If anyone was shelved for pimping minors it wouldn’t be marino. Soldier tommy orefice ok’d his associates pimping a 15 year old. He’s be the one shelved

thats what i think slim shady. bronx didnt elaborate on his post. maybe marinos just said fuck it im rich or maybe he got demetia which running crazy in my family lately. you hit 70tys bammm year later your unlocking your door wondering around at 4am then you going to a home. funny there was a cool article yrs back before marino was picked up in that bullshit murder his nephew some hookers gambling indictment that he got like 4 yrs for. it was in i bekive the new yorker . fuck it. gangster bb member do we still believe peter gotti is the official boss of the gambino family id say no. what do you think?

We know that a few years ago he was the boss in title alone but held absolutely no real power in the family. There is nothing to suggest that's changed.

All speculation and generalization with no evidence to back up those claims other than forum hearsay

When it comes to exploiting children, Marino wouldn't be unique in that regard. Robert Di Bernardo and Matthew Ianniello were powerful capos in the two biggest families and they also profited from child porn and child exploitation. A blind eye turned, as is always the case when a buck is to be made.

I never heard of Iannielo doing that other than internet gossip from people lookin got put him down. They investigated him for over 40 years and had him on numerous wiretaps, yet never had him on anything resembling that sort of crime. As for Robert Di Bernardo if you have something on him doin ghat, can you show some evidence please?

Why don't you do some research first. This has been backed up with evidence - you wouldn't know about that, considering you refuse to believe anything that doesn't suit your agenda, including any and all law enforcement agency, OC reporters, prosecutors etc.
Quit flaming, it does nothing to contribute to these threads, especially when you are blatantly wrong.

Eh, it's public domain. Google it. It's common knowledge that Ianniello exploited underage homosexuals, and Di Bernardo was a renowned child porn baron who made money hand over fist for Castellano off the backs of exploited children.

According to people "in the know", Crea was boss, his son wasn't connected, and Amuso had no power.

How did that go again?

This wasn't according to people "in the know." Rooster made that up because he's still angry about the Buffalo argument.
The Peter Gotti thing was confirmed by Jerry Capeci.

I don't know about Matty the Horse, but here's the info on DiBernardo

http://bitterqueen.typepad.com/friends_of_ours/2011/11/gambino-capo-dealed-in-boy-on-boy-porn.html

Not upset at all. Just pointing out your generalization based on a crime reporters articles and you acting like you know something about you know nothing about.

Read Moes comment again, you might gain some insight this round. But I doubt it.

The rumors are in the public. There was never any proof or even testimony or an indictment. He had partners who skimmed money off gay bars, to cheat on taxes. There was never anything linking him to pimping boys or men. For whatever reason you want it to be so, but it apparently isn't so.

Thanks. The person who runs that site seems truly bitter, as the name of his site suggests, but at last on that story he has some facts to it.

Why are you so intent on flaming me? SC deleted your flaming comment on the other Buffalo thread. I thought you would have learned your lesson.

And, no, you didn't "point out my generalization based on a crime reporters article." You didn't know the "crime reporters article" even existed until I mentioned it - you want to know how I know this? You claimed the Peter Gotti boss thing was, and I quote, "All speculation and generalization with no evidence to back up those claims other than forum hearsay" - The key term there is forum hearsay. Jerry Capeci is not "forum hearsay" because he's not a part of this internet forum, or any other internet forum.

And how do I know that you're simply 'flaming' to incite an argument? Because now, all of a sudden, you're calling out people for having no evidence (a call-out which I disproved). But yet, you were able to argue for 30 pages in another thread about something that you had no evidence of, and that was purely "forum hearsay. "
What is it Rooster? Are you a man who only believes hard evidence, or are you a man who subscribes to "forum hearsay?"

