Joan Mellen: A Farewell to Justice

[Paul Trejo]

What does Paul mean by his description of Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt as "ranking members of the Birch Society in Dallas"?

Normally, "ranking member" means second in command OR, alternatively, a senior member of a committee or in a group who is, nevertheless, in a subordinate position to the actual leadership.

1. What is Paul's source for claiming that both Hunt and Murchison were JBS members?

2. What is Paul's source for claiming that, in addition, they were "ranking members" in Dallas?

What I mean, Ernie, is that the John Birch Society is composed entirely of people who respect capitalism and money, and who generally regard wealthy people as virtuous people.

Now imagine a billionaire like H.L. Hunt or Clint Murchison entering their roles. Now imagine H.L. Hunt holding a John Birch Society meeting at his home.

Is there any wonder that Robert Welch would name Dallas, Texas as a Regional Headquarters of the John Birch Society?

It isn't difficult to connect these dots. A couple of oil billionaires from Dallas begin funding the John Birch Society as conspicuous donors. They advocate the JBS in social gatherings among the jet-set in Dallas.

If one wished to go to dinner with H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, it helped to be up-to-date on the latest JBS magazines and books -- and it really helped to be a member of their local chapters.

One can imagine the social climbers in Dallas -- professional men and women in City Hall, perhaps -- competing for the seats closest to Hunt and Murchison at these social events -- and at these JBS meetings.

As for my source that they were JBS members -- H.L. Hunt himself made no secret of it -- but I can also refer to my private interviews with Larry Schmidt, who was in Dallas in 1962-1963, and who attended the same John Birch Society meetings as attorney Robert Morris, his mentor. Morris was Schmidt's source about the right-wing in Dallas.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

What does Paul mean by his description of Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt as "ranking members of the Birch Society in Dallas"?

Normally, "ranking member" means second in command OR, alternatively, a senior member of a committee or in a group who is, nevertheless, in a subordinate position to the actual leadership.

1. What is Paul's source for claiming that both Hunt and Murchison were JBS members?

2. What is Paul's source for claiming that, in addition, they were "ranking members" in Dallas?

What I mean, Ernie, is that the John Birch Society is composed entirely of people who respect capitalism and money, and who generally regard wealthy people as virtuous people.

Now imagine a billionaire like H.L. Hunt or Clint Murchison entering their roles. Now imagine H.L. Hunt holding a John Birch Society meeting at his home.

Is there any wonder that Robert Welch would name Dallas, Texas as a Regional Headquarters of the John Birch Society?

It isn't difficult to connect these dots. A couple of oil billionaires from Dallas begin funding the John Birch Society as conspicuous donors. They advocate the JBS in social gatherings among the jet-set in Dallas.

If one wished to go to dinner with H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, it helped to be up-to-date on the latest JBS magazines and books -- and it really helped to be a member of their local chapters.

One can imagine the social climbers in Dallas -- professional men and women in City Hall, perhaps -- competing for the seats closest to Hunt and Murchison at these social events -- and at these JBS meetings.

As for my source that they were JBS members -- H.L. Hunt himself made no secret of it -- but I can also refer to my private interviews with Larry Schmidt, who was in Dallas in 1962-1963, and who attended the same John Birch Society meetings as attorney Robert Morris, his mentor. Morris was Schmidt's source about the right-wing in Dallas.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

PAUL:

I have read your reply twice but I do not see anything which establishes how you know that either Hunt or Murchison were actually JBS members.

HUNT: You say that Hunt "made no secret of it". OK---then I suppose you mean that he publicly acknowledged his membership somewhere -- perhaps during an interview? or perhaps in a newspaper or magazine article? So where did he acknowledge his membership? And not only that he was a JBS member but how did you determine he was "a ranking member" -- which signifies some special authority or importance. I have thousands of pages of personal papers of JBS National Council members who corresponded with each other but I have never seen anyone mention H.L. Hunt. I also have dozens of newspaper articles from Texas newspapers (particularly Dallas Morning News and Amarillo Globe and Ft. Worth Star-Telegram) and none of those papers ever claimed that Hunt was a JBS member.

