0 registered members (),
410
guests, and 33
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics43,341
Posts1,086,077
Members10,381
|
Most Online1,254 Yesterday at 04:11 PM
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: funkster]
#770951
04/02/14 07:35 AM
04/02/14 07:35 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,156
jonnynonos
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,156
|
Regardless of whether or not he was talking to be a big shot, I don't see what the quote proves other than Calabrese stating the obvious. Seems pretty clear that having the muscle to take out a half dozen key individuals at any point in the Outfit's history would make things fall in line for you pretty quickly. Not when you factor in the second part: "That's what it's come to." He is clearly pointing toward a significantly diminished Outfit, at least in his mind. Reading between the lines of his quote, I think, actually, it is quite clear he is insinuating that in the past it would have taken much more than getting rid of just 7 guys. To me the interesting question is: Who were the 7 guys? We have guessed before on this forum. However, since, then, I have sometimes wondered if Elmwood Park is in reality almost completely shelved, as HSAC believed. If that was true at the time Calabrese Sr. made the statement it would mean all 7 guys would be South Siders. Seems plausible.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: jonnynonos]
#770968
04/02/14 08:25 AM
04/02/14 08:25 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,213
cookcounty
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,213
|
Regardless of whether or not he was talking to be a big shot, I don't see what the quote proves other than Calabrese stating the obvious. Seems pretty clear that having the muscle to take out a half dozen key individuals at any point in the Outfit's history would make things fall in line for you pretty quickly. Not when you factor in the second part: "That's what it's come to." He is clearly pointing toward a significantly diminished Outfit, at least in his mind. Reading between the lines of his quote, I think, actually, it is quite clear he is insinuating that in the past it would have taken much more than getting rid of just 7 guys. To me the interesting question is: Who were the 7 guys? We have guessed before on this forum. However, since, then, I have sometimes wondered if Elmwood Park is in reality almost completely shelved, as HSAC believed. If that was true at the time Calabrese Sr. made the statement it would mean all 7 guys would be South Siders. Seems plausible. u gotta guy on tape meeting with grand ave people and mentioning elmwood park in 2013 i highly doubt they're shelved
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: cookcounty]
#770975
04/02/14 08:54 AM
04/02/14 08:54 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 692 Cook County
TheArm
BANNED
|
BANNED
Underboss
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 692
Cook County
|
Elmwood park is in fact, the most powerful faction in the outfit. The fact that 75% of what they do is either legal or non actionable is what makes they u8nder the Radar and so powerful
Been there and done it I am very much for real, so if you ask, make sure you really want to know.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: jonnynonos]
#770991
04/02/14 09:18 AM
04/02/14 09:18 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 840
funkster
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 840
|
Regardless of whether or not he was talking to be a big shot, I don't see what the quote proves other than Calabrese stating the obvious. Seems pretty clear that having the muscle to take out a half dozen key individuals at any point in the Outfit's history would make things fall in line for you pretty quickly. Not when you factor in the second part: "That's what it's come to." He is clearly pointing toward a significantly diminished Outfit, at least in his mind. Reading between the lines of his quote, I think, actually, it is quite clear he is insinuating that in the past it would have taken much more than getting rid of just 7 guys. Sure. Won't argue that. He was clearly insinuating that. You also have to wonder how much is typical "things aint what they used to be/things were so much better in my day" type stuff. I don't entirely believe EP is retired. As someone else pointed out, I think they are 3/4 white collar though. Of course all is pure speculation, as I am not an FBI agent nor am I anywhere near that world.
Last edited by funkster; 04/02/14 09:19 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: TonyBoy117]
#772625
04/11/14 09:16 AM
04/11/14 09:16 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 840
funkster
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 840
|
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: jonnynonos]
#772660
04/11/14 12:42 PM
04/11/14 12:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 691
GaryMartin
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 691
|
Read that, John, got it bookmarked. Neumann was "Piece of work." He apparently feared no one and did not hesitate to kill. Dangerous, dangerous man. Here is another link I found from McHenry Co with articles about The Outfit. Old news, but interesting. http://www.mchenrycounty1981.com/?s=Accardo&x=10&y=0
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: jonnynonos]
#772832
04/13/14 08:43 AM
04/13/14 08:43 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
HuronSocialAthletic
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
|
Have a bunch of questions for ChiTown (or anyone else) that I'd like addressed in thorough, if you please.
What was the extent of Pete Palumbo's role within the Outfit? I know he had the reputation of being a real asshole, but was he ever a significant presence within the organization?
The Schivarelli Bros, Mike (made guy?) & of course his rather infamous brother Pete. What neighborhood did they grow up in? Was it Riis Park? It is my understanding that they are strictly Grand Avenue Crew guys, is this correct? Is Mike still active? If so, with what crew? Does Pete still reside (or did he ever?) in the Dewes Mansion? I can't ever remember him living there, he always had that townhome behind Treasure Island off of Clybourn & Southport, but I do remember that situation where Gattuso & a few other heavies bullied that fag-kingpin Chuck Renslow into selling the Dewes Mansion to Pete. Pete once told me the movie Rudy was based on him. Is this true? Lol!
Speaking of the Schivarellis, did you read Danny Seraphine's 'Street Player'? If so, what was your impression? The guy seems like a real piece of work.
What can you tell me about the Outfit's presence (past or present) in the Dunning/Belmont-Craigin/Edison Park neighborhoods? What about the township of Oak Lawn?