Regarding Moe's comment: Jerry Capeci has been proven right far more times than he has been proven wrong. And on the off occasions that he has been proven wrong, he is very quick to correct himself. Just about every GL column has quoted Jerry's sources on both sides of the law, but people can only come up with a handful of times he has been wrong - and when he is wrong (like the Amuso thing), he is incredibly quick to correct himself and apologize. In over 25 years of writing Gang Land columns, which Jerry's sources are quoted just about every week, people can only come up with no more than five instances that Jerry has been proven wrong, despite hundreds and hundreds of weekly articles citing sources from both sides of the law. When you are dealing with sources like this, information can be both conflicting and misleading, but in Jerry's case, 99.9% of the time it is not. Meanwhile, when you look at the "forum hearsay" of someone like Rooster, he has never once been proven right, and has never even come close to being proven right.

Rooster, if you want to continue this like flaming session of yours, send me a private message. You've attempted to derail multiple threads with this sort of behavior, and I can't think of any reason you'd want to do it other than to incite an argument, especially when you contradict yourself just to call me out.

EDIT: By the way, here is the Gang Land excerpt:
Last week's Gang Land announcement that the Gambino crime family has settled on a new boss — Frank Cali, a low profile, old-school member of the family's Sicilian wing — brought vigorous disagreement from other knowledgeable sources.

Neither Cali nor Domenico (Italian Dom) Cefalu, the reigning boss whom we said had been moved aside called to complain, but several usually reliable sources had strongly different opinions than those expressed in last week's column, which were noted by the New York Daily News the next day.

Everyone agrees on some things: Peter Gotti, residing in a federal prison in Ohio with a release date in 2032 is still the crime family's "official boss," but has nothing to do with running the family business. And what we wrote about Cefalu's ascension to acting boss in 2011, replacing longtime John Gotti top aide and then-acting boss John (Jackie Nose) D'Amico is also not in dispute.

SC didnt erase anything I posted.

He actually reprimanded you if youd like to go back and review to gain some insight.

Im not flaming at all, just calling you out on something you know nothing about.

Stop misleading people on this forum with your own speculation and trying to expand on crime reporters articles as if they are your own.

You dont know Peter Gotti is or isnt boss or if he does or doesnt hold power in the Gambinos.

No need to PM you in your inbox, it woulnt serve readers or posters any good. Stop pretending to know inner workings of a family is all Im saying. If youd like to base your posts on others reports thats fine, just preface your posts with that statement, not generalizing speculation or the assertion you actually know something that hasnt been published and I wont have to call you out time and time again.

And you saying "Everyone agrees on some things" is blatant contradiction in itself.

Rooster still hasn't acknowledged the fact that he now claims to be anti-"forum hearsay" and he claims to be against things with "no evidence." This is the same man that led a 30-page Buffalo argument based on his own, uncorroborated, never-proven "street talk" about how he claimed that the Buffalo crime family had an active hierarchy, was slowly rebuilding, 40+ made members, etc., despite the fact that anybody qualified to have a clue on the situation (Buffalo Mafia investigative journalists, FBI agents, former Buffalo rats, district attorneys, federal prosecutors) all agreed that Buffalo was dead.

So Rooster made it clear in the other thread that he disregards hard evidence at all costs. He'd rather go with his own "forum hearsay" - a.k.a. his own, uncorroborated street talk. But now that it's a new thread, and I'm posting something (which is backed up with evidence, by the way) that Rooster doesn't agree with, Rooster is calling me out for spreading "forum hearsay." This sort of evident hypocrisy is something that Rooster will blatantly ignore at all costs, even though I mentioned it before. This sort of blatant hypocrisy is what makes it so obvious that Rooster is flaming, and trying to make an argument out of something which very clearly doesn't matter to him.

According to Rooster, I'm spreading "forum hearsay" by posting things from Gang Land News - the most trusted and reliable mob news outlet on the web.
No, Rooster, "forum hearsay" is when somebody can spend 30 pages arguing something that has been blatantly disproven because of their own contrived "street knowledge."
Quit the incessant flaming.


Yes he did. Don't lie. It does nothing to help your case.

Rooster posted this, after SC's comment:
"I agree SC, you wont see me express my dislike for Nicky and his antics anymore nor will i feed into it and stoop to that level anymore."
SC deleted it, since it was clearly obvious that Rooster was so stubborn, and he just wanted to have the last comment so it looked like he won the argument.
Isn't that right, Rooster? Why did you try to lie about it? Or did you simply forget?


You are flaming by doing just that. Making sweeping comments about how I know "nothing about" the Gotti situation. I don't claim to have access to the upper-levels of the Gambino administration. But there has been nothing that has come out since Peter Gotti was lasted confirmed boss to suggest anything has changed.
So, how exactly am you "calling me out on something I know nothing about." I clearly posted evidence to back up my statement. So where is the "call-out?" How are you "calling me out?"


Jesus Christ almighty.
As of 2015, Peter Gotti was the official boss of the Gambino crime family, but held no power - an agreed-upon concensus from Jerry Capeci's sources.
There is nothing to SUGGEST that anything has changed since then. Peter Gotti is still alive, Dom Cefalu is still active, Frank Cali is still active.
What did I say there that was incorrect? What did I say there that was trying to mislead people? What part of that comment was misleading? What part of that comment was spread "forum hearsay?"
NOTHING.
Quit flaming.

This is coming from the person that claimed to know the inner working of a defunct crime family?
So it's okay when you claim to know the inner workings of a crime family (a family which has been confirmed defunct by every respectable source)
But when I "claim" to know the inner workings of a crime family - which I backed up with evidence - all of a sudden, I'm in the wrong?
Explain to me how that works.

Here was the comment Rooster:
"We know that a few years ago he was the boss in title alone but held absolutely no real power in the family. There is nothing to suggest that's changed."
Nothing about that comment is misleading. We know that he was boss a few years ago with no real power. That is true and has been confirmed.
There is nothing to suggest that's changed. That is also true - I'm not saying it definitely HASN'T changed, but there is nothing to suggest that it HAS changed. Tell me Rooster, am I wrong?

And Rooster? If you don't like "forum hearsay" - which I have never spread - which did you try and convince people that, based on your uncorroborated word alone, Buffalo was still an active crime family. Do you see the hypocrisy? You are contradicting yourself in your claim to be anti-street talk, since there is 30 pages of you, on this very forum, spreading uncorrorborated, disproven street talk. But you see, when I mentioned this before, you failed to acknowledge that, and you instead kept playing the "moral crusader" card - which you accused me of playing in the Buffalo thread.



Rooster, your stupidity knows no bounds.
I NEVER SAID "Everyone agrees on some things." THAT WAS AN EXCERPT FROM THE GANG LAND COLUMN.
Read the post again. I honestly don't see how you can fail to understand everything I post, yet other posters don't have trouble reading my comments at all. Two options: You're choosing to misunderstand my posts simply to flame (likely), or you're simply too stupid to read at a 3rd grade level (equally likely).

By the way, before this thread gets derailed, I'd like to reaffirm my original comment, which was.

We know that a few years ago he was the boss in title alone but held absolutely no real power in the family. There is nothing to suggest that's changed.

That's all I said which sparked the crusade by Rooster. Everything in that post is correct. I'll break it down for posters who don't understand, although I think Rooster's the only one that didn't understand:
In 2015, Jerry Capeci confirmed that he was the official boss, but in name alone.
It has been three years since then, and there is nothing to suggest anything has changed. Nothing to suggest. N-o-t-h-i-n-g t-o s-u-g-g-e-s-t. Maybe something HAS changed. But there is NOTHING TO SUGGEST that it has.
This is not "forum hearsay" as Rooster put it, simply because it did not come from any internet forum. It came from Jerry Capeci's Gang Land News, the #1 mob news outlet on the web.
This is not a "generalization" as Rooster put it, because it was confirmed in 2015, and there is nothing to suggest it's changed.
Rooster said that I had "no evidence" other than "forum hearsay." Both of those statements are blatant lies. The evidence is Gang Land News. GL is not "forum hearsay."