ROBERT MORRIS: You state that Morris was Schmidt's source and that Morris attended JBS meetings in Dallas. Do you have any other source to confirm that either Morris or Hunt or Murchison were actually JBS members? Or are you basing your statements upon one single source?

MURCHISON: Again, I am not aware of anyone who has ever proven that Murchison was a JBS member. Many online discussion groups and some websites simply declare that he was a JBS member but nobody provides ANY documentation.

[Paul Trejo]

Getting back to the theme of this thread -- Joan Mellen's excellent book, Farewell to Justice, may be justly criticized, IMHO, for jumping to the conclusion that the motley of mercenaries that she identified in New Orleans was sufficient evidence for a CIA plot against JFK.

What the evidence shows at the street level is that these people she names (following Jim Garrison), people like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald -- because they had interacted with the CIA in the past at some (usually low) level, must be regarded as CIA pawns forever.

If (and only if) this was really true, then we might conclude that the CIA was behind the plot to murder JFK, because I fully agree with Joan Mellen that this motley crew was directly responsible for the murder of JFK.

But if there is any flaw in this argument -- and the flaws are many -- then the conclusions of Joan Mellen cannot hold regarding the role of the CIA in the murder of JFK.

I'm not trying to absolve the CIA from any guilt at all in the murder of JFK -- what I'm trying to do is to focus clearly enough to identify the non-CIA plotters. I want to show that, at best, some CIA *rogues* joined a larger plot outside of the CIA -- a civilian plot.

IMHO, that civilian plot was centered in the philosophy that JFK was a Communist, because Washington DC was riddled with Communists, and because every US President from FDR forward was a Communist. This was the philosophy preached by the John Birch Society in 1963. Their activism provided the ideological energy to mobilize wackos and CIA *rogues* to join forces to murder JFK.

Harry Dean forms only one small part of my theory. The claims of Harry Dean (since 1965) offer a CONFIRMATION of what I've found since 2007, namely, independent research in the personal papers of Edwin Walker, a notorious member of the John Birch Society, and a hot-headed activist for anti-JFK causes.

In my 2014 theory, I sharply divide the JFK Killer Team from the JFK Cover-up Team. The JFK Killer Team continued to argue, well into 1964, that the Communists killed JFK.

Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of this propaganda. Billy James Hargis was another such propagandist. Carlos Bringuier was another. David Morales was another. John Martino was another. Johnny Roselli was another. Frank Sturgis was another. THE KEY CONNECTION IS THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WORKED TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD, OR SUPPORTED THOSE WHO DID.

Yet the John Birch Society was the prime leader in that probaganda. Revilo P. Oliver was perhaps the most eloquent speaker and writer for the John Birch Society magazine, American Opinion, where he addressed the pressing question -- WHY WOULD A COMMUNIST KILL ANOTHER COMMUNIST? Even for many inside the John Birch Society, this argument foiled their entire cause. But Revilo P. Oliver in 1964 argued forcefully that Communists regularly killed each other in Purges, so therefore JFK was simply "Purged" by the Kremlin.

It's a weak argument, IMHO, yet the right-wing rallied around this argument in 1964.

So there were three theories in 1964: (1) the left-wing killed JFK; (2) the right-wing killed JFK; and (3) a Lone Nut killed JFK. Actually, argument #1 was the fiction used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, with hopes to mobilize the USA for war on Cuba. Actually, argument #2 was totally true -- but if known, it would probably have led to a Civil War inside the USA. So, argument #3 was designed by J. Edgar Hoover to prevent the other two arguments from gaining traction.

The John Birch Society didn't have the last word, as history shows. Rather, history shows that the Warren Commission had the last word, and the Warren Commision COMPLETELY REJECTED the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices of any kind -- including accomplices in the Communist Party!

The JFK Killer Team wanted a war with the Communists, particularly in Cuba. The JFK Cover-up Team wanted to focus on anything else besides Cuba for a change, and promoted the Lone Shooter fiction -- and stated clearly that they would stick to this story even if it fell apart -- all because of National Security.