Lastly, what do you know about Tony Lombardo & the Congress Pizzeria?
Thanks. Would appreciate in depth responses if that's possible.
Last edited by HuronSocialAthletic; 04/13/14 08:45 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: HuronSocialAthletic]
#772886
04/13/14 03:55 PM
04/13/14 03:55 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,156
jonnynonos
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,156
|
Citing the tape where Frank c says the Outfit could be taken over if several guys were knocked down is fuckin stupid. What're you trying to prove/say? John gotti took over the entire gambino family by murdering one guy. Derp. These are organized crime families, not continents. Yeah listening to a wire on one of the most infamous hitmen in recent mob history is "stupid." Why would anyone be interested in that? As I said before, he was clearly pointing a very diminshed Outfit; he followed it up with "That's what it's come to." He might have prefaced it with a similar statement; I can't remember. And I certainly never said it was proof that Elmwood Park was shelved. I just said, it they are, it casts the question as to who the seven guys were in a far different light. Also, the recording was made 10 years ago, at least, so things have obviously changed since then.
Last edited by jonnynonos; 04/13/14 03:56 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: TonyBoy117]
#772893
04/13/14 05:10 PM
04/13/14 05:10 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
HuronSocialAthletic
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
|
Frank Calabrese was a meth head, who's children were/are also drug addict buffoons. His family's respect within inner Outfit circles had been waning heavily since the early 90s. The ramblings of a jealous, senile old meth head, who's crew had all but abandoned him, and who desperately wanted to be the street heavy he was during the 1980s, should be largely disregarded as complete delusion. The Carusos (his bosses, and a family who hold much more weight/respect within the Organization than the Calabrese family could have ever hoped to) wanted nothing to do with him by the time those wiretaps were recorded. He could barely maintain his rackets, let alone plan a takeover of all four Outfit street crews. Anyways, really silly thing to bring up to further propel your crusade (that the Outfit is nothing but a handful of old men with withering sports books & some electronic poker machines). Seven people is a lot. Again, John Gotti was able to overthrow the entire Gambino family (in the fuckin 1970s, no less) & all of it's respective crews & rackets by bumping off ONE GUY. derp.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: TonyBoy117]
#772909
04/13/14 06:37 PM
04/13/14 06:37 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
HuronSocialAthletic
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
|
@Nicky I'm not talking present necessarily. I'm talking historically. Let it be noted.
Listen, I wasn't arguing with what he said. In any organization you can clear a few guys out & take over if the stars are aligned. Street soldier loyalty is overrated & over exaggerated. These guys are gangsters, they'll fall in line with new regime because they want to continue making money. Hell, Joey Aiuppa & Jackie Cerone did the very same thing in the late 60s that Frank c was alluding to. What I'm arguing against is that Frank at that point during his career was a credible mouthpiece. He wasn't. Nor was he in any position to be making that kind of statement.
Also, your "agenda" on here is bizarre to say the least. Yes, you do care about the Outfit, as well as it's current state of affairs. You recite family secrets drivel/Outfit-related literature repetitively to dizzying effect. Hell, you've got nearly 1,000 posts on here, the vast majority of which are Chicago Outfit related. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I post here as well on a frequent basis. But who's kidding who, you are an Outfit junkie if I've ever seen one.
You follow up statements like "I could care less about the Outfit" with gems a la "I loved when spilotro said 'keep that crazy fucker neumann away from me' that was awesome!" or "I sat in on the sarno trial", etc. Again, there's nothing wrong with reading & enjoying Outfit-centric literature, and sitting in on the Sarno trial was likely an entertaining experience for someone like you, but surely you must know better than to blatantly contradict yourself. We've all seen you mock & belittle members of this forum who have much less severe Outfit obsessions than you do.
Honestly, I already feel silly for taking your bait on this occasion. I know that you adore arguing over things that have no real answer, and I also know that you revel in being able to have the last word, so the floor is yours. I won't be responding to anymore nonsense.
Hopefully ChiTown or another member addresses some of the questions I posed ASAP.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: TonyBoy117]
#772910
04/13/14 06:37 PM
04/13/14 06:37 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
HuronSocialAthletic
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 950
|
.
Last edited by HuronSocialAthletic; 04/13/14 06:39 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Chicago Outfit: The 28 members
[Re: TonyBoy117]
#772913
04/13/14 07:06 PM
04/13/14 07:06 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,156
jonnynonos
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,156
|
HSAC:
As in other instances when the people I'm discussing something with become overly emotional, I will respond only to the factual part of your post, as that is the only thing of interest to any sane person.
I responded to your post (not your first one, the one about Frank C) because you had made two incorrect assumptions:
1. He didn't say the comment as part of a plan, it was just prison yard talk with his kid.
2. He followed it up with "That's what it's come to," clearly pointing to a diminished Outfit, at least in his mind. I understand that you think his opinion is worthless; on that point we will agree to disagree.
Why is it interesting? Because it is an unvarnished quote from a real mobster who didn't know he was being recorded. Right, wrong, crazy, it was still what he thought at the time.
Take it for what it's worth.
You make some fair points in the less emtional part of your response, though they have already been discussed before.
Again, it was brought up recently, by me, only in the context of wondering who he might have been thinking of if indeed Elmwood Park was shelved at the time.
If that discussion doesn't interst you, that's fine. I think I brought it up in a discussion with Funkster or one of the less volatile posters.
|
|
|
|