Simply put, Rooster is flaming for an argument by claiming that there is "no evidence" that Peter Gotti was the official boss a few years ago. There is official evidence, and it is not in the form of "forum hearsay," it is in the form of an acclaimed mob news outlet.
If anybody other than Rooster has a problem with that short, correct statement that I made, let me know, since Rooster has made it so every thread with me in it is going to be derailed because Rooster holds a vendetta against me for tearing apart his own uncorroborated, disproven, blatantly false "forum hearsay" that he was so desperate to spread.

Again, you know nothing but what you read and then pass on as your own knowledge.

Your generalizing assumptions and lack of ability to admit them prove it to all of us you got nothing. Stop acting like you have inside information.

Your long winded replies and attempts to refute everything I said dont mean you know what youre talking about, just means you can regurgitate crime reporters articles and act as if they are your own while boring us all to death.

You know nothing about anything you try to act like you do. Simple.

Please explain to us how what I posted had "no evidence to back up those claims other than forum hearsay"
Break it down for me. What, exactly, in my post was forum hearsay? And what in my post had "no evidence?"

EDIT: By the way, congratulations for successfully derailing another thread. You literally haven't contributed at all to the Peter Gotti discussion.

Reread my posts I started with and youll gain some insight to help answer these questions. This isnt complicated. I contributed to the post by acknowledging the likelihood of Moes comment and said you know nothing about it. If youd like to preface your posts with Jerry Capeci said or so and so said you wont be leaving yourself open to the critique that is you acting like you have inside information.

If you guys need any more proof that this is flaming, check out this thread:
http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=898887&page=6

Rooster jumped on me for what he perceived to be me spreading "forum hearsay." - This is despite the fact that nothing I posted was without evidence.
Then, after being corrected on that, he said:
"Stop acting like you have inside information." - This is despite the fact that I have never ever spread information that isn't backed up.

This is why it's obvious Rooster is flaming. He has jumped on me for what he perceives to be me claiming to have inside knowledge (not true), but is actively participating in another thread where someone claims to have inside knowledge. He has called me out for saying something that was "no evidence apart from forum hearsay" (not true), but is now asking questions and actively participating in a discussion with someone who has "no evidence apart from forum hearsay."

Whats the deal with that?

Im talking about you not having inside information. Keep reaching deep Nicky, you know you dont know anything but what you read and then push it off as if you are the primary source of information.

All YOU have to do, because youve already admitted your only sources are crime reports/crime reporters is preface your posts with Jerry Capeci said this or so and so said that. If you do that you wont sound like youre trying to give us inside information that is really what someone else already said. I think if you just slow down a little bit and think things through a little better youll understand what Im saying, but thats still to be determined.

Nicky and Rooster -

Are you two married to each other? You both sure fight like it. I'm beginning to think I should put on a striped shirt and bowtie, tell you both to go to a neutral corner and come out swinging when the bell rings. You BOTH have to stop this crap and if you can't get along and be civil to each other you'll both have to find somewhere else to post.

C'MON GUYS....

Nicky wishes maybe lol

Youre right though SC.

Not only did you start this argument, you were able to get your last little flaming, insulting jab in, just like in the last thread. I hope it boosts your ego, Roost.

Anyways, back to the Peter Gotti thing:
We know that a few years ago Peter Gotti was the official boss but had no real power. There's nothing to suggest that has changed.

Does that answer your question @pmac?

You just hadda take a "last" swipe, huh?? FINAL WARNING TO BOTH OF YA - STOP THIS SHIT NOW! NO MORE WARNINGS.

The fact that no one really knows who the gambino underboss is should be a good thing for the gambino administration.
I actually saw a made gambino guy this morning. He actually works, im not kidding.

Well said Aces...basically Peter Gotti is and isnt the boss. And none of us know either way.

Really? Who’d ya see?