The JFK Killer Team had the same story as the John Birch Society. This fact has not yet had its proper hearing inside the JFK research community.

If I'm correct, then of course Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen both -- despite their groundbreaking discoveries in other aspects of this case -- must be regarded as mistaken when they attempt to blame the CIA high-command for the murder of JFK.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

What does Paul mean by his description of Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt as "ranking members of the Birch Society in Dallas"?

Normally, "ranking member" means second in command OR, alternatively, a senior member of a committee or in a group who is, nevertheless, in a subordinate position to the actual leadership.

1. What is Paul's source for claiming that both Hunt and Murchison were JBS members?

2. What is Paul's source for claiming that, in addition, they were "ranking members" in Dallas?

What I mean, Ernie, is that the John Birch Society is composed entirely of people who respect capitalism and money, and who generally regard wealthy people as virtuous people.

Now imagine a billionaire like H.L. Hunt or Clint Murchison entering their roles. Now imagine H.L. Hunt holding a John Birch Society meeting at his home.

Is there any wonder that Robert Welch would name Dallas, Texas as a Regional Headquarters of the John Birch Society?

It isn't difficult to connect these dots. A couple of oil billionaires from Dallas begin funding the John Birch Society as conspicuous donors. They advocate the JBS in social gatherings among the jet-set in Dallas.

If one wished to go to dinner with H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, it helped to be up-to-date on the latest JBS magazines and books -- and it really helped to be a member of their local chapters.

One can imagine the social climbers in Dallas -- professional men and women in City Hall, perhaps -- competing for the seats closest to Hunt and Murchison at these social events -- and at these JBS meetings.

As for my source that they were JBS members -- H.L. Hunt himself made no secret of it -- but I can also refer to my private interviews with Larry Schmidt, who was in Dallas in 1962-1963, and who attended the same John Birch Society meetings as attorney Robert Morris, his mentor. Morris was Schmidt's source about the right-wing in Dallas.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

FYI:

I just received confirmation from my source within the Birch Society (who has access to JBS membership information) that neither Robert Morris or H.L. Hunt were ever JBS members.

My source is still checking on Clint Murchison.

I should mention that during its formative years, most of the people who became JBS members did so by being INVITED to attend a recruitment meeting. The "high level" meetings were usually comprised of wealthy and influential individuals and Robert Welch personally presented his 2-or-3 hour speech which he originally made in Indianapolis in December 1958 to the persons who founded the JBS.

The "lower level" recruitment meetings usually had either a tape recording of Welch's Indianapolis speech or a film in which Welch repeated his 1958 speech. The text of Welch's speech became the JBS Blue Book.

It is entirely likely (and even probable) that people like Morris, Murchison, and Hunt would be invited to attend a JBS recruitment meeting so that they could listen to Welch's argument and then decide if they wanted to join the JBS. Many prominent individuals did attend these recruitment meetings but never became JBS members for a variety of reasons.

THEN, when Welch's unpublished "private letter" regarding the Eisenhower Administration [The Politician] became public knowledge (summer of 1960 and especially March-April 1961), many of these prominent members concluded that Welch was an extremist so they terminated their JBS membership. For example: the actor Adolphe Menjou joined the JBS and even agreed to serve on its National Council but after he had a dinner meeting with William Buckley Jr. [who brought Menjou's attention to the content of The Politician ] Menjou resigned from both the JBS National Council and from the Society. Phyllis Schlafly and her husband joined the JBS in 1959 -- but by 1961 she and her husband had resigned.

The main point here is that the Birch Society's general arguments appealed to many entirely respectable and decent and patriotic and principled individuals -- including many moderate conservatives who voted for Eisenhower and who were major financial contributors to Eisenhower's campaigns and who were even personally involved in electing and re-electing Eisenhower plus some who accepted positions in Eisenhower's Administration!

BUT when Welch's personal opinions regarding Eisenhower became public knowledge, many of these individuals recoiled in horror and they terminated their JBS membership. Nevertheless, ill-informed people can claim they were "JBS members" as if their short involvement tells you everything you need to know!

