues at the job and you find out that
your boss and your union rep are the same guy. It wouldn't work. Why do we
knowingly mangle the language? If someone is meant to be the Supreme Arbiter why
do we continue to call him the Boss of Bosses. A boss and an arbitrator are two
different things. Who would kill or strive to be an arbitrator? And who would
accept the counsel of someone who murdered the previous arbitrator?
> > Lets go thru the period of 1890-1928.
> > 1890-1910 Morello. The originaL BOB. Where did his authority come from? Did
he arrive in the US with the title? It is the equivalent of George Washington
arriving on the Mayflower and being given the title of President. President of
what? At what point did the other Bosses feel the need to appoint a Supreme
Arbitrator? The American Mafia was just getting established. What was there to
be Boss of Bosses over? There was one family in New York and Morello was it's
leader, so I guess you could definitely argue that Morello was the BOB of New
York. Fair enough. But the rest of the country? How could things have evolved so
quickly? There would have had to be meetings, conferences, and conventions.
Transportation and communication was not nearly what it is today. These guys
were starting from scratch. They had organizations to start up and run. It would
be like the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock and deciding that they needed a
National Government. I don't dispute the fact that Morello advised bosses in
other cities. It would make perfect sense for arguing parties to consult a
respected out of towner who had no dog in the fight. But that situation sounds
rather informal, which makes sense. It is the man that is trusted, not the
title. What is the need to elevate Morello's status to be Boss of all Bosses. He
ran his family, and provided non-binding arbitration to outside families. We
like to ask for facts to be proven here. So I ask what proof do we have that
Morello was ever truly appointed as Boss of Bosses. I find a lot of reasons to
find this scenario highly improbable. Boss of the only Family and therefore the
New York Mafia, sure. The American Mafia? I don't see it.
> > 1910-1928 D'Aquila. Other Families were forming and with them came inter
family violence. Clear evidence that no one was running the show. also in the
face of Camorra violence there is little evidence of a united Mafia front.
wouldn't a Boss of Bosses been the one to marshall the forces. This didn't
happen. To say that he was supposed to be The Head Arbitrator makes no sense,
because he couldn't be expected to rule fairly when his interests conflicted
with those of other families. He would no longer be arbitrating but bossing. The
very thing that we say he was not supposed to be doing. And then he was killed.
> > So at what point of time was the role of Boss of Bosses an effective
governing position? I argue that the data shows that it really never was. It
seems particularly misleading to claim that in the formative years of the
American Mafia a certain few men were the Boss of Bosses, but by that we mean
Supreme Arbiter. And they were all from New York which means that arbitration
with other New York Families would have been imposing your will or bossing
them. That is not an effective or logical paradigm for leadership, and because
of that no true leadership existed. to say that the Boss of Bosses system was
replaced by the Commission is in effect making the argument that there truly was
a Boss of Bosses system. Well if that is the case what is it's origin? How did
it come to be? Who were it's Founding Fathers? What did they envision?
> >
> > If by self-preservation you mean that Luciano saw no future in continuing
to participate in this violent hodge-podge so be it. We all agree about the
enormously important role New York played in the American Mafia. The Commission
brought order in an intelligent way to New York, a reasonable and fair way of
settling disputes. We know it's origins, and it is logically sound. Neither can
be said about Boss of Bosses. so how can we be so sure that they ever existed.

This is a FBI report explaining the chain of command in LCN.
Note that no boss of bosses is mentioned and it also states "The Commissione is the ultimate and final authority in this organisation."

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=94909&relPageId=6

In here, note the words "each boss of a group or a family enjoys the same prestige as all other bosses throughout the country, despite the fact that certain families might be much larger and much more powerful than others."

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=981000

In the early 1960s, while Bonanno served as the chairman of the Commission, Bonanno´s proposal of dismantling the LA Family and to send his guys to LA to take over was rejected by the Commission members. Just to prove my point that the chairman of the Commission was never regarded as the boss of bosses, read this part

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=981004

Here is a small part of Valachi´s account in regards to the transition of power from the boss of bosses to the Commission

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=980885

Here is an informant saying that there hasn´t been a boss of bosses since Lucky Luciano became boss

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1401951

There are multiple reports that can be found on the MFF site saying the same. I honestly can go on and on.

As of the votes on the Commission. They all counted the same. No matter how powerful a boss was or how many soldiers he had under his command, his vote still counted the same. Check out Bill Bonanno´s last book. He goes into great detail of the functions, protocol and the proceedings of the Commission. Extremely interesting. If you are interested, pick up the book.

The best proof is he was forced to resign.


The same informant also says Vito Genovese is the "most powerful boss in the New York area".




At the table they were equals (in theory anyway) but outside the boardroom this was not the case. You have to take into account power politics. As proof: Joe B. would plot to kill Gambino and Lucchese. Why would he see them as a threat if they were equals? If they were all equals how did Bonanno's get expelled? Over drugs?

Either way there will no one will ever hold the rank again, no one will preside over the Commission anymore because they haven't met in years. And the fact that it's too risky, known wiseguys all in one place, meeting in a bar or restaraunt. If the Feds got a hold of that juicy piece of news...
Now it is certainly possible that Crea could became the most successful Boss the Lucchese's have had for years. That I would be willing to bet on.

^ ^ ^ True!I dont know why ppl cant understand this....THERES ALWAYS A TOP SPOT!!!no matter if it exists or not,theres always a top guy!Voting?!?!?LOL(yes theres voting but every1 first waits for the top guys decision)...i mean we are talking about ego maniacs,mafia bosses and they care only about power and money,and some guys here will say"Give me a proof,give me a proof,or you read wikkipedia"Its hilarious!!!!GO WATCH THE STREETS YOU FOOL!i mean stop reading articles written by some schmucks or read books or watch movies,some of you got it worng!Yes you can read articles but only on history,you cant find book about everydays life on the streets,belive me it ownt be true!I can see that some guys here never walked the streets,just imagine the streets infront of their computer or book or whatever and yall belive in honor!Go outside a lil bit!Feel it!But if yall over 25,than youre late,sorry and stop buzzin nonsence...and go write some book on the basis of Joe Bonanno's fake memoars

"As proof: Joe B. would plot to kill Gambino and Lucchese. Why would he see them as a threat if they were equals? If they were all equals how did Bonanno's get expelled? Over drugs?"

Bonanno´s expulsion had nothing to do with drugs and his alleged involvement in Magliocco´s plot to get rid of Gambino and Lucchese was resolved during a meeting in 1963.
Bonanno´s relationship with his cousin Magaddino had for a long time slowly deteriorated. Magaddino accused Bonanno for being power hungy and Bonanno suspected Magaddino for being jealous and secretly having a desire of controlling his Family in New York. They didn´t trust eachother anymore.

Gaspar DiGregorio, a Bonanno captain (and backed by Magaddino) placed a formal request with the Commission complaining about the election of Bill Bonanno for consigliere had been conducted in an unlawful manner. This snowballed into what later became the Bananas war. But Magaddino used DiGregorio for his purposes, while Gambino and Lucchese used Magaddino for their purposes.

Bonanno´s book goes into great detail in regards to this but the gist of it all is that Bonanno refused to come in for Commission meetings when called for. According to Bonanno, the Commission had lost its legitimacy due to a number of infractions. And this consquently led to Bonanno´s expulsion.

Yes, nicely put. And that is the ultimate answer to this thread´s question.