Thankfully, I am able to see how off base Bart Smith is as a lawyer, now I will not hire him.

Dear Anthony,
Tell you what, come clean with your identity, I promise that I will not publish it, and I will respond to your questions. Please email me at jfosco@ktfmediagroup.com. We will keep the rest of this off the blog.
JF

Dear J.A.D., Do we know each other?

Dear Mr. or Ms. Book Work,

I am not so sure that Giacchino ill advised me when he suggested that I shine a spotlight on my problems with the Chicago Outfit (while he was pretending to be on my side). I believe that his ill advice pertained to advising me to commit phone harassment, which is a Class B Misdemeanor in the State of Illinois.

As for my civil lawsuits and older articles, they will always speak for themselves. However, as a media person, I am constantly endeavoring to cover whatever interesting facts come my way. As to me calling John DiFronzo ‘horse face’, we media people dub our subjects frequently. As I once said, John DiFronzo already made the decision to murder me, why should I be nice to him.

Again, the Chicago Outfit / John DiFronzo decided to kill me long before any of my articles were published. Therefore, ‘exacerbating the problem’ is impossible. The problem cannot be exacerbated. Their decision is final and it was final prior to my articles and lawsuits.

You are not entirely correct when you cite the last Outfit murder occurred with the late Anthony Chiaramonti, who was killed. Do not forget that Little Anthony Zizzo mysteriously disappeared (like Jimmy Hoffa) without a trace in August of 2006 after leaving a Melrose Park, Illinois, restaurant. More recently, longtime turncoat Jimmy LaVelley, whose testimony landed Chicago Outfit bosses Gus Alex and Rocky Infelise in prison, was found dead this year with bullet holes in his head.

I wish to point out that during the “Family Secrets” trial the court ordered that each juror’s identity be sealed in order to prevent the ‘Chicago Outfit’ from retaliation. Now Mr. or Ms. Book Work, what was your question regarding the possibilities of being killed by the Chicago outfit these days?

Mr. or Ms. Book Work, you call the Chicago Outfit ‘crippled’, in the meantime, the United States of America considers the Chicago Outfit very dangerous. Do not take my word for it, call the FBI and/or the U.S. Attorney’s office and see for yourself.

Lastly, on behalf of KTF Media Group, thank you for your readership.

Could the Zizzo disappearance have been a premature “escape” from indictment like Lombardo and Schweihs?

Dear Parsons,
Sure, I guess the Zizzo disappearance could have been a premature “escape” from indictment like Lombardo and Schweihs. However, in my opinion, such a theory is as ridiculous as assuming Jimmy Hoffa ran away with Helen Brach to live happily ever after in some love nest in the islands.

Dear Parsons,
In my opinion, the prime murder victim to be could most likely be Michael Magnafichi. I hope my fear of this possibility does not become a reality. Magnafichi is a very troubled person and a victim of circumstances that he had no control over as a young boy when he was first corrupted. However, I have no idea how to help him, with the troubles that he suffers from. If I believed he was a killer, I would not have any sympathy for him.

Dear Parsons,
Lying, stealing and murder are equal sins in the eyes of the Lord, indeed. And, one visit in a confessional booth of a church (hopefully with a non-sex abusing priest) will wipe the slate clean, in the eyes of the Lord.

I am also involved in this organization:
http://www.ccocommission.org

Mr. or Ms. Parsons,
Someone like me who (for good reason) is heavily involved in two organizations like The Voice of the Faithful and the Cardinal Cody Observation Commission that does not bring up sex abuse among the clergy is disingenuous.

Dear Mr. or Ms. Parson,
Thank you for your opinion. I have looked at both sides of the coin several times for many years. There are an overwhelming majority of good priests in the church, I agree. Please read the article that I wrote in August of 2008. Click here (sorry, it took me a few minutes to pull it up): http://www.ktfmediagroup.com/home/2008/08/18/cardinal-george%e2%80%99s-revelation-and-the-path-to-unity/

Sorry Joe I have read most recent articles regarding Outfit etc, hadn’t read that one. Your website covers a lot of real estate so to speak. You seem to have a deep understanding and well thought out direction please excuse my snarky comments – I naturally – possibly niavely defend my beliefs their structures without consideration.

Dear Parsons (definition: a member of the clergy…),

I have authored some tough articles against powerful bishops, so I am not surprised by your position. It would be nice to know your real name. I have been honest with my identity, i.e., first and last name.

In your gentle argument, which lightly attacks my credibility, you cite a source as ‘someone.’ In the court of law (which I understand that we are merely having a discussion on a blog), one must provide the identity of a witness to the court. Your argument lacks such element. You further explain in your gentle argument that you know ‘someone’ that knows me. Unfortunately, I am unable to conform or deny such statement, because you are denying me the name of your witness, ‘someone’. With your mystery witness in mind, you allege that I have been dishonest by referring to ‘something’ that I supposedly said a few years ago, and by comparing it to my current position, I have supposedly lied about ‘something’. Again, Mr. or Ms. Parsons, I have no idea what ‘something’ means to you. Your evidence that is referred to as ‘something’ is preposterous.

Mr. or Ms. Parsons, you cite paragraph number seven of an article that I authored on August 18, 2008 (http://www.ktfmediagroup.com/home/2008/08/18/cardinal-george%e2%80%99s-revelation-and-the-path-to-unity/), asking what I mean when I use the word ‘we’. I merely used the word ‘we’ as a figure of speech, which means, no, I am not ‘at the helm or in control’ of any such process regarding the contents of the article of August 18, 2008.

Most interesting, you touch on the subject of money. It seems to me that you are implying that I might have been (or currently) targeting the church for money. Excuse me (pause). Okay, I am back with you now (I was laughing uncontrollably for a couple of minutes). By now, I am confident that you are not the clergy, or, if you are, you are far removed from the bishops of Chicago – I personally know a number of them. In my defense to your dumb accusation (forgive me for feeling insulted) that I am seeking money from the church; I urge you, or anyone, to contact Bishop Timothy J. Lyne at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. The bishop’s phone number is (312) 787-8040. Please feel free to ask His Excellency about the modest 5-digit figures that I personally gifted the cathedral over the past few years. After you are done with the bishop, please contact Father Hilary Mahaney, Pastor of St. Mary of the Angels Church in Chicago, and ask Father about the nearly 40-thousand dollar gift I cosponsored with a friend in 2008, which was gifted to Fathers elementary school. You may reach Father Hilary at (773) 278-2644. After you check up on me, a reasonable person would draw the conclusion that ‘Joe Fosco,’ the large gift giver to the church, does not engage in behaviors consistent with the type of person that would take from the church.

Mr. or Ms. Parsons, you gravely miscalculated things when you foolishly implied that my tough articles on a few clergy members is comparable to my harsh efforts against the Chicago Outfit, which is associated with financial motive, as I am trying to get my money back from the Chicago Outfit – not the church. What I gave the church was a gift. What I gave the Chicago Outfit was blood money. The public record should clear this up. I have a lawsuit against the Chicago Outfit, not the church.

Mr. or Ms. Parsons, or whoever you are, I think your gig on KTF is up.

Dear Mr. or Ms. Parsons (whoever you are, or whoever you are pretending to be),
You seem to be an angry person, who is putting a lot of effort into cluttering my blog with baseless information. Look, have fun doing it if this is what makes you happy. However, I cannot promise to continue feeding into your negativity.
On behalf of KTF Media Group, I thank you for your readership.

I am not sure this comment is appropriate for the article on Bart Smith; however, it is relevant to the thread created here by the mysterious Parsons.

A number of mainstream media outlets have incorrectly stated that an ‘attempt’ was made to extort $400,000.00 from me by the Chicago Outfit. However, I contend the Chicago Outfit successfully extorted $500,000.00 from my family and me, twice (which is indicated in my first Rico complaint). However, I am seeking reimbursement of the second and most recent incident ($500,000.00). The initial incident occurred in 1987, the year of my father’s death. The second incident occurred between 2002 and late 2006.

Unfortunately, for my family and me, my second Rico complaint is expected to be dismissed any day (Merry Christmas to Outfit and to hell with the Fosco’s – American Justice). In my opinion, the court feels I should have filed the suit within 4-years of when the extortion began (2002). I filed it within 4-years from when it ended. What can I say, if I am right, and the case is dismissed (I am sure I am right), it will raise the question, “Is Johnny DiFronzo lucky, or is he more influential then I ever imagined?” I am sure that DiFronzo’s lawyer, who I know personally, and have known for many years – I think he is a very nice guy – will say when I lose the case that ‘Fosco’ lost because ‘he’ is dumb and filed it of time (to hell with the duress factors).

Donny Angelini Jr is the lawyer who represents the DiFronzo’s. In fact, in a phone conversation, he told me that he was glad that he was not raised in a town that was home to a large number of mobsters – that he grew up in a clean place. In the same conversation, he professed his love for his clients, the DiFronzo brothers. I do not understand his logic, but he is a nice man.

Writing this comment has inspired me to do my next piece.

Got to go to work, then church.

OK, i reread your tete a tete with Parsons and it makes no sense to me. What does “prime murder victim” mean? Either you are saying that he is a likely suspect in a murder, or you are saying that he is going to be the victim of an impending attempt on this life.

If you could clarify things, that would be great. Then I can go ahead and shut up about this thread.

Dear Joe,

Tell me if I have this right.

In a sense, you’re saying to forget everything about how people have come to understand the Chicago Outfit as being “centralized” with a Boss (at the top), an Underboss, a Consigliere, Capos, territories and so on, correct?

As you understand the current structure of the Outfit, there are two main entities nowadays:

1) the Elite faction
The Elite faction is descended from the Accardo / Aiuppa (Cerone) era. The Capos of yesteryear are leaders of this Elite faction today: DiFronzo, Andriacchi, and Lombardo.
These guys are not beholden to anyone and are completely autonomous. They abstain from street activities because they have made millions in legitimate business. They are basically retired / inactive. Any illegal income they receive nowadays comes from Outfit gambling outposts that are located abroad. Their “made” status is for life, however, and (like it or not) they serve as a kind of Board of Trustees / Advisors for the traditional Italian-American Organized Crime (“the Outfit”).

The Elite faction has scaled back (capitulated) all street activities; as a result, its underlings (i.e., the “made” guys it sponsored) have been left out in the cold–Fratto, Magnafichi, et al.

———————————————————————————————

2) the Street faction.
The Street Faction is self-explanatory. They engage in the day-to-day, traditional rackets (e.g., Bookmaking, gambling, extortion, murder, mayhem; in effect: all the traditional facets of racketeering.)
At the top of this totem pole is the Boss who, for the time being, is Mike Sarno. The Boss directly oversees the day-to-day rackets. All other “made” guys (who are not associated with the Elite faction) answer to the Boss (Sarno). The Boss (Sarno) opens and closes the books at his pleasure, and can have people ostracized / bumped-off at his discretion. While the Street faction is its own thing, it is deferential to the Elite faction. It acquiesces to its wishes / orders.
This deference to un-imprisoned senior “made” members is built into the psychology of the Outfit, going back to the Ricca-Accardo era, when, at different times, these two were simultaneously “inactive” yet also pillars of their criminal enterprise.

———————————————————————————————

Because these two factions are basically separate, the Elite faction is well-insulated from being implicated in criminal activities by members of the Street faction in the event that a Street guy decides to turn state’s evidence.

Dear Joe,
Can you tell me more about the property damage and shooting incidents from ’98.
Thanks, I’m just curious, I watch a lot of television.