Edited September 4, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

It is well-reported throughout JFK research literature that H.L. Hunt was an open advocate of the John Birch Society, and a major donor -- which he could well-afford as a billionaire.

I'm not inventing this stuff -- nor do I need to document and footnote every sentence I write. It's well-researched.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

It is well-reported throughout JFK research literature that H.L. Hunt was an open advocate of the John Birch Society, and a major donor -- which he could well-afford as a billionaire.

I'm not inventing this stuff -- nor do I need to document and footnote every sentence I write. It's well-researched.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- as is so often the case with your messages, you are never satisfied with the literal truth because you want to create a narrative that matches your personal opinions.

Now you describe Hunt as "an open advocate of the JBS" but, previously, you boldly and unequivocally declared that he was a "high ranking member" of the JBS.

MANY people believed that some of the arguments put forth by the JBS were credible but, nevertheless, they rejected the JBS for other reasons. Initially, William Buckley Jr. wished Welch well with his new organization and Buckley and the National Review crowd even lent their support to and endorsed Welch's first JBS-front group (CASE = Committee Against Summit Entanglements). But Buckley never became a JBS member and, in fact, he became a major JBS critic.

But my real reason for responding to your comment is with respect to your statement that you do not need to document or footnote every sentence you write. This reveals something about your attitude and mentality that is extremely important. You want to be exempted from all normal rules of evidence and logic.

You want to be able to present the most outrageous falsehoods without being challenged AND without even being required to follow normal customary procedures for serious students and writers who make bold assertions which are presented as fact AND which you think should inform future discussion and analysis.

THAT is one of the most profound differences between you and I -- even though you have a college degree and I do not.

1. We both have an interest in historical research.

2. But I subscribe to normal rules of logic and evidence. You do not.

3. Consequently, you have a HUGE advantage over me and all over all other serious freelance researchers because you can make very bold assertions and statements and accusations WITHOUT having to carefully document what you present. The rest of us have to provide clear, precise, credible substantiation for whatever we write or assert but you are NOT constrained by such formalities because, as you now reveal, you are exempt from such concerns i.e. "nor do I need to document and footnote every sentence I write. It's well-researched."

Edited September 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

ANYWAY -- getting back to the theme of this thread, which is Joan Mellen's excellent book, Farewell to Justice (2005), my point is my claim that Joan Mellen jumps to a conclusion that the motley of mercenaries that she identified in New Orleans was enough evidence to blame the CIA for murdering JFK.

Yet let's look at her evidence again. She names the same people that Jim Garrison named: Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now -- while it is true that all these people had interacted with the CIA in the past at some (usually low) level, she fails to emphasize that not a single one of them was a salaried CIA officer.

I agree with Joan Mellen (and Jim Garrison) this far -- they definitely named some (but not all) of the key plotters of the murder of JFK. So we have a partial solution today, a half-century after the JFK murder.

But I must disagree when she (and the modern JFK researchers who follow her) jumps to the conclusion that the JFK murder was therefore a CIA plot.

Unfortunately, this "easy" answer of blaming the CIA diverts attention from the John Birch Society and Ex-General Edwin Walker -- two major forces in Dallas identified by Jack Ruby in his testimony to Earl Warren in 1964.

In my view, Joan Mellen distracts attention away from the central role of a CIVILIAN plot.

In my view, that civilian plot was centered in the philosophy that JFK was a Communist, because Washington DC was riddled with Communists, and because every US President from FDR forward was a Communist.

This was the philosophy preached by the John Birch Society in 1963. Their activism provided sufficient ideological energy to mobilize wackos and CIA *rogues* to join forces with the ultra-right wing, to murder JFK.

Harry Dean only offers a CONFIRMATION of my theory, based on independent research in the personal papers of Edwin Walker, a notorious member of the John Birch Society, and an emotional Dallas activist for anti-JFK causes.

In the past year I've sharply divided the JFK Killer Team from the JFK Cover-up Team. The JFK Killer Team continued to argue, well into 1964, that the Communists killed JFK.

Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of this propaganda. Billy James Hargis was another such propagandist. Carlos Bringuier was another. David Morales was another. John Martino was another. Johnny Roselli was another. Frank Sturgis was another. The key connection is that all of these people worked to frame Lee Harvey Oswald (or supported those who did).

Yet the John Birch Society was the prime leader in that propaganda. Revilo P. Oliver was perhaps the most eloquent speaker and writer for the John Birch Society magazine, American Opinion, where he addressed the pressing question -- Why would a Communist kill another Communist?

Even for many inside the John Birch Society, this argument foiled their entire cause. But Revilo P. Oliver in 1964 argued forcefully that Communists regularly killed each other in Purges, so therefore JFK was simply "Purged" by the Kremlin. It's a weak argument, IMHO, yet the right-wing rallied around this argument in 1964.

So there were three theories in 1964: (1) the left-wing killed JFK; (2) the right-wing killed JFK; and (3) a Lone Nut killed JFK.

Actually, argument #1 was the fiction used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, with hopes to mobilize the USA for war against the COMMUNISTS.

Actually, argument #2 was totally true -- but if known, it would probably have led to a Civil War inside the USA.

So, argument #3 was designed by J. Edgar Hoover to prevent the other two arguments from gaining traction.

The John Birch Society didn't have the last word, as history shows. Rather, history shows that the Warren Commission had the last word, and the Warren Commision COMPLETELY REJECTED the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices of any kind -- including accomplices in the Communist Party!

The JFK Killer Team wanted a war with the Communists, particularly in Cuba. The JFK Cover-up Team REJECTED an invasion of Cuba based on the flimsy framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, so it promoted the Lone Shooter fiction -- and stated clearly that they would stick to this story even if it fell apart -- all because of National Security.

The JFK Killer Team had the same story as the John Birch Society. This fact has not yet had its proper hearing inside the JFK research community.

Jim Garrison completely missed it. Gaeton Fonzi completely missed it. Joan Mellen completely missed it. Therefore, the predominant theory in the JFK community appears to be that the CIA is to blame for the murder of JFK. However -- a major dimension has been missing for 50 years -- the dimension of Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Hi Joan,

Was there any data/info in New Orleans about a Fred C. Huff / Fred J. Huff related to Guy Banister and Assoc.?

see this link for my posting here in this forum for details I found:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14855&p=312144

P.S. I used to live across the street from Temple's Ambler campus back when it had an amphitheater (now ball fields). Their annual summer music festival was great!

[Paul Trejo]

Hi Joan,

Was there any data/info in New Orleans about a Fred C. Huff / Fred J. Huff related to Guy Banister and Assoc.?

see this link for my posting here in this forum for details I found:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14855&p=312144

P.S. I used to live across the street from Temple's Ambler campus back when it had an amphitheater (now ball fields). Their annual summer music festival was great!

Interesting link, Chris.

Yes, Delphine Roberts worked for extremist Guy Banister because she herself was an extremist. Perhaps most people were who lived in the South in 1963.

The issue moving the South in the late 1950's and early 1960's was always the Brown Decision of the Supreme Court, specifically by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren of the famous Warren Commission.

Racial integration of US Public Schools hit a sour chord the average mother and housewife in the South, and lots of little old ladies in tennis shoes would march against Flouride and the Brown Decision along with the John Birch Society -- even in New Orleans and Dallas.

Guy Banister -- as some people know -- used to run for local office in New Orleans, and his platform was always the same -- Repeal the Brown Decision.

So, it's little suprise that his secretary, Delphine Roberts, would picket an elementary school that conformed to the Brown Decision. No wonder that Banister's business partner, Joe Oster, said that Detective Guy Banister was more interested in segregation than “detecting.”

It's interesting that you noted the Catholic Church position on segregation in New Orleans and Louisiana. Louisiana has always claimed a majority of Catholic citizens, and so the Brown Decision was implemented rapidly there, since the Catholic Church has no problem with the equality of the nations.

One group of Catholic men in Louisiana organized a society against the Brown Decision, and the Bishop there threatened to excommunicate them if they used the Catholic Church in their racist politics. They disbanded, but Guy Banister and Delphine Roberts took up the banner against the Brown Decision